See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/40963257 The Relationship between traffic congestion, driver stress and direct versus indirect coping behaviours Article  in  Ergonomics · March 1997 DOI: 10.1080/001401397188198 · Source: OAI CITATIONS READS 137 906 2 authors: Dwight A Hennessy David L Wiesenthal State University of New York College at Buffalo CUNY Graduate Center 42 PUBLICATIONS   868 CITATIONS    43 PUBLICATIONS   1,032 CITATIONS    SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects: Driver space preference (i.e. psychological space preference) and personality View project All content following this page was uploaded by Dwight A Hennessy on 28 October 2015. The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. anonomcs. 1997, VOL. 40, N0. 3, 348?361 The relationship between traf?c congestion, driver stress and direct versus indirect coping behaviours DWIGHT A. HENNESSY and DAVID L. 217 York Lanes, York University, 4700 Keele Street, North York, Ontario M31 1P3, Canada Keywords: Automobile driving; Coping behaviour; Stress; Traf?c. Drivers experiencing rush hour congestion were interviewed using cellular telephones to study stress and coping responses. Measures were taken of each driver's predis- position to stress (trait stress) as well as their reactions to the experience of either low or high traf?c congestion (state stress). Two interviews were conducted during the trip when drivers experienced both low and high congestion conditions. Although state stress was greatest for all drivers experiencing the high congestion condition, a trait situation interaction was obtained. indicating that stress levels were highest for high trait stress drivers experiencing the congested roadway. In terms of trait coping behaviours, participants indicated a preference for direct over indirect behaviours. A greater variety of direct and indirect behaviours were reported in high congestion. Reports of aggressive behaviours showed the greatest increase from low to high congestion. Comments on the use of cellular telephones in methodology are offered. 1. Introduction Automobile driving as a source of stress has received little attention. Two notable exceptions are the work of Stokols and his colleagues (Stokols er 1978, Novaco er a1. 1979), and Gulian and her colleagues (Gulian er al. 1989a,b). Rush hour congestion, driving closely behind other vehicles, approaching debris on the road, getting to work on time, or avoiding the blinding high-beam of an oncoming motorist, are simply a few of the potential minor hassles that may be encountered during a single driving experience. Rush hour traf?c congestion is an event that is frequently experienced and interpreted as stressful by many automobile drivers. Traf?c congestion on roadways and highways has become a major problem for most urban residents, as nearly 90% of the United States labour force commute to and from work by private automobile (Novaco at at. 1990). Gulian er al. (1989a) found that 50% of highway drivers in the UK. experienced irritation in traf?c jams, independent of being in a hurry. Similarly, Stokols e! (1978) found higher stress levels among commuters experiencing high congestion. Greater distances and a slower travel pace have been related to stress (Stokols et at. 1978) as movement and goal directed behaviours are inhibited. According to Turner et a1. (1975), traf?c conges- tion may lead to stress due to the delays imposed and the hostility that can be provoked by such delays. Perceived control over the environment has been found to be a major intervening variable in the stress appraisal process (Glass and Singer, 1972). Sherrod et a1. (1977) found that individuals given control over an aversive noise displayed improved task performance compared with individuals without control. Similarly, Nelson and Cohen (1983) found fewer of depression and other disorders among individuals who had appraised recent stressful events as controllable. According to Gulian [ltl?l 4~0139f97 $l2'00 CO 1997 Taylor 8.: Francis Driver stress 349 er ai. it is the loss of control that leads to the immediate interpretation of adverse driving conditions as stressful. Individuals who are repeatedly exposed to undesirable or uncontrollable driving conditions may experience stress when driving. Intense or repeated stress experiences have been linked with and physiological pathologies such as mood changes and physical exhaustion (Spence "1988). One major investigation of the pathological potential of driver stress was conducted by Novaco er al. (1979) in which drivers in Orange County, California kept travel logs describing highway traf?c conditions and underwent measures of mood, blood pressure and heart rate immediately upon arrival at work. Blood pressure and arousal levels increased as travel distance and time increased. Driver stress has been related to aggressive driving (Gulian et at. 1939a), poor concentration levels (Matthews er a1. 1991), and accidents (Selzer and Vinokur 1974). After-effects of negative moods, thoughts, or attitudes to work and family environments have been found to aggravate driving stress (Gulian er al. 1989b). Long term stress effects have been found to accumulate and carry over into other life situations. Gulian er al. (198%) used the term ?driver stress? rather than ?driving stress? since they felt that stress experienced while driving has an in?uence on, and is in?uenced by. experiences in other areas of life. Stress experienced while driving is embedded in, and interacts with, the total life situation of home and work (Novaco er a1. 