This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
ALAN GIFFIN DOWNE
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY MULTIMEDIA UNIVERSITY APRIL 2008
Siti Hasmah Digital Library
Digitally signed by Siti Hasmah Digital Library DN: cn=Siti Hasmah Digital Library, c=MY, o=Multimedia University, ou=Research Library, email=kamal. email@example.com Date: 2009.07.02 11:55:19 +08'00'
The copyright of this thesis belongs to the author under the terms of the Copyright Act 1987 as qualified by Regulation 4(1) of the Multimedia University Intellectual Property Regulations. Due acknowledgement shall always be made of the use of any material contained in, or derived from, this thesis.
Alan Giffin Downe, April 2008 All rights reserved
I hereby declare that the work contained herein has been done by myself and that no portion of the work contained in this thesis has been submitted in support of any application for any other degree or qualification of this or any other university or institute of learning.
______________________ Alan Giffin Downe
First, I wish to acknowledge the contribution of my supervisor, Dr. Stanley Richardson, whose guidance, wisdom and high standards have motivated me and kept me on track throughout all phases of the project. I also thank my former employer, Multimedia University, for permitting me to undertake doctoral studies during my time as a lecturer in the Faculty of Management. In this regard, I would like to express my gratitude for the gracious support and encouragement I have received from Prof. Dr. A. Seetharaman, current Dean of Management and from Prof. Dr. Hj. Mohd. Ismail Sayyed Ahmad, former Dean of Management. I also wish to thank Dr. A.S. Santhapparaj, Dr. V. Anantaraman and especially Dr. Sayed Hossain for coordinating and serving as panelists, respectively, when I presented this research to the faculty during my work completion seminar.
Several researchers at other institutions have provided assistance in the form of test instruments, unpublished papers and guidance over the course of this project. I especially thank Dr. Jerry Deffenbacher (University of Colorado), Dr. Yori Gidron (Brunel University), Dr. C.S. Papacostas (University of Hawaii at Manoa), Dr. Dianne Parker (University of Manchester), Dr. Murali Sambasivan (Universiti Putra Malaysia), the late Dr. C.R. Snyder (University of Kansas), and Dr. Henriette Wallén Warner (Dalarna University).
I would like also to thank four undergraduate research assistants who completed data collection for the study of Kuala Lumpur taxicab drivers: Agatha Yeoh Siew Ling, Gracy Thomas, Nazlina Nasihin and Sangeetha Munisamy.
I wish to acknowledge the Road Engineering Association of Malaysia (REAM), an organisation to which I have felt privileged to belong, as an Associate Member, since 2001.
There are many individuals who have contributed greatly to the completion of this project through their helpful suggestions, collegial affiliation and friendship, notably Aw Lin, Aznur Hajar Binti Abdullah, Azrai Abdullai, Ming-Yu Cheng, Adeline Chua, Cynthia Downe, Ridhwan Fontaine, Jessica Ho Sze Yin, Lily Idayu, Loke Choong Khoon, Loke Siew Poh, Razlina Rezali, Omar Salahuddin Bin Abdullah, Bobby Varanasi and David Yong. A special expression of thanks is due to Fatimah Syam @ Noor Azleen A. Gani at the Siti Hasmah Digital Library for her very helpful assistance. For their caring support, I also wish to thank my mother, Evelyn G. Downe and Howard, of Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada.
The phrase, “without whom this research would never have been completed” appears ubiquitously in theses and dissertations around the world. But never has it been truer than in the contribution made here by my wife, Siew-Phaik Loke. She has helped me to score questionnaires, set up spreadsheets and enter data into the computer. She provided thoughtful input into solving even the most baffling problems of multivariate analysis. She sustained me with her constant reassurance throughout the project. And she did it all while excelling at her own PhD studies, starting a business, launching her career as a university lecturer and lovingly, patiently caring for our son. To her, I will be always grateful.
DEDICATION In the wee hours of a cold morning on December 5th, 2002 my father, Dr. A.E.R. Downe, Professor Emeritus of Biology at Canada’s Queen’s University passed away in his hospital bed in Kingston, Ontario after suffering a long and debilitating illness. For 47 years, he had been my inspiration and my role model. From him, I learned the value of hard work and family, the excitement that comes from scientific inquiry and the fortitude that evolves in a man’s struggle against adversity. Not a day goes by when I don’t find myself thinking of him.
