Victim Visibility as an Inhibitor of Horn Honking Aggression in Traffic

Jerry B. Gulledge, Jr.
December 3, 1996

Abstract

In previous lab studies, anonymity has been found to increase aggressive responses, whereas victim visibility has produced the opposite effect. This experiment is to determine if aggression would be deterred by victim visibility in a naturalistic setting. Sixty-eight random drivers were delayed at a traffic signal in St. Joseph, Missouri, a Midwestern metropolitan area of approximately 100,000 people. The dependent variable measured was the latency period from the beginning of the green light until the first honk of the subject's vehicle; the independent variable manipulated was the visibility status of the experimenter. For the visible condition, half of the participants were behind the experimenter who was in a convertible car with the top down; the other half were detained by the same vehicle with the top up, defining anonymity. Using an independent groups t test with an alpha level of .01, the longer latency period for the visible victim condition was statistically significant, supporting the original hypothesis.

Introduction

The front page headline for a recent issue of The APA Monitor (Sleek, 1996) was "Car wars: Taming drivers' aggression." The public perception and that of the media is that automobile drivers are more aggressive now than in days past. There seem to be constant reports of shootings on the highways, rude and obscene gestures, and a general mayhem leading to increased traffic accidents and fatalities. Parry (1968) states that people with high scores on tests of anxiety and aggression are more likely to be involved in traffic accidents. Many people see their car as an extension of their own personal space that needs to be protected and defended against those perpetrators that would violate and infringe on the driver's possession (Hauber, 1980).

In the laboratory, experimental psychologists have frequently studied the effects of frustration and aggression on participants. However, the results found in the lab do not always translate into real life situations. For instance, the variables that influence lab-based responses may not affect naturally occurring aggressive responses. In the lab, subjects may modify their behavior to be in agreement with their perception of what the experimenter wants, the so-called Rosenthal effect (Smith & Davis, 1996).

Milgram (1965) found that a subject would be more aggressive toward another person if both the subject and victim were unable to be seen. Doob and Gross (1968) found that the perceived status of the frustrator was a significant determinant of horn honking latency periods in a naturalistic setting. Specifically, they found that the latency period of horn honking when delayed at a green light by the experimenter was shorter when the victim was driving a low status automobile. Replications and extensions of this study have identified other factors that influence this latency period. These include victim visibility and aggressive stimuli like the presence of weapon in a gun rack or the presence of an aggressively connotated bumper sticker (Turner, Layton, & Simons, 1975). The sex of the frustrator has been found to be a significant determinant also. Deaux (1971) found that the frequency of horn honking was increased when the delaying vehicle was driven by a female.

Zimbardo (1969) suggested that anonymity is the central factor in a deindividuated state and as a subsequent target of aggression. A more recent study replicated these findings by studying the decreased latency period of horn honking by subjects that wore sunglasses or who were driving in a jeep with the top up (Ellison, Govern, Petri, & Figler, 1995). The present study is an attempt to determine in a naturalistic setting if frustrator visibility increases the latency period of horn honking aggression by the participants delayed at a green light in traffic.

Method

Participants

The first 68 drivers that satisfied the trial requirements were observed on a 5-lane urban highway in St. Joseph, Missouri, a small Midwestern city with a metropolitan population of approximately 100,000. The trial requirements were that the experimenter's car was the first vehicle in the lane, that the subject's car was completely stopped directly behind during the red light, and that the data were collected on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays during the two hours preceding sunset in October and November of 1996.

Apparatus

The experimenter's vehicle was a maroon 1988 Chrysler LeBaron with a white convertible top. The data were recorded using a Timex Ironman wristwatch with a stopwatch function accurate to .01 s and a Magnavox Memo-Rec mini cassette recorder.

