According to a recent study by the Belgian road safety institute Vias, there really is an “affective polarization” in traffic ─ negative feelings and hostility ─ between different groups of road users.
People clearly rate their own group more positively than others, with particularly negative feelings toward e-scooters and cyclists. In an urban context, these tensions intensify, especially among motorists, cyclists, and pedestrians.
The research draws on three theoretical frameworks: social identity theory (in-group/out-group thinking), attribution theory (attributing causes to traffic behavior), and personality theory (based on the Big Five model).
The central research questions are: 1) To what extent do Belgian road users experience affective polarization? 2) And which socio-psychological and contextual factors account for this polarization?
No extreme emotional distance
The findings show that affective polarization is a reality on Belgian roads. The mean polarization score on the feeling thermometer is 44.8, indicating a noticeable but not extreme emotional distance between road users.
E-scooter users and (recreational) racing cyclists elicit the most negative feelings, whereas e-scooter users themselves report little tension with other groups. Pedestrians and bus drivers receive the most positive evaluations.
In every transport group, respondents consistently rate their own group more favorably, confirming a clear in-group preference and greater tolerance for one’s own group.
Urban areas appear to be a reinforcing factor: in cities, drivers and cyclists rate each other more negatively than in rural areas. Pedestrians are also more polarized toward cyclists, scooter riders, and motorists.
In-group/out-group thinking
Regression analyses indicate that strong identification with one’s own group is associated with more positive feelings toward that group. This effect is significant across all transport modes and underscores the role of in-group/out-group thinking and tolerance for one’s in-group.
Social categorization yields a mixed picture: it increases affective polarization toward cyclists but decreases it toward motorists, e-scooter users, and motorcyclists.
Internal attributions – explaining others’ behavior in terms of personal traits rather than situational factors – are linked to greater polarization toward cyclists and e-scooter users, but not toward other groups.
Psychological processes
The study concludes that affective polarization in traffic is deeply rooted in psychological processes. Policy measures that foster accurate perception, reduce group-thinking, and promote empathy among road users may contribute to a more constructive and safer traffic climate.
The study was conducted via an online questionnaire completed by 2,905 Belgian road users in December 2024, using quota-based online sampling. Respondents were classified according to their most frequently used mode of transport.
The questionnaire included sociodemographic variables and measures of social identity, attributions, personality, attitudes, and social desirability. Affective polarization toward other road user groups was assessed using a feeling thermometer (0–100) to quantify emotional distance between groups.
Many similar studies have already been conducted in the countries surrounding us, and they show that Belgium is not an exception, but somewhat representative of broader European trends.
Tensions between different road users exist in many countries. However, the extent and nature of these tensions vary considerably across countries, depending on infrastructure, modal mix, regulations, and culture.
