Does gender moderate the relationship between driver aggression and its risk factors?

AIM

The current study assessed gender as a potential moderator of the relationship between self-reported driver aggression and various demographic variables, general and driving-related risk factors.

METHODS

Using data from a general-population telephone survey conducted from July 2002 through June 2005, two approaches to binary logistic regression were adopted. Based on the full dataset (n=6259), the initial analysis was a hierarchical-entry regression examining self-reported driver aggression in the last 12 months. All demographic variables (i.e., gender, age, income, education, marital status), general risk factors (i.e., psychological distress, binge drinking, cannabis use), and driving-related risk factors (i.e., driving exposure, stressful driving, exposure to busy roads, driving after drinking, driving after cannabis use) were entered in the first block, and all two-way interactions with gender were entered stepwise in the second block. The subsequent analysis involved dividing the sample by gender and conducting logistic regressions with main effects only for males (n=2921) and females (n=3338) separately.

RESULTS

Although the prevalence of driver aggression in the current sample was slightly higher among males (38.5%) than females (32.9%), the difference was small, and gender did not enter as a significant predictor of driver aggression in the overall logistic regression. In that analysis, difficulty with social functioning and being older were associated with a reduced risk of driver aggression. Marital status and education were unrelated to aggression, and all other variables were associated with an increased risk of aggression. Gender was found to moderate the relationships between driver aggression and only three variables: income, psychological distress, and driving exposure. Separate analyses on the male and female sub-samples also found differences in the predictive value of income and driving exposure; however, the difference for psychological distress could not be detected using this separate regression approach. The secondary analysis also identified slight differences in the predictive value of four of the risk factors, where the odds ratios for both males and females were in the same direction but only one of the two was statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

The results demonstrate the importance of conducting the gender analysis using both regression approaches. With few exceptions, factors that were predictive of driver aggression were generally the same for both male and female drivers.