1990). Kanner er al. (1981) believed that the minor hassles experienced in everyday life often add to the stressfulness of driving experiences. Factors such as being in a hurry, problems at work, problems at home, bad weather, or even sleep problems exacerbate congested highway conditions to further tax the adaptive abilities of the individual (Gulian er al. 1989b). In a similar manner, stress experienced while driving may be displayed during other activities. Following the interpretation of an event as stressful, a decision must be made regarding the necessary actions to deal or cope with the undesirable event (Lazarus 1966). Often the chosen behaviour is a ?favourite? or ?generalized? response that is ineffective in dealing with the unique demands of the speci?c situation (Dantzer I989). Gulian er. al. (198%) found that 80% of drivers experiencing traf?c congestion reported using coping behaviours (aggression, irritation, anxiety) that failed to reduce driver stress. According to Folkman and Lazarus (1980) coping behaviours fall into two broad categories: problem focused and emotion focused behaviours. Problem focused, or direct, coping behaviours are those that deal with the root of a problem directly by removing or circumventing the source of stress. These behaviours tend to be both more persistent and confrontational. The c0ping responses are reappraised more effectively, more rationally and more actively: for example, information seeking, changing courses of action, taking precautions, planning, (Carver er 1989), active problem solving (Nakano 1991), or talking problems down (Vingerhoets and Van-Heck 1990). In contrast, emotion focused, or indirect, coping behaviours are those that deal with the experience of a problem; they regulate emotions and help people experience less discomfort with a stressor (Baum er 1982). They tend to be more passive, distant, escapist and less active: for example, denial, seeking emotional support, praying (Carver er a1. 1989), self blame, expressing emotions (Vingerhoets and Van-Heck 1990), wishful thinking, or cognitive avoidance (Nakano 1991). 1.1. The use of cellular telephones in driving research The present research utilized cellular telephone technology in order to interview drivers while they were experiencing the situation of low and high traf?c congestion. Previous 350 D. A. Herznessy and D. L. Wiesenthal research has measured driver reactions only after driving incidents. Since stress may be momentary, it is believed that an immediate assessment of the driving experience will be more likely to yield valid appraisals of perceptions and emotions than asking them to recall at the conclusion of their commute. The responsiveness of drivers to the use of cellular telephones has been demonstrated in research where driving phobias were treated in situ by means of therapy delivered via cellular telephones er a1. 1993). The use of cellular telephones replaces the need for a researcher to accompany the driver, which in itself might represent a contaminating variable in driver research. 1.2. Predictions Stress is produced by factors residing within the individual (trait stress) in combination with factors peculiar to each situation experienced (state stress) (Gulian er at. Individuals often experience repeatedly changing situational demands and hassles within any driving experience. The level of traf?c congestion can be seen as one such varying situational factor. It is predicted that periods of high traf?c congestion will be reported as more stressful than periods of low traf?c congestion for all drivers. That is, stress levels should be higher for high trait stress drivers experiencing high congested traf?c and lowest for low trait stress drivers in situations of low congested traf?c a trait situation interaction). No speci?c prediction is offered regarding a preference for direct, indirect. or both types of ceping behaviours. Rather, patterns of use of the two types of behaviour will be examined within the low and high levels of traf?c congestion. Coping responses may be viewed as generalized modes of behaviour (trait coping) as well as responses peculiar to speci?c situations or events (state coping). Comparisons will also be made between the trait and state coping behaviour patterns in order to determine if the general and context speci?c driving reSponse patterns differ. 2. Method Subjects Subjects consisted of 27 York University students and 13 people working in the North York community near York University. Participation was on a voluntary basis. All participants commuted to or from school/work along the Highway 401 in Metropolitan Toronto, Ontario. Half were males and half were females. Their ages ranged from 21 to 60 years of age with an average age of 28.85 years. 2.2. Apparatus Each portable cellular telephone was equipped with a cigarette lighter power adapter for continuous access to an in-automobile power source and an attached antenna. Hands-free capability was provided through the use of a visor mounted microphone. 2.3. Measures of driver stress 2.3.1. Driving Behaviour Inventory?General The present study used a variation of the Driving Behaviour inventory?General Driver Stress questionnaire (Gulian er al. 1989b). The Driving Behaviour Inventory?General (DBl?Gen) scale has been used to assess a general disposition (trait susceptibility), to driver stress. The Gen consists of 16 items such as: ?When I get irritated I drive aggressively?. ?Trying but failing to overtake frustrates me?, or ?1 get annoyed by driving behind other vehicles?. The has been found to be a robust and reliable self report measure of driver stress (Glendon er al. 1993). Matthews 6! at. (1991) have also found the to have high validity in predicting participant predispositions to driver stress. The present study Driver stress 35] eliminated three of the items which did not pertain to highway driving (?Annoyed when traf?c lights change to red when I approach them?, am more tense on new than familiar roads?, feel bothered when overtaking at a junction?). Two additional items were eliminated because pilot study participants had dif?culty understanding the key concepts (?Driving gives me a sense of power? and do not feel indifferent when overtaking other vehicles?). Responses to the remaining 11 questions on the revised questionnaire were placed on a Likert scale ranging from ?strongly disagree? to 100 2 ?strongly agree? (see Appendix A). 