On that very same day, on the other side of the planet, my little boy Richardson Downe Loke Ken, at ten months of age, took his first unaided steps, launching a jerky trajectory from the sofa to the television set, where he hugged the image of Sir Alex Ferguson. From his birth, I have marveled at Kenny’s boundless energy, his gentle disposition and his ability to fill his mother’s and my existence with one part challenge and nine parts joy. I only hope that I am able to teach him the same lessons that my father taught me.
It is to these two very special people that I dedicate this work.
and that driver behaviours. respectively). and destination-activity orientation. personality traits. on average.ABSTRACT Motor vehicle crashes are a serious social and economic problem in Malaysia. gender and ethnicity) and psychological (locus of control. 302 and 252. The proximal variable was comprised of a measure of self-reported behaviour in traffic (BIT) on which high scores were considered consistent with Type A behaviour pattern (TABP). A contextual mediated model was used to examine interactions between a set of variables considered distal to the causality of the crash event. demographic (age. demographic characteristics and driving exposure in predicting crash and injury occurrence. The role of the proximal variable in mediating distal effects on crash outcomes was also investigated. Effects of the distal variables and proximal variable on self-reported history of crash occurrence and injuries were examined. seven fatalities are recorded each day. However. previous attempts to investigate relationships between psycho-social variables and crash incidence have frequently yielded weak associations and inconclusive results. where. driving experience and demographic characteristics are the specific contributors of these factors. vii . externally-focused frustration. freeway urgency. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) characteristics. some personality constructs. Distal variables included driver (driving experience and driving frequency). one sample of university students whose primary mode of transportation involved motorcycle riding (n = 122) and one sample of professional taxicab drivers (n = 149) were studied. self-reported patterns of driving considered more proximal to the causality of the crash and self-reported crash and injury histories of the participants. The present research was conducted to examine the interaction between the role of behaviour in traffic. hopelessness. Previous research has found that human factors play the chief role in contributing to crash outcomes. Three samples of university students whose primary mode of transportation involved driving automobiles (n = 301. BIT had four components: usurpation of right-of-way.
BIT. The role of the proximal variable. all four BIT components were associated with higher occurrence of both self-reported motor vehicle crashes and crash-related injury. The advantages of multi-disciplinary approaches to the study of roadway crashes are discussed. particularly with respect to an ongoing debate within traffic psychology over the comparative importance of theories or models of driving behaviour. viii . As hypothesised.Results indicated a complex series of interactions between the variables. as well. Among distal variables. As reported in previous studies. locus of control moderated the BIT-aggression relationship. significant direct effects on self-reported driving behaviour (BIT) were consistently observed with samples of automobile drivers and motorcyclists but not to the same degree among professional taxicab drivers. Implications for both theory and practice are discussed. in mediating the effects of the distal variables was analysed using a four-step regression procedure developed by Baron and Kenny (1986) and using structural equation modelling (SEM) with LISREL. Results indicated that. consistent with the assumptions of the contextual mediated model. Areas for further study include the role of locus of control and other distal variables in the behavioural adaptation process at the root of most risk and task interface capability theories and applications to driver selection and training procedures. BIT exerted a strong mediational influence over the effects of distal variables on crash outcomes. Two types of hostile automatic thoughts – with content related to physical aggression or revenge – moderated the BITaggression relationship.
3 126.96.36.199 1.3 The Individual Differences Approach 2.2 1.1 Human Factors and the Motor Vehicle Safety Problem in Malaysia 2.4 Risk Theories 2.1 An Applied Perspective 2.2 Traffic Psychology: Slow Progress in Theory-Building 188.8.131.52 184.108.40.206 Risk Homeostasis Theory (RHT) 2.2 2.4 220.127.116.11 The Emergence of Traffic Psychology as a Scientific Discipline 2.2.2 A Multidisciplinary Approach Theories of Driving Behaviour 2.1 Accident Proneness 2.1 Concepts.3 ix .TABLE OF CONTENTS COPYRIGHT PAGE DECLARATION ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS DEDICATION ABSTRACT TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES PREFACE CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 18.104.22.168 Differential Accident Involvement 2.3. Theories and Models 2.1 Human Factors in Roadway Crashes: A Vexing Research Challenge 22.214.171.124.3.1 Roadway Crashes in Malaysia and Public Perceptions of Causality 126.96.36.199 Studies of Causal Factors in Malaysian Roadway Crashes The Professional Background 2.6 Background of the Study Road Safety in Malaysia The Problem Statement The Professional Significance of the Study Overview of the Methodology Delimitations ii iii iv vi vii ix xv xviii xx 1 1 2 4 5 7 9 12 12 12 17 19 19 21 21 22 24 24 25 26 28 30 31 31 CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 2.
