Interventions for Aggressive Driving

Overseen By Thomas Kerwin, PhD

Age: 18+

Sex: Any

Trial Phase: Academic

Sponsor: Ohio State University

Disqualifiers: Motion sickness

No Placebo Group All trial participants will receive the active study treatment (no placebo)

Compensation: Varies

Number of Visits: 1

830 Participants Needed

Trial Summary

What is the purpose of this trial?

Driving a car is the most dangerous behavior most people engage in every day. According to the World Health Organization, about 1.25 million people die each year as a result of road traffic crashes, and they are the leading cause of death among 15 to 29 year olds. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 37,461 Americans were killed in motor vehicle crashes in 2016 - about 103 per day. Although there are several causes of traffic crashes (e.g., texting, alcohol consumption, inclement weather), the leading cause is aggressive driving. In the United States, aggressive driving accounts for more than half of all traffic fatalities. Thus, aggressive driving is an important applied health topic, especially for young drivers.

Will I have to stop taking my current medications?

The trial information does not specify whether you need to stop taking your current medications.

What data supports the effectiveness of the treatment for aggressive driving?

Research shows that mobile phone-based interventions and gamified cognitive training can help reduce risky behaviors like driving after drinking and improve treatment outcomes for alcohol use disorders. These approaches might also be effective in addressing aggressive driving by targeting similar underlying issues such as alcohol misuse and attentional biases. ^{1 2 3 4 5}

How does the treatment for aggressive driving differ from other treatments?

This treatment for aggressive driving is unique because it combines various interventions like alcohol-related cues, music, and video games to address the emotional and behavioral triggers of aggression, unlike traditional methods that may not comprehensively tackle these underlying causes. ^{6 7 8 9 10}

Research Team

Brad Bushman, PhD

Principal Investigator

Ohio State University

Eligibility Criteria

This trial is for adults in Central Ohio with a valid driver's license. It aims to understand aggressive driving, particularly among young drivers. Ages vary by experiment: anyone 18+ for Experiment 1; ages 18-21 for Experiments 2-4 and 6-7; over 21 for Experiment 5. Those prone to motion sickness cannot participate.

Inclusion Criteria

Participants will be adults recruited from Central Ohio (Franklin County) through advertisements (e.g., newspaper, Internet)

I am 18+ for Experiment 1, 18-21 for Experiments 2-4 and 6-7, and over 21 for Experiment 5.

All participants must have a current driver license.

Exclusion Criteria

Participants who have motion sickness will be excluded.

Timeline

Screening

Participants are screened for eligibility to participate in the trial

1-2 weeks

Experimentation

Participants engage in various driving simulation experiments to test the effects of situational risk and protective factors on aggressive driving.

Up to 1 hour per session

1 visit (in-person) per experiment

Follow-up

Participants are monitored for state and hostile appraisals after completing the driving scenarios.

Immediately after each experiment

Treatment Details

Interventions

• Alcohol-related cues
• Bumper stickers
• Music
• Roadside vegetation
• Video game
• Videos

Trial Overview The study tests how different factors like roadside vegetation, video games, videos, bumper stickers, alcohol-related cues, and music influence aggressive driving behavior using a driving simulation.

Participant Groups

Group I: Experiment 7 Experimental Treatment 1 Intervention

Experiment 7 tests whether roadside vegetation can reduce aggression in frustrated drivers. After giving their consent, participants (N=90, n=30 per group) will complete the personality variables (see Experiment 1). Next, they will complete the Enjoyment of Nature Scale (Cheng \& Moore, 2012), which contains 7 items (e.g., "I like to see wild flowers in nature" and "Being in the natural environment makes me feel peaceful"; 1=strongly disagree to 5= strongly disagree; Cronbach =.87). Next, participants will be randomly assigned to one of three driving scenarios: (1) roadside vegetation, (2) trash, or (3) control (no roadside vegetation / no trash). After participants complete the driving scenario, they will complete measures of state and hostile appraisals, and will be debriefed.

Group II: Experiment 6 Experimental Treatment 1 Intervention

Experiment 6 will test the effects of music with aggressive versus prosocial lyrics on aggressive driving. The tempo of the music will also be manipulated because it might influence arousal levels. After giving their consent, participants (N=150, n=30 per group) will complete the personal variables (see Experiment 1). Music will be played over the car's sound system. Participants will be randomly assigned to one of five conditions: (1) violent lyrics / upbeat tempo, (2) violent lyrics / calm tempo, (3) prosocial lyrics / upbeat tempo, (4) prosocial lyrics / calm tempo, or (5) no music control. After participants complete the driving scenario, they will complete measures of state and hostile appraisals, and will be debriefed.

Group III: Experiment 5 Experimental Treatment 1 Intervention

Experiment 5 tests whether alcohol-related cues can increase aggressive driving. After giving their consent, participants (N=40) will complete the personal variables (see Experiment 1). Next, participants will be randomly assigned to one of two conditions: (1) 12-pack of beer on passenger seat, or (2) 12-pack of sparkling water on passenger seat. Participants will be told that the object on the seat is part of a different experiment that the other experimenter forgot to clean up, which they should ignore it. After participants complete the driving scenario, they will complete measures of state and hostile appraisals, and will be debriefed.