2.3.2. Store Driver Stress Inventory: The State Driver Stress inventory was deve10ped to assess the situation-speci?c experience of driver stress. It was constructed using the 11 items used in measuring trait driver stress and 10 items from the Stress Arousal Checklist of Mackay et ai. (1978). Half of the Stress Arousal Checklist items were positive mood items (relaxed, contented, peaceful, comfortable and calm) and the other half were negative mood items (tense, bothered, nervous, uneasy and distressed). All items were reworded to represent state rather than trait measures of stress; for example, ?Trying but failing to overtake is frustrating me?, rather than ?Trying but failing to overtake frustrates me? and am feeling tense? rather than simply ?Tense?. Responses were placed on a Likert-type scale ranging from ?strongly disagree? to 100 ?strongly agree? indicat- ing the extent to which participants agreed that each item pertained to their experience in the present driving situation. A manipulation check was added to determine if low and high traf?c congestion conditions were, in fact, perceived as different in terms of their levels of congestion (?Traf?c conditions are congested?). Finally, since perceived control and time urgency have been found to relate to driver stress, it was necessary to determine their effects on state stress in different congestion conditions. Three items were intended to tap time urgency: am in a huny?, am concerned about getting to my destination on time? and the reverse keyed item have a ?exible time schedule?. One item tapped perceived control: feel I have control over this driving situation? (see Appendix B). 2.4. Measures of coping behaviours 2.4.1. Trait Coping Behaviour Inventory: The Trait Coping Behaviour Inventory was developed to tap preference in coping tactics for general stress. The items were categorized into direct and indirect behaviour subscales. Nine items assessed a direct approach in dealing with problems. Direct behaviours are used to deal directly with a problem or with the source(s) of a problem try to ?nd out more information about the situation?, or try to change something about the situation so that things will turn out all right?). The other 11 items probed an indirect approach to dealing with problems. Indirect behaviours cope with stress by emotional means daydream or think of things other than the situation?, or ?1 criticize or blame myself for the situation?). Five direct and seven indirect behaviour items were developed from the Revised Ways of Coping Checklist (Folkman er a1. 1986). Four direct and four indirect behaviour items were speci?cally developed for the present study. Responses were placed on a Likert-type scale ranging from 0 ?strongly disagree? to 100 ?strongly agree? (see Appendix C). 2.4.2. State Coping Behaviour Inventory: The State Coping Behaviour Inventory con- sisted of 26 items speci?cally developed for the present study. Gulian er al. (1989a) identi?ed behaviours used by drivers to cope with driver stress aggressive thoughts or behaviours, seeking alternative actions, planning and talking precautionary measures) which were used in constructing the State Coping Behaviour Inventory. Those items. in 352 D. A. Hermessy and D. L. Wiesemhal addition to others developed from interviewing several highway commuters, formed the state coping items for the present study. Items were intended to tap situation-speci?c coping behaviours used in different driving conditions. The inventory consisted of two subscales of coping behaviours: direct (prearranged plans, ?on the spot? plans of action and information seeking) and indirect (social support, aggression. time facilitation, self destructive behaviours and relaxation techniques). Nineteen items tapped indirect coping behaviours, while seven items tapped direct cepiug behaviours. Responses were placed on a Likert-type scale ranging from 0 ?not at all' to 100 ?very frequently? indicating how frequently each item was used in the Speci?c driving situations (see Appendix D). 2.5. Procedure The present study was conducted between late February and early March in Toronto, Ontario. All participants were studied on partly cloudy to sunny days (5 and 35 of the participants, respectively). in order to reduce weather concerns. Also. measurements took place only on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays. since most participants were not available on weekends, and Mondays and Fridays have been found to provide elevated driver stress measures (Gulian er al. 1989a). Each participant?s individual route along Highway 401, in the Metropolitan Toronto area, was determined. This roadway is a major traf?c artery for Toronto and has as many as 14 lanes in certain sections. It is divided into a series of express (core) lanes and collector lanes and contains a series of changeable message signs along the highway to alert drivers to traf?c conditions. The average annual daily traf?c on this highway for the Metropolitan Toronto area is over 255,000 vehicles (Ontario Ministry of Transportation 1992). Two groups of drivers were formed: those who encountered higher traf?c volumes prior to lower volumes on their regular route and those who encountered lower volumes prior to higher volumes. The purpose of this counter- balancing was to control for any effects that may have arisen as a result of some participants encountering long stretches of low volume prior to reaching a highly congested area or long stretches of high volume prior to