2 Driving Frequency and Traffic Exposure 2.1 Locus of Control 2.3.5 Hierarchical Theories of Driver Adaptation 2.1 Age 2.1 Type A Behaviour Pattern and Motor Vehicle Crashes 188.8.131.52.184.108.40.206 2.2.1 Driver Characteristics: Driver Experience and Driving Frequency 3.5.4. Gender and Ethnicity 3.1 Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) 220.127.116.11.3 Locus of Control and Ethnicity 18.104.22.168.1 Unidimensional and Multidimensional Constructs 2.3 Core Concepts in the Contextual Mediated Model: Moderation and Mediation 2.1.1 Demographic Variables 2.3 Locus of Control 3.6 Task Capability Interface (TCI) Theory 2.2.5 Aggression 78 78 84 84 84 84 85 85 x .3 Ethnicity 22.214.171.124 A Contextual Mediated Model of Personality and Behavioral Predictors of Motor Vehicle Crashes 2.2 Locus of Control and Driving Behaviour 2.4 Hopelessness 3.2 Driver Characteristics 2.2 Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) Descriptive Models of Driver Behaviour 126.96.36.199 188.8.131.52.2 Hopelessness 2.2 Conceptualization and the Research Framework Definition of the Variables 184.108.40.206.5.3 Aggression Proximal Variables in the Present Research 220.127.116.11.18.104.22.168.1 The Haddon Matrix 2.1.2 Process Models 2.5 Use of the Contextual Mediated Model in Other Research Distal Variables in the Present Study 2.1.2 A Conceptual Shift from TAPB to Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) As A Variable 34 35 37 38 38 39 41 41 42 42 43 45 47 49 50 50 50 52 56 58 58 61 63 63 63 64 67 69 71 73 73 75 CHAPTER 3: METHOD OF INVESTIGATION 22.214.171.124 Demographic Variables: Age.126.96.36.199.3.1 Experience 2.1 Statistical Models 2.2 Gender 2.2.2 Zero Risk Theory 2.5.4 188.8.131.52.184.108.40.206.6.2.7 Attitude-behaviour Theories 2.1 3.2.3 Psychological Variables 2.4 Studies of Driving Behaviour Using the Contextual Mediated Model 2.
4 Linear Regression Analysis 3.7.3 Study 1C 220.127.116.11.2.1 Studies 1 and 2 18.104.22.168 The Sample 3.9 Skewness and Kurtosis 86 87 88 88 88 88 89 89 90 90 91 93 93 94 94 96 97 97 98 98 99 99 100 100 103 103 104 104 104 105 105 107 107 107 108 108 108 109 109 110 110 xi .5 Study 3 Formulation of Hypotheses Methods of Data Collection and Analysis 22.214.171.124.6.1 Chi-Square (χ2).2.2.3 Beck Hopelessness Scale (BHS) 3.3 3.1 Study 1A 3.7.4 Aggression Questionnaire (AQ) 126.96.36.199 Study 3 Analysis of the Data 3.7 3.7 Structural Equation Modelling 3.4 3.5 3.1 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) Scale 3.4 Normed Fit Index (NFI) 3.7.6 3.3.5 Multiple Regression Analysis 3. p-Value and χ2/df Ratio 3.7.3 Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) and Root Mean Square Residual (RMR) 3.2.5 Hostile Automatic Thoughts (HAT) 3.9 Injury Occurrence Research Design of the Studies 3.2.8 Kolmogorov-Smirnov One-Sample Test 3.6 Personal Information Form (PIF) Procedure 188.8.131.52 Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) and Comparative Fit Index (CFI) 184.108.40.206.7 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) 220.127.116.11 Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index (AGFI) 18.104.22.168.22.214.171.124.3 The General Linear Model (GLM) Univariate Analysis 126.96.36.199.2 One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) 3.2 Degree of freedom (df) 188.8.131.52 Logistic Regression Analysis 3.8 Parsimony Goodness-of-Fit Index (PGFI) 3.4 Study 2 184.108.40.206 Levenson Locus of Control Scale 3.8 Crash Occurrence 3.7 Expected Cross-Validation Index (ECVI) 3.2 Study 1B 220.127.116.11.18.104.22.168 Independent-sample t-tests 22.214.171.124 Research Instruments 3.3.6 Hostile Automatic Thoughts 3.
