Dula Chris S, Geller E Scott
Department of Psychology, University of Memphis, 202 Psychology Building, Memphis, TN 38152, USA.
J Safety Res. 2003;34(5):559-66. doi: 10.1016/j.jsr.2003.03.004.
Researchers agree that a consistent definition for aggressive driving is lacking. Such definitional ambiguity in the literature impedes the accumulation of accurate and precise information, and prevents researchers from communicating clearly about findings and implications for future research directions. This dramatically slows progress in understanding the causes and maintenance factors of aggressive driving.
This article critiques prevailing definitions of driver aggression and generates a definition that, if used consistently, can improve the utility of future research. Pertinent driving behaviors have been variably labeled in the literature as risky, aggressive, or road rage. The authors suggest that the term "road rage" be eliminated from research because it has been used inconsistently and has little probability of being clarified and applied consistently. Instead, driving behaviors that endanger or have the potential to endanger others should be considered as lying on a behavioral spectrum of dangerous driving. Three dimensions of dangerous driving are delineated: (a). intentional acts of aggression toward others, (b). negative emotions experienced while driving, and (c). risk-taking.
The adoption of a standardized definition for aggressive driving should spark researchers to use more explicit operational definitions that are consistent with theoretical foundations. The use of consistent and unambiguous operational definitions will increase the precision of measurement in research and enhance authors' ability to communicate clearly about findings and conclusions. As this occurs over time, industry will reap benefits from more carefully conducted research. Such benefits may include the development of more valid and reliable means of selecting safe professional drivers, conducting accurate risk assessments, and creating preventative and remedial dangerous driving safety programs.
研究人员一致认为，目前缺乏对攻击性驾驶的统一界定。文献中这种定义上的模糊性阻碍了准确精确信息的积累，也使研究人员无法就研究结果及对未来研究方向的启示进行清晰的交流。这极大地减缓了我们对攻击性驾驶的成因及持续因素的理解进程。
本文对现有的驾驶员攻击性定义进行了批判，并给出了一个定义。如果能始终如一地使用该定义，将提高未来研究的效用。相关的驾驶行为在文献中被不同地标记为危险驾驶、攻击性驾驶或路怒。作者建议在研究中摒弃“路怒”一词，因为它的使用并不一致，而且几乎不可能得到澄清并始终如一地应用。相反，那些危及或有可能危及他人的驾驶行为应被视为处于危险驾驶行为的范畴。危险驾驶的三个维度被界定为：（a）对他人的故意攻击行为；（b）驾驶时所体验到的负面情绪；（c）冒险行为。
采用标准化的攻击性驾驶定义应促使研究人员使用更明确的、与理论基础相一致的操作定义。使用一致且明确的操作定义将提高研究测量的精度，并增强作者就研究结果和结论进行清晰交流的能力。随着时间的推移，行业将从更严谨的研究中受益。这些益处可能包括开发更有效、更可靠的方法来选拔安全的职业驾驶员、进行准确的风险评估，以及创建预防性和补救性的危险驾驶安全项目。