reaching a low volume area. This process helped rule out state stress caused simply by driving for a given period of time and also allowed for the assessment of cumulative driver state stress through the comparison of the high congestion ?rst and the low congestion ?rst groups. Participants were recruited through course recruitment and personal contact. Partici- pants were asked to telephone the experimenter and set up an introductory appointment. During the appointment, instructions regarding the experimental procedure and the use of the telephone were given and informed consent was obtained. Following the instruction period, participants ?lled out the Driving Behaviour Inventory?General and the Trait Coping Behaviour inventory. The driver?s individual travel routes were determined and the landmarks for low and high volume areas were selected. The designation of landmarks was used to cue the participant when he/she should telephone the experimenter. Prior to their journey, participants were allowed to make a practice cellular telephone call to the experimenter in order to ensure that the telephone was functioning properly and to avoid any confusion due to the uncertainty of its use while actually driving. No measurement took place during the pretest telephone call. During the actual commute. the landmarks were used to indicate when the participants should telephone the experimenter. When a successful telephone contact was made. the State Stress and State Coping Behaviour inventories were administered. Both telephone calls (low and high congestion conditions) were made during a single journey either to or from school or work. Between telephone calls, the participants were instructed to hang up the telephone and continue Driver stress 353 driving normally until the second landmark was reached, which would prompt the second telephone call. 3. Results 3.1. State versus trait driver stress A trait stress score for each individual was obtained by calculating the mean rating of the 1 1 items. Participants were separated into either a low or high trait driver stress group based on a median split of the scores. The Cronbach alpha for the Gen was 0-92. Scoring on the State Stress Inventory consisted of calculating the mean of the responses given to the 21 stress items (the ?ve positive mood items were reverse keyed) in both high and low congestion. Higher scores indicated greater state driver stress. The time. urgency and perceived control scores from the State Stress Inventory were used as covarying factors in all state stress analyses. The Cronbach alpha for the state stress scores in high and low congestion were 0-97 and 095 respectively. A multivariate split plot factorial analysis was performed in order to compare the state stress scores of the high and low trait driver stress groups in high and low congestion. The low and high congestion conditions represented the two levels of the. within subjects condition and the low and high trait driver stress groups represented the two levels of the between groups condition. A signi?cant interaction was obtained between the trait stress groups and the levels of congestion 38) 8-57, 0-01). As predicted, greater state stress was reported in high congestion conditions. However, the level of state stress was dependent on the trait susceptibility to driver stress. As can be seen in ?gure I, the high trait stress group reported greater state stress in both low and high congestion than the low trait stress group. 3.2. Trait coping behaviours?coping preferences The Trait Coping Behaviour Inventory was intended to provide some indication of how participants dealt with stressful situations in general. The direct and indirect subscales were scored separately. Scores were obtained by calculating the mean rating for the respective subscale items. A higher score on either subscale indicated a greater preference for that type of coping behaviour. The Cronbach alpha for the trait direct and indirect coping behaviour scores were 0-75 and 077 respectively. A two tailed t?test was performed with direct and indirect coping behaviours representing the two levels of trait coping behaviour. The mean trait direct score was signi?cantly higher than the mean trait indirect score (M 70153, 20, SD 12-11 and 48-51, :1 20. SD 9-9] respectively, K38) 2 984, 0.01). Although both direct and indirect coping behaviours were identi?ed, direct behaviours were preferred in comparison to indirect behaviours. 3.3. State coping behaviours?frequency of use ratings The State Coping Behaviour Inventory was intended to provide some indication of the frequency of use of both direct and indirect coping behaviours in low and high traf?c congestion conditions. The direct and indirect behaviour subscales were scored and examined separately. Scoring consisted of calculating the mean rating given to the reapective subscale items. Since a zero rating indicated that an item was not used, only the ?non-zero? rated items were used in the calculation of the frequency of use score. Higher scores indicated a greater frequency of use of that type of c0ping behaviour. in the high congestion condition, the Cronbach alpha for the direct and indirect behaviours were 0'69 and 075 respectively. In the low congestion condition, the Cronbach alpha for the direct and indirect behaviours were 0-62 and 0156 respectively. A doubly multivariate analysis (T abachnick and Fidell 1989) was performed with the state direct and indirect - 354 D. A. Her-messy and D. L. Wiesenrha! coping behaviours as two separate dependent variables, and gender and congestion level as two separate independent variables. The frequency of use of the direct and indirect behaviours were compared with one another within each congestion condition to determine if one type was used more than the other. Within the .low congestion condition, no