6.4 4.12 Hypothesis 12: Locus of Control Moderates the Relationship Between Aggression and Behaviour in Traffic 4.3.3 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the AQ Scale 4.2 Externality-chance and Externality-powerful-others as Moderators 4.12.2 Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 1 126.96.36.199.1 Internality as a Moderator 188.8.131.52.4 Hypothesis 4: Demographic Variables Influence Locus of Control 4.10 Hypothesis 10: Demographic Factors Influence Aggression 4.2 Parallel-Form Reliability 4.1 Results of Study 1 4.1 Reliability Test Results: Cronbach’s Alpha 4.5 Hypothesis 5: Demographic Variables Influence Hopelessness 184.108.40.206 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the BIT Scale 4.4 Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 3 Reliability and Validity 4.6.3 4.6 Hypothesis 6: Locus of control Influences Hopelessness 220.127.116.11.13 Hypothesis 13: Demographic Factors Influence Hostile Automatic Thoughts 4.6.9 Hypothesis 9: Hopelessness Moderates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Behaviour in Traffic 4.6.2 Results of Study 2 4.3 Validity Test Results 4.5 4.6.7 Hypothesis 7: Hopelessness Influences Behaviour in Traffic 18.104.22.168 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the HAT Scale Normality.6.1 Age.3 Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 2 4.11 Hypothesis 11: Aggression Influences Behaviour in Traffic 4.1 Description of the Sample 4.6.14 Hypothesis 14: Hostile Automatic Thoughts Influence Behaviour In Traffic 4.6.3.CHAPTER 4: ANALYSIS OF DATA 22.214.171.124.6. Gender and Ethnicity 126.96.36.199.2.2 Hypothesis 2: Driver Characteristics Influence Behaviour in Traffic 4.8 Hypothesis 8: Locus of control Influences Behaviour in Traffic 4.3 Hypothesis 3: Demographic Variables Influence Behaviour in Traffic 188.8.131.52.6.15 Hypothesis 15: Hostile Automatic Thoughts Moderate the 112 112 112 114 115 115 116 116 118 118 119 120 120 121 122 124 126 126 130 132 134 134 135 139 140 142 143 143 145 147 149 151 153 153 154 156 157 4.6 xii . Skewness and Kurtosis Crash and Injury Occurrence Data Distal and Proximal Variable Data 4.3.1 Hypothesis 1: Behaviour in Traffic Influences Motor Vehicle Crash Outcomes 4.2 4.2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Levenson Locus of Control Scale 4.3 Results of Study 3 Hypothesis Testing 4.
1 Generalisability of Findings 5.2 Study 2: Motorcyclists 5.4 Testing the Contextual Mediated Model 184.108.40.206 Study 1C: Automobile Drivers 5.9 Relationship Between Aggression and Behaviour in Traffic 220.127.116.11.8.4 5.7 4.5.2 Differences between Automobile Drivers and Taxicab Drivers 4.16 Summary of Hypothesis Tests Testing the Contextual Mediated Model Using Structural Equation Modelling (LISREL Analysis) 4.5 5.7.3 Best Fit or Best Model 5.1 Study 1C 4.8.2 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Aggression and Crash Outcomes 4.2 Goodness of Fit 5.8 4.3 Timeframe for Data Collection 179 182 185 185 187 189 190 194 194 196 197 201 201 202 203 203 204 204 210 211 5.7.1 Internal and External Locus of Control as Determinants of Driving Behaviour 5.1 Advantages of Using SEM 5.1 5.3 Differences between Motorcycle Drivers and Taxicab Drivers 158 159 163 163 169 170 173 173 173 174 174 176 176 177 177 179 CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION 5.2 5.3 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hostile Automatic Thought and Crash Outcome 4.3 Locus of Control and Ethnicity: Malay and Chinese-Malaysian Drivers Aggression Testing the Contextual Mediated Model Using Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) 5.5.3 A Contextual Mediated Model for Understanding Factors Influencing Unsafe Driving Hopelessness Locus of Control 18.104.22.168. Motorcycle Drivers and Taxicab Drivers 4.3 Study 3 Testing Mediational Relationships Using SPSS 4.2 Study 2 22.214.171.124 Use of Self-Report Methods 5.3 Study 3: Taxicab Drivers 126.96.36.199.188.8.131.52 What Can be Learned from Testing Contextual Models with SEM? Limitations of the Study and Methodological Considerations 184.108.40.206.2 Locus of Control and Ethnicity: Indian-Malaysian Drivers 220.127.116.11 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hopelessness and Crash Outcomes 4.4 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Crash Outcomes Comparison of Automobile Drivers.9.5.1 Differences between Automobile Drivers and Motorcycle Drivers 4.6 xiii .