Group IV: Experiment 4 Experimental Treatment 1 Intervention

Experiment 4 tests the effects of political bumper stickers on aggressive driving in Republicans versus Democrats. After giving their consent, participants (N=120; n=60 Republicans, n=60 Democrats) will complete the personal variables (see Experiment 1). Some cars in the driving scenario will contain bumper stickers. Experiment 4 has four conditions: (1) Republicans / "Donald Trump for President 2016" stickers, (2) Republicans / "Hillary Clinton for President 2016" stickers, (3) Democrats / "Donald Trump for President 2016" stickers, (4) Democrats / "Hillary Clinton for President 2016" stickers. After participants complete the driving scenario, they will complete measures of state and hostile appraisals, and will report their attitudes toward Trump and Clinton. A debriefing will follow.

Group V: Experiment 3 Experimental Treatment 1 Intervention

Experiment 3 tests the effects of racial bumper stickers on black and white participants. After giving their consent, participants (N=120; n=60 black, n=60 white) will complete the personal variables (see Experiment 1), the race IAT, and report their political party. Some cars in the driving scenario will contain bumper stickers. Experiment 3 contains four conditions: (1) white participants / "All Lives Matter" stickers, (2) black participants / "All Lives Matter" stickers, (3) white participants / "Black Lives Matter" stickers, (4) black participants / "Black Lives Matter" stickers. After participants complete the driving scenario, they will complete measures of state and hostile appraisals, and will report their attitudes toward the #BLM and #ALM movements. A debriefing will follow.

Group VI: Experiment 2 Experimental Treatment 1 Intervention

Experiment 2 tests whether participants actually drive more aggressively after a playing a violent or nonviolent racing video game. After giving their consent, participants (N=60, n=30 each group) will complete the same personal variables as in Experiment 1, and will report the video games they play. Next, participants will be randomly assigned to play one of two types of video games for 20 minutes: (1) violent racing video game, (2) nonviolent racing game, or (3) a neutral game. After participants complete the driving scenario, participants will complete measures of state and hostile appraisals. A debriefing will follow.

Group VII: Experiment 1 Experimental Treatment 1 Intervention

The purpose of Experiment 1 is to develop a standardized measure of aggressive driving for driver simulation experiments. After giving their consent, participants (N=200) will complete several personal variables (i.e., gender, age, driving experience, driving frequency, trait anger, self-reported aggressive and prosocial driving). Next, participants will watch several short videos of aggressive driving (e.g., speeding, tailgating, driving on shoulder), and road rage (e.g., hitting another vehicle or pedestrian). Participants will indicate whether the driver's behavior was aggressive (yes, no), and will rate how aggressive it was on an 11-point scale (0=not at all aggressive to 10=extremely aggressive). A debriefing will follow.

Who Is Running the Clinical Trial?

Ohio State University

Lead Sponsor

Trials

891

Recruited

2,659,000+

Findings from Research

This study will evaluate the effectiveness of a gamified alcohol attentional control training program (AACTP) in enhancing treatment outcomes for 317 patients with alcohol use disorder (AUD) compared to standard treatment alone.

The research aims to show that incorporating AACTP into traditional alcohol treatment can lead to greater reductions in alcohol craving and consumption, potentially providing a new, low-cost intervention for clinical settings.

NCBI (Pubmed)

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

A Randomized Controlled Trial of Attentional Control Training for Treating Alcohol Use Disorder. Mellentin, AI., Cox, WM., Fadardi, JS., et al.[2021]

A mobile phone-based Brief Alcohol Intervention (BAI) specifically targeting driving after drinking significantly reduced the likelihood of college students driving after consuming three or more drinks, compared to an informational control group.

The study involved 84 college students and showed that those who received the mobile BAI reported a greater decrease in both the number of drinks consumed before driving and the likelihood of engaging in driving after drinking at a 3-month follow-up.

NCBI (Pubmed)

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

A Mobile Phone-Based Brief Intervention With Personalized Feedback and Text Messaging Is Associated With Reductions in Driving After Drinking Among College Drinkers. Teeters, JB., Soltis, KE., Murphy, JG.[2019]

In a study of 407 injured emergency department patients with harmful alcohol use, neither involvement in a motor vehicle crash (MVC) nor readiness to change drinking and driving behaviors significantly predicted improvements in impaired driving behaviors over time.

Despite the lack of predictive factors for behavior change, the study highlights that patients are generally open to engaging in interventions aimed at reducing risky behaviors related to alcohol use.

NCBI (Pubmed)

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Examining motor vehicle crash involvement and readiness to change on drinking and driving behaviors among injured emergency department patients. Baird, J., Yang, E., Strezsak, V., et al.[2018]

In a study of 628 individuals with untreated alcohol use problems, increased participation in Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) and outpatient treatment during the first year was linked to a significant reduction in driving while intoxicated (DWI) incidents at both 1-year and 16-year follow-ups.