difference was found between the frequency of use of indirect (M 63-7, :1 40, SD 28-12) versus direct (M 60-05, 40, SD 24-9) behaviours, 092, 0.01). Similarly, within the high congestion condition, no difference was found between the frequency of use score of indirect (M 69-96, 40, SD 21-61) versus direct (M 66-9, 40, SD 71-33) behaviours, (F (1,38) 0-66, 0.01). For each coping behaviour subscale, a separate comparison was also conducted between the congestion conditions to determine if the frequency of use varied with the Speci?c conditions. For direct behaviours, no difference was found between high (M 66-9, :1 40, SD 21-33) and low (M 60-05, :1 40, SD 24-19) congestion conditions 1-74, The males (M 58-85, 40, SD 22-01) did not differ from the females (M 68-10, 40, SD 22-41) in the use of direct behaviours 7-44, 001). For indirect behaviours, no difference was found between high (M 69-95, 40, SD 21-61) and low (M 63-7, :1 40, SD 28-12) congestion conditions, 2-05, 0-01). The males (M 62-70, 40, 80 Low Congestion El High Congestion is:- .4..A- ?24735?- 0 4O - 4.5-1.5- - L: if]. . i' U: L: a easi- 4?0 Eir .47.: ?0 an - 312,351, i L. 20 .. +157! 2 "fr? 31- ign?iu f?fiifi' p.r:.rt.:r titres?Ffsf?gff? ft. l'i- :l .. 511$; High Trait Driver Stress Figure 1. Mean state stress levels in high and low congestion conditions between high and low trail driver stress susceptibility groups. Driver stress 355 SD 2714) did not differ from the females (M 70-95, :1 40, SD 20-19) in the use of indirect behaviours, 1.60, 0-01). 3.4. State coping behaviours?type of behaviours reported COping responses were assessed by measuring the variety of ?types? of responses and the frequency with which drivers utilized each type of coping reSponse. Since no patterns were found in terms of the frequency of use of direct or indirect coping behaviours, the actual ozpe of behaviours used was examined. Scoring consisted of averaging behaviours that were utilized regardless of their frequency of use. A doubly multivariate analysis was performed with the direct and indirect behaviours compared over the high and low congestion conditions. Comparisons were made for direct and indirect behaviour, separately, between high and low congestion. No comparison between direct and indirect behaviours was made since the number of possible indirect behaviours was much larger than the number of possible direct behaviours (n 19 and 7 respectively). A greater variety of indirect behaviours were reported in the high congestion than the low congestion (M 5-37, :2 40, SD 3-53 and 4-37, 40, SD 3-72 respectively, 536, 005). Similarly, a greater variety of direct ceping behaviours were reported in the high than the low congestion condition (M 2-92, 40, SD 1-19 and 2-55, 40, SD 1-44 respectively, F(l,38) 5-52, )9 0-05). 3.5. Most frequently reported individual behaviours The majority of the behaviours that were reported were classi?ed into three main categories: direct behaviours, time facilitation behaviours and aggressive behaviours. The direct behaviours included ?sticking to pre-arranged plans?, 'listening to radio traf?c reports?, ?watching for changeable message signs? and ?making on the spot plans?. The time facilitation behaviours included ?listening to music?, 'daydreaming? and ?listening to talk radio?. The aggressive behaviours included ?purposeful tailgating?, ?swearing or yelling at others?, and ?horn honking?. In the high congestion condition, the most commonly reported behaviours were, in order, direct behaviours, time facilitation behaviours and aggressive behaviours. The most commonly reported behaviours in low congestion were direct behaviours and time facilitation behaviours. The only category of behaviours which displayed a large variation between congestion conditions were the aggressive behaviours, which were reported more frequently in the high (a 73) than the low (21 37) congestion condition. 4. Discussion 4.1. Driver stress- The present ?ndings supported the hypothesis that driving in highly congested traf?c conditions would result in higher state stress than driving in low congestion. The present study was in agreement with previous ?ndings that driving in congested traf?c resulted in increased driver stress (Stokols et a1. 1978, Gulian, er al. 1989a). More importantly, those who indicated that they were more predisposed to driver stress showed even further elevation in state stress than those who were lower in trait driver stress, under similar conditions. Gender was not a signi?cant predictor of any behaviour. The presence of the state by trait interaction has two clear implications. First, due to the fact that participants would have had no way of knowing which trait stress group they or any other participants belonged to, responses in?uenced by demand characteristics may be discounted. Second, the situation-speci?c nature of stress was highlighted. Where the present study differs from the ?ndings of previous driver stress research, is that previous 356 D. A. Hennessy and D. L. Wiesenrlral research relied on participant reports removed from the actual driving experience (for example, questionnaires answered following the daily commute from either home or work). In contrast. the present study relied on responses given during both high and low traf?c congestion conditions, providing a more situation-speci?c state measure. Measur- ing driver stress out of context may not provide as accurate information as those taken in a speci?c context. The DBl?Gen did provide a good indicator of individuals who were most and least susceptible to driver stress. However, when the speci?c driving situation was considered, a more detailed picture of driver stress emerged. Depending on the Gen?s intended use, more speci?c details regarding the situation may be necessary (for example, clarifying if traf?c conditions are high, medium, or low in congestion). 