Procedure

During all of the trial conditions, the experimenter and confederate driver were casually dressed with their arms inside the vehicle and were looking straight ahead during the entire trial. The convertible top of the experimenter's car was down for the 34 trials of the visible condition, and was then raised for the next 34 trials, defining anonymity. When the traffic signal turned green, the confederate did not move forward and kept his foot on the brake pedal so as not to give the appearance of mechanical difficulty. At that time, the experimenter started the stopwatch and timed how long it was until the first honk from the subject's vehicle behind. The experimenter then audibly recorded this latency period for each of the 68 trials. The shortest green cycle of the six different traffic signals used was 30 s; and this maximum time allowed was recorded for those subjects that did not honk at all.

Results

An independent groups t test was used to compare the latency periods of the two conditions with an alpha level of .01. It was found that t (66) = 2.88, p = .002, indicating a statistically significant relationship in the direction predicted by the original hypothesis, namely, that victim visibility would increase the response time before aggression. The visible condition had a mean latency period of 10.75 s with a 9.04 s standard deviation. For the anonymous condition, the mean was 6.15 s and the standard deviation was 2.28 s.

Discussion

The present data are strongly supportive of my hypothesis that the period of time until the first honk by the participant would be significantly longer if the frustrator was clearly visible in the car ahead. As noted in the introduction, Milgram (1965) found that aggression in the laboratory is increased when the object of the aggression is able to be clearly seen. This study confirms those results by extension into a natural setting giving credence and practical applicability to his findings. This also supports Zimbardo (1969) regarding anonymity being the main factor of deindividuation and therefore increasing the likelihood of aggression; and, my results replicate those by Turner, Layton, and Simons (1975) about victim visibility and aggressive stimuli that effect latency periods.

This study was well controlled for extraneous variables that could have changed the outcome. However, the visible condition trials were completed in October when the weather was more ambient compared to the cooler conditions in November when the anonymous condition data were collected. Perhaps a control for this variable in a future experiment would be to conduct trials of both conditions at each outing, alternating the sequence.

I believe this experiment generalizes well to most traffic situations in almost any American city with the possible exception of New York City, which seems to get a lot a bad press about the lack of consideration by its driving public. One could also extrapolate these findings to areas other than city streets. For instance, a well lighted parking lot may discourage aggression if the target were more easily seen (as well as the perpetrator); and, the effect of tinted car windows could be considered. The results of this study could also be extended to decisions related to the design of seating areas in public places like shopping malls in order to decrease aggressive responses.

In conclusion, the findings in the present study are very significant. Statistically, even with an alpha level as low as .01, there was a strong relationship between victim visibility and the decrease of aggression. The practical significance of these results will be determined by future research and real world applicability that will hopefully delay, if not totally inhibit, aggressive responses in our public environment.

References

Deaux, K. K. (1971). Honking at the intersection: A replication and extension. The Journal of Social Psychology, 84, 159-160.
Doob, A. N., & Gross, A. E. (1968). Status of frustrator as an inhibitor of horn-honking responses. The Journal of Social Psychology, 76, 213-218.
Ellison, P. A., Govern, J. M., Petri, H. L., & Figler, M. H. (1995). Anonymity and aggressive driving behavior: A field study. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 10, 265-272.
Hauber, A. R. (1980). The social psychology of driving behaviour and the traffic environment: Research on aggressive behaviour in traffic. International Review of Applied Psychology, 29, 461-474.
Milgram, S. (1965). Some conditions of obedience and disobedience to authority. Human Relations, 18, 57-76.
Parry, M. H. (1968). Aggression on the road. New York: Tavistock Publications.
Sleek, S. (1996, September). Car wars: Taming drivers' aggression. APA Monitor, p. 1.
Smith, R. A., & Davis, S. F. (1997). The psychologist as detective. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Turner, C. W., Layton, J. F., & Simons, L. S. (1975). Naturalistic studies of aggressive behavior: Aggressive stimuli, victim visibility, and horn honking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 1098-1107.
Zimbardo, P. G. (1969). The human choice: Individuation, reason, impulse, and chaos. In W. J. Arnold & D. LeVine (Eds.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (pp. 237-307). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Back to MWSU Psychology Research Page
Back to PSY302 Research Page