7.2 Factors in Behavioural Adaptation (BA) 5.3 Education 18.104.22.168 Driver Selection. Models in Traffic Psychology 5.1 Generating and classifying crash prevention interventions 5.4. Training and Rehabilitation 5.1 Theory vs.22.214.171.124 Engineering Interventions 126.96.36.199.4 Preventive Measures: “The Three E’s” 5.5.7 5.4 Enforcement 212 215 215 218 220 221 221 221 229 230 CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION 233 REFERENCES GLOSSARY APPENDICES Appendix A List of Published and Research Scales Appendix B Personal Information (PIF) 237 287 294 297 xiv .4 Measurement of Driving Frequency Implications and Areas for Further Study 188.8.131.52.
2 and 3 States from Which Study 1 Participants Had Acquired Their Original Drivers’ Licenses States from Which Study 2 Participants Had Acquired Their Original Motorcyclists’ Licenses Summary of Internal Reliability Coefficient Results Parallel-Form Reliability for Form A and Form B (BIT) Validity of BIT scales – Summary of Confirmatory Factor Analyses Validity of the Levenson Locus of Control Scale – Summary of Confirmatory Factor Analysis Validity of the AQ scales – Summary of Confirmatory Factor Analysis Summary of LISREL Results on Validity for HAT (Study 1C) Normality Tests.9 4.10 4.8 111 121 121 122 4.4 115 117 118 119 4. Table Page 2.3 3.3 114 4.4 3.1 2.7 4. Kurtosis and Skewness Statistics 13 14 57 91 95 97 98 101 112 114 2.2 4. 2002-2006 Numbers of Automobile Drivers and Motorcyclists Involved in Road Crashes by Age Group Key Value Clusters for Each Malaysian Ethnic Group Research Hypotheses Dimensions of the BIT scale The Five Subscales of the Aggression Questionnaire The Three Subscales of the Hostile Automatic Thoughts (HAT) Scale Statistical Methods for Hypothesis Testing Gender and Ethnicity of the Sample for Studies 1 and 2 Age.5 4.6 4. Gender and Ethnicity of Participants in Studies 1.3 3.LIST OF TABLES No.1 3.11 xv .2 Malaysian Roadway Crashes and Casualties.1 4.5 4.2 3.
28 4.21 135 4.20 134 4.19 133 4. Gender and Ethnicity in Study 1 (N=855) 124 125 Crash Occurrence Frequency.26 138 139 144 145 4. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 3 (n=133) Results of Logistic Regression Analyses Showing the Effects of BIT Component Factors on Crash Occurrence Results of Logistic Regression Analyses Showing the Effects of BIT Component Factors on Injury Occurrence The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores in Study 1A (N=301) The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores in Study 1B (N=302) The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores in Study 1C (N=252) The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores in Study 2 (N=122) The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores in Study 3 (N=133) Effects of Demographic Factors on total BIT Scores Direct effects of hopelessness on BIT scores Direct Effects of Locus of Control on Total BIT Scores 127 4.14 4.23 136 4.24 137 4. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1C (n=252) Means.25 138 4.4.13 4.12 4.18 131 4. Gender and Ethnicity in Study 2 (N=122) 125 Means.15 Crash and Injury Occurrence Crash Occurrence Frequency. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 2 (n=122) Means.16 128 4.29 xvi . Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1B (n=302) Means.22 136 4. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1A (n=301) Means.17 129 4.27 4.