4.2. State coping behaviours No prediction for coping behaviours was made; rather the intent was to focus on any trends that may become evident. In all measures of coping behaviour, no gender differences were found. The frequency of use of both the direct and the indirect behaviours did not change between low and high congestion. However, when the actual type of behaviours were examined, the situation did show some in?uence, as a greater variety of both direct and indirect behaviours were used in high congestion. Participants reported utilizing a greater variety of behaviours in high congestion, but using each less frequently in comparison to low congestion. Borrowing from Selye?s (1974) idea of energy", perhaps people do have only a limited reserve of coping energy that must be distributed among the many behaviours needed in order to deal with stressors. If this is true, then the experience of stress in speci?c situations may be altered by varying the behaviours used by an individual and ultimately the distribution of energy?. 4.3. roit versus state coping behaviours All participants indicated a preference for using direct over indirect behaviours in dealing with general problems. However, in the actual driving situation (both high and low congestion), participants engaged in indirect behaviours as frequently as direct behaviours. Dealing directly with a problem was preferred, but when faced with the stress of driving, no difference in the frequency with which drivers used state direct over indirect coping behaviours was found. This ?nding highlights the necessity for situation-speci?c testing of coping behaviours. The ability to identify the appropriate responses to a given stressor may be problematic without knowledge of the situation and context in which the stressor is experienced. 4.4. Frequently reported individual behaviours Gulian er al. (1989b) found that individuals who used preplanned methods for dealing with potential traf?c stress showed reduced stress, but there were few who actually engaged in such behaviours. In the present study, utilization of preplanned action for dealing with stressful conditions was actually the most widely reported behaviour in both high and low congested conditions. The difference may be that the behaviours that Gulian er. al. (1989b) considered as preplanning may have been more avoidance oriented, while those con- sidered in the present study may have been more escape oriented. Drivers, in the present study, may have been reporting a preplanning of routes and techniques used to escape the greater congestion locations rather than avoiding congestion all together. A large number of drivers did report using or seeking alternate routes, ?on the spot?, while experiencing both high and low congestion. Perhaps this is simply part of a larger strategy of preplanning and actual execution of escape route seeking, which differs from those considered by Gulian et al. (1989b). Driver stress 357 Seeking the traf?c information contained on the changeable message signs and in radio traf?c reports were both highly utilized in high and low congestion conditions. Guljan et al. (1989b) found that many participants used preparatory information as a strategy for dealing with tra?ic stress. Individuals who were prepared for dif?cult traf?c conditions were less prone to driver stress. The stress reducing effect of preparatory information has also been found with surgery patients {Thompson 1981) and individuals in crowded waiting rooms (Wener and Kaminoff 1983). Perhaps, as Ludwick-Rosenthal and Neufeld (1988) believed, acquiring information regarding a potentially stressful situation (such as highly congested traf?c) allows individuals to deve10p accurate expectations about the situation, to exercise control over the situation and to perform the behavioural options available to them. Preparatory information may aid drivers in setting realistic expectations about traf?c conditions and arrival times, thus enhancing perceptions of control over the driving situation. Aggressive behaviours were reported more often in high than low congestion. All ?ve possible aggressive behaviours on the State Coping Behaviour Inventory increased in high congestion conditions. The largest increases occurred in ?purposeful tailgating? and ?swearing or yelling at other drivers'. This trend is consistent with the ?nding that drivers frequently discharged their frustration through aggressive actions toward others (Broome 1985). Risk is increased as others are also looking to release aggression. However, it may be possible that some participants misinterpreted ?purposeful tailgating? as simply ?tailgating? which would normally increase as traf?c conditions became more congested. 4.5. Shortcoming of the present study One major shortcoming of the present study was the fact that participants were studied during only one trip, thus obtaining only a momentary examination of driving behaviour. Individual responses may vary with the situation from day to day and a single measure would miss much of the complexity of individual and environmental variation. Measure- ment during the ?rst snowfall, for example, may have resulted in different outcomes than in the sunny conditions of the present study. Another problem was that the coping behaviour responses were preselected. Some participants may not have interpreted the items in the same manner as the researcher had intended, or the researchers may have omitted some options that were more relevant to driving ?Making frequent lane changes? or ?Weaving in and out of traf?c?). By allowing more open ended answers. a deeper understanding of an individual?s behaviour may have been possible. 