Despite the inherently interactive and conflict-prone nature of driving, few studies have
examined road-user behavior from an interpersonal perspective. Cognitive processes—
such as the hostile attribution of intent—may nevertheless influence aggressive
responses in this dynamic context. This study addresses this gap by applying Crick and
Dodge’s Social Information Processing (SIP) model (1994) to driving, investigating
how individuals interpret ambiguous driving situations, the reasons behind their
attributions, and the behavioral responses those appraisals elicit. Three focus groups
(FG) were conducted to achieve these goals, exploring six driving ambiguous vignettes.
The sample consisted of 20 drivers, ages 21 to 65, the majority of whom were female.
We identified three primary intent attributions—including hostile—and found that
contextual cues determined whether participants perceived others’ intentions as benign
or hostile. Few drivers made exclusively hostile attributions, and even those who did
not invariably report aggressive responses, often citing potential negative
consequences and prior experiences. Our findings highlight the critical role of SIP’s
later stages (evaluation and decision) in assessing adults’ aggressive driving behavior,
as participants weighed the “pros and cons” of possible responses, and frequently
inhibited aggression to avoid anticipated adverse outcomes. We conclude by discussing
these results, including limitations and cues for future research.