30 4.3 5.33 4.40 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Aggression and Crash Outcomes 174 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hostile Automatic Thought and Crash Outcomes BIT Mediates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Crash Outcomes Goodness of Fit Statistics for Model 1C5 and 1C6 (Initial and Subsequent Analyses) Distribution of National Population and Sampled Participants by State State of Origin Compared with Crash Frequency and Vehicle Registrations (Study 1) State of Origin Compared with Crash Frequency and Vehicle Registrations (Study 2) Spearman rank correlations for States of Origin for Participants in Study 1 and Study 2 Engineering Applications for Crash Prevention 174 4.4.32 4.4 208 5.31 4.2 5.36 4.1 199 206 207 5.5 209 225 5.38 Direct Effects of Gender on AQ Total and Subscale Scores Direct Effects of Ethnicity on AQ Total and Subscale Factors 149 150 Effect of Aggression on Total BIT Scores and on BIT Component Factors 152 Summarised Results on the Hypotheses and Sub-hypotheses SEM Comparison (Study 1C) Different Contextual Models (Study 1C) Different Contextual Models (Study 2) Different Contextual Models (Study 3) BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hopelessness and Crash Outcomes 160 163 167 169 171 173 4.37 4.39 4.41 175 5.34 4.6 xvii .35 4.
1989) The Haddon Matrix (Noy. 2003) Inter-variable Relationships in Mediation Models Inter-variable Relationships in Moderation Models Page 36 37 40 42 44 46 47 2. 2000) Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen. 2000) Contrast between Rotter’s Unidimensional and Levenson’s Multidimensional Conceptual of Locus of Control Research Model (Study 1A and Study 2) Research Model (Study 1B) Research Model (Study 1C) Research Model (Study 3) Interaction Effects between Ethnicity and Internality on BIT Interaction Effect between Ethnicity and Externality-Chance on Usurpation of Right-of Way Moderating Effect of BHS on the Internality-BIT Relationship Moderating Effect of BHS on the Externality (Chance)-BIT Relationship 2.4 4.7 2.1 2.LIST OF FIGURES No.3 3. 2007) 50 Hierarchical Levels of Driving Behavior (after Keskinen.2 3.1 4.4 148 xviii .3 2.2 2. Behavioral Predictors and Motor Vehicle Crashes (from Sümer. Hatakka.8 Proposed Contextual Mediated Model for Safety Research in Agriculture (from Downe.9 59 2.2 147 148 4.5 Figure Task Cube (from Summala. 1996) Task-Capability Theory (after Fuller.4 2.1 3.3 4. 2. 1996.10 64 80 81 82 83 146 3.6 2. 1997) Contextual Mediated Model of Personality.
8 4.10 4.11 Interaction of Ethnicity and Verbal Aggression on Freeway Urgency Moderating Effect of Internality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship Moderating Effects of Externality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship Moderating Effect of Externality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship Contextual Mediated Model Study 1C5 Contextual Mediated Model 1C6 (Four BIT Factors) Contextual Mediated Model Study 1C (Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thoughts) Contextual Mediated Model Study 2 Contextual Mediated Model Study 3 153 154 155 158 165 166 168 170 172 4.5 4.4.12 4.7 4.9 4.13 xix .6 4.
Talib Rothengatter & Raphael Huguenin.PREFACE Accidents occur. are factors that influence the likelihood of occurrence. they were focused on the errand. lane deviation and all the rest. or wouldn’t. I like to watch boxing. but accidents or encounters with fairies or werewolves are random events. he’d taken the same course as she. My research design needed a serious re-working. they are prone to other types of error as well. She had been badly injured. But. I’m a fairly big guy. xx . programme. to the weary traveler. He’d sent me a nice card at Christmas. They quarreled and then left on his motorbike. only a trimester or two earlier. The factors she described that evening were the same ones I’d been trying to study – freeway urgency. She had needed to go on an errand. I hope it makes a contribution. But sometimes. and this thesis is the result. And they crashed. LISREL couldn’t. I wanted to throw in the towel. How important these factors are. I got back to work on them. like encounters with fairies and werewolves. She was afraid she had missed too many lectures. is a matter of debate … Obviously. 2004 Some three years or so into my Ph. at least not with real tears. They were hurrying. and his mental state. He was very popular with other students. handle the latent variables I wanted to include in my structural equation model. Her hands and voice quivered. things were not going well. I despair that we may never be able to snare this werewolf. The behaviour of the traveller. Then one evening into my office came a student from my first-year Critical Thinking class.D. I feel like it a bit right now. when humans are prone to imagine fairies or werewolves. I was confused by the results I was getting. but she’d nagged him. He didn’t want to go. I don’t cry much any more. I knew the fellow. they were frustrated and angry with each other. externally-focused frustration. she was riding pillion. finally. I feel like it each time I think of that moment. He died instantly and she spent three weeks in the hospital. I didn’t recognise her at first. I sure felt like it as I sat there beside her. I told her not to worry. they cut across a lane too