Improvements in personal functioning and coping skills were found to mediate the relationship between AA participation and reduced DWI occurrences, suggesting that ongoing support from AA can lead to better psychological outcomes and lower DWI rates.

NCBI (Pubmed)

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Driving while intoxicated among individuals initially untreated for alcohol use disorders: one- and sixteen-year follow-ups. Timko, C., Desai, A., Blonigen, DM., et al.[2021]

This pilot study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of smartphone-based, multi-domain cognitive training with gamified elements for patients with alcohol use disorder (AUD), involving 60 participants in a randomized controlled trial.

The study will also assess the acceptability and feasibility of this mHealth intervention, gathering patient feedback to improve the tool, which could enhance conventional AUD treatments by addressing cognitive deficits that contribute to relapse.

NCBI (Pubmed)

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Brain+ AlcoRecover: A Randomized Controlled Pilot-Study and Feasibility Study of Multiple-Domain Cognitive Training Using a Serious Gaming App for Treating Alcohol Use Disorders. Mistarz, N., Nielsen, AS., Andersen, K., et al.[2021]

Young adult drivers who reported high levels of aggressive driving exhibited significantly higher rates of psychiatric disorders, including Oppositional Defiant Disorder and Alcohol and Substance Use Disorders, compared to those with low aggression.

The study highlights the need for prevention and intervention programs for aggressive driving to consider underlying psychiatric and behavioral issues, as these may complicate treatment effectiveness.

NCBI (Pubmed)

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Psychiatric and behavioral problems in aggressive drivers. Malta, LS., Blanchard, EB., Freidenberg, BM.[2015]

The Reduce Aggressive Driving (RAD) program, which involves group discussions and goal setting, effectively reduced self-reported anger and aggressive driving tendencies among 94 participants aged 18 to 74, with improvements maintained at four months post-session.

87% of participants felt that the RAD helped them create realistic strategies to manage their aggressive driving triggers, indicating a positive reception and perceived efficacy of the program.

NCBI (Pubmed)

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Preliminary evidence of the efficacy of the Reducing Aggressive Driving (RAD) program. Stephens, AN., Newnam, S., Young, KL.[2022]

Drivers with higher aggressive driving traits exhibited more aggressive behaviors, such as failing to yield to pedestrians and driving closer to them, especially when provoked by aggressive stimuli like honking.

Repeated exposure to aggressive situations led to an accumulation of aggressive driving behaviors, indicating that both individual traits and environmental factors significantly impact traffic safety at pedestrian crossings.

NCBI (Pubmed)

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Effect of exposure to aggressive stimuli on aggressive driving behavior at pedestrian crossings at unmarked roadways. Chai, J., Zhao, G.[2018]

A study of aggressive driving behaviors in a metropolitan area found that a significant majority of motorists exceed speed limits, with 40% to 80% of vehicles driving at least 10 mph over the limit.

Red-light running and stop-sign violations were alarmingly common, with approximately 30,000 red-light violations per month and 17.5 stop-sign violations per 1,000 vehicles, indicating a high risk for crashes and suggesting that current deterrents are ineffective.

NCBI (Pubmed)

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Aggressive driving: a preliminary analysis of a serious threat to motorists in a large metropolitan area. Fakhry, SM., Salaita, K.[2019]

Among 3753 college students surveyed, 19.1% reported driving after consuming 3 or more drinks, highlighting a significant public health issue in this demographic.

Factors such as being male, fraternity or sorority affiliation, heavy drinking, and positive attitudes toward driving after drinking were linked to increased likelihood of this behavior, suggesting that interventions should focus on changing these attitudes and reducing risky alcohol expectancies.

NCBI (Pubmed)

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Identifying factors that increase the likelihood of driving after drinking among college students. LaBrie, JW., Kenney, SR., Mirza, T., et al.[2021]

References

1. Switzerland pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

A Randomized Controlled Trial of Attentional Control Training for Treating Alcohol Use Disorder. [2021]

2. United States pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

A Mobile Phone-Based Brief Intervention With Personalized Feedback and Text Messaging Is Associated With Reductions in Driving After Drinking Among College Drinkers. [2019]

3. England pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Examining motor vehicle crash involvement and readiness to change on drinking and driving behaviors among injured emergency department patients. [2018]

4. United States pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Driving while intoxicated among individuals initially untreated for alcohol use disorders: one- and sixteen-year follow-ups. [2021]

5. Switzerland pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Brain+ AlcoRecover: A Randomized Controlled Pilot-Study and Feasibility Study of Multiple-Domain Cognitive Training Using a Serious Gaming App for Treating Alcohol Use Disorders. [2021]

6. England pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Psychiatric and behavioral problems in aggressive drivers. [2015]

7. United States pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Preliminary evidence of the efficacy of the Reducing Aggressive Driving (RAD) program. [2022]

8. England pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Effect of exposure to aggressive stimuli on aggressive driving behavior at pedestrian crossings at unmarked roadways. [2018]

9. United States pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Aggressive driving: a preliminary analysis of a serious threat to motorists in a large metropolitan area. [2019]

10. England pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Identifying factors that increase the likelihood of driving after drinking among college students. [2021]