4.6. Cellular telephone use in methodology The present method of in Sim interviews via cellular telephone appeared to provide a viable assessment of the impact of traf?c congestion. As a result, stress reactions and coping behaviours were measurable while they occurred rather than following the experience of different congestion levels. The cellular telephone methodol- ogy may provide researchers with an excellent view into situation-speci?city without having to actually be present with participants. Research conceming the safety of cellular telephone use has shown that distractibility and the ability to divide attention deteriorate for users over the age of 50 and for very demanding tasks such as complex mental arithmetic (Brown er a1. 1969, Brookhuis e: at. 1991, Nilsson and Alm 1991, McKnight and McKnight 1993). Through further development and use, this method should become a very useful tool in studying driving behaviour as well as other situation sensitive conditions. 358 D. A. Hennessy and D. L. Wiesenthal Acknowledgment This manuscript is based on research performed by Dwight Hennessy in partial ful?lment of the Master?s degree requirements of York University. The research was supervised by Professor David Wiesenthal. The authors wish to thank Professors Clary Lay and Mike Ziegler who served on Dwight Hennessy?s thesis committee, as well as Dr. Bob Lamble of the Ontario Ministry of Transportation for his assistance. Pilot research was assisted by the generous donation of cellular telephones by Motorola Canada and cellular air time by Bell Mobility Canada. This research was supported (in part) by a contribution from the Ministry of TranSportation of Ontario. Opinions expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily re?ect the views and policies of the Ministry. Please address reprint requests to: Professor David L. Wiesenthal, LaMarsh Centre for Research on Violence and Con?ict Resolution, 217E York Lanes, York University, 4700 Keele Street, North York, Ontario, M31 1P3, Canada. References BAUM, A., SINGER, .1. E. and BAIJM, C. 1982, Stress and the environment, in CLW. Evans Environmental stress (Cambridge University Press, New York), 15?44. BROOKHUIS, K., de Varss, G. and D. 1991, Effects of mobile telephoning on driving performance, Accident Analysis and Prevention, 23, 309?316. BROOME, MR. 1985, The implication of driver stress. Proceeding Seminar PTRC, Summer Meeting, Vol. P270. BROWN. 1., A. H. and Simmonos, D. C. 1969, Interference between concurrent tasks of driving and telephoning, Journal oprplied 53, 419?424. CARVER, C., SHELER, M. and WEINTRAUB, J. K. 1989, Assessing coping strategies: A theoretically based approach, Journal of Personality and Social 56, 267?283. R. 1989, Neuroendocrine correlates of control and coping, in A. Steptoe and A. Appels (eds), Stress, personal control, and health (Wiley, New York), 277?294. T. M., TAYLOR, P. and POLLARD, C. A. 1993, Use of mobile phones in the behavioral treatment of driving phobias, Journal of Behaviour. Therapy. and Esperimental 25, 299? 302. FULKMAN. S. and LAZARUS, R. S. 1980. An analysis of caping in a middle-aged community sample. Journal of Health and Social Behaviour, 21, 219?239. FOLKMAN, 5., LAZARUS, R. 8., C, DeLonols, A. and GRUEN. R. 1986, The dynamics of a stressful encounter: Cognitive appraisal, coping and encounter outcomes, Journal of Personality and Social 50, 992? 1003. GLASS, D. C- and SINGER, J. E. 1972, Urban Stress (Academic. New York). GLENDON, A. 1., Donn, L.. MA?t'ms'ws. G., Gums. E.. Dawes, D. R. and DEBNEY, L. M. 1993. Reliability of the Driving Behaviour Inventory, Ergonomics, 36, 719?726- GLJLIAN, E., DEBNEY, L. M., GLENDON. A. 1., DAVIES, D. R. and MATTHEWS, G. 19893, Coping with driver stress, in F. McGuigan. W. E. Sime and .1. M. Wallace (Eds), Stress and Tension Control (V013) (Plenum, New York), 173?186. Gums, E., G., GLENDON, A. 1. and Dawes. D. R. 198%, Dimensions of driver stress, Ergonomics, 32, 585?602. KANNER, A. D., CUYNE, J. C., SCI-IAEFER, C. and Lmnus, R. S. 1981, Comparison of two modes of stress measurement: Daily hassles and uplifts versus major life events, Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 4, 1?39. LAZARUS. R. S. 1966, stress and the coping process (McGraw-Hill. New York). R. and NEUFELD, R. W. 1988, Stress management during noxiOus medical procedures: An evaluative review of outcome studies, Bulletin, 104, 3264342. MACKAY, C. .1., Cox, T., Bussows, C. G. and LAZZERINI, A. J. 1978, An inventory for the measurement of self reported stress and arousal, British Journal of Seeial and Clinical 17, 283-284. MATTHEWS, G., DORN, L. and GLENDON, A. I. 1991, Personality correlates of driver stress, Personality and Individual Di?erences. 12, 535?549. Driver stress 359 MCKNIGHT, A. J. and A. S. 1993, The effects of cellular phone use upon driver attention, Accident Analysis and Prevention, 25, 259?266. Name, K. 1991, Coping strategies and health status in a Japanese sample, Journal of Clinical 4'7, 346?350. NtzisoN. D. W. and COHEN, L. H. 1983. Locus of control and control perceptions and the relationship between life stress and disorder, American Journal of Community 11, 705?722. L. and AIM, H. 1991, E?ects of mobile telephone use an elderly drivers' behaviour: Including comparisons to young drivers? behaviour, Swedish Road and Traf?c Research Institute, Report No. 53. NOVACO, R. W., CAMPBELL, J. and S'Imzors, J. 1979, Transportation, stress, and community American Journal of Community 7, 361?380. R. W., STOKOLs, D. and Mruwesr, L. 1990, Objective and subjective dimensions of travel impedance as determinants of commuting stress, American Journal of Community 18, 231?2157. ONTARIO of TRANSPORTAHON 1992. Provincial Highways: Tra?ic volumes. Traf?c Program Management Of?ce, (Ontario Government Printing Of?ce, Toronto)- SELYE, H. 1974. Stress without distress (Lippincott, Philadelphia). SELZER, M. L. and Vmouua, A. 1974. Life events, subjective stress and traffic accidents, American Journal of 131, 903?906. D. R., HAGE, J. N., HALPERN, P. L. and MOORE, B. S. 1977, Effects of personal causation and perceived control on responses to an aversive environment: The more control the better, Journal of Experimental Social 13, 144?207. SPENCE, A. 1988, of good health: Stress and mental health (Friedman. New York). STOKOLs. D., Novnco, R. W., STOKOLS. J. and CAMPBELL, J. 1978, Traf?c congestion, Type A behaviour, and stress, Journal of Applied 63, 467?480. TABACHNICK, B. G. and FIDELL, L. S. 19.89, Using multivariate statistics (Harper Row, New York). THOMPSON, S. C. 1981, Will it hurt less if I can control it? A complex answer to a simple question. Bulletin, 90, 89? 101. TURNER, C. W., LAYTON, J. F. and SIMONS, L. S. 1975, Naturalistic studies of aggressive behaviour: Aggressive stimuli, victim visibility and horn honking. Journal of Personality and Social 31, 1098*1 107. A. J. and VAN-HECK, G. L. 1990, Gender, coping, and Medicine, 20, 125?135. WENER, R., and KAMINOFF, R. D. 1983. improving environmental information: Effects of signs on perceived crowding and behaviour. Environment and Behaviour, 15, 3-20. Appendix A. Driving Behaviour Inventory?General. For the following statements, please indicate, from 0 to 100.. the extent to which they apply to you when you drive your automobile. 0 100 . I feel aggressive when I drive. . I lose my temper when other drivers do silly things. . Trying but failing to overtake bothers me. . I get annoyed when driving behind other vehicles. I feel satis?ed when I overtake other vehicles. I feel tense when I overtake other vehicles. I do mind being overtaken. I get impatient during rush hour. Trying but failing to overtake frustrates me. When I drive I feel frustrated. When I get irritated I drive aggressively. rppmaowewwe 360 D. A. Hennessy and D. L. Wiesenthal Appendix B. State Driver Stress Questionnaire. For the following statements, please indicate, from 0 to 100, the extent to which they apply to you in the last ?ve minutes of this present commutehurry. I feel I have control of this driving situation. I am concerned about getting to my destination on time. Traf?c conditions are congested. I have a ?exible time schedule. I am annoyed by driving behind other vehicles. . Trying but failing to overtake is bothering me. . Trying but failing to overtake is frustrating me. 9. I am not patient during this rush hour. 10. Because I am irritated I am driving aggressively. 11. I do mind being overtaken. 12. I am feeling aggressive. 13. I am feeling frustrated. 14. I am losing my temper when other drivers are doing silly things. 15. I am feeling tense when overtaking other vehicles. 16. I am feeling satis?ed when overtaking other Vehicles. 17. I am feeling tense. 18. I am feeling uneasy. 19. I feel nervous. 20. I am feeling bothered. I am feeling distressed. 22. I am feeling peaceful. 23. I am feeling relaxed. 24. I am feeling contented. 25. I am feeling comfortable. 26. I am feeling calm. Appendix C. Trait Coping Behaviour Inventory. For the following statements, please indicate, from 0 to 100, the extent to which they apply to you, in general, when you are faced with a stressful situation. 0 100 . I express my feelings in some way. . I get angry with the person who caused the problem. . daydream or think of things other than the situation. . I try to look on the bright side of the situation. I try to ?nd out more information about the situation. I try to talk to someone who could do something concrete about the problem. I ask others for advice on how to deal directly with the situation. I talk to someone about how I feel. UJNH 90.451914: 17. 18. 19. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. Driver stress 361 criticize or blame myself for the situation. I wish to fantasize that the situation would somehow just be over with. I seek out information about how to change the situation. I try to make myself feel better by eating, drinking, or smoking. 1 take out my frustrations on other people. I focus my efforts in any attempt to actually change the outcome of the situation. I make a plan of action to escape or avoid the situation and try to follow it. I try to forget about the situation by biting my nails, scratching, tapping my hands, or pulling at my hair. I try to change something in the situation so that things will turn out alright. I try to do something to take my mind off the situation. I keep track of all of my options that might help me to directly eliminate or escape the situation. . I try to relax or meditate to ease the pressure of the situation. Appendix D. State Coping Behaviour Inventory. Please indicate the extent, from to 100, to which you have employed the following behaviours during the past ?ve minutes of this particular commute. 0 AT 100 Horn honking at other drivers. Hand gestures at other drivers. Purposely tailgating other drivers. Flashing your high-beams at another driver. Swearing at other drivers. Talking to passengers to pass the time. Talking on a CB radio to pass time. . Listening to music on the car radio to pass time. . Listening to talk radio programs to pass time. . Eating or drinking to pass time. . Daydreaming to pass time. . Nail biting. . Scratching. . Smoking. . Grinding your teeth. . Fixing your hair and/or makeup. Muscle relaxation techniques. . Meditating. . Purposeful breathing techniques. . Sticking to a prearranged plan of action?made prior to the commute?for dealing with traf?c conditions. . Listening to the radio for traf?c reports. . Planning alternate routes, ?on the spor?, to travel. . Seeking the information provided by the changeable message signs. . Using a CB radio to gain access to traf?c information. . Talking to passengers to gain infonnation about the traf?c situation. . Talking to passengers to discuss the problems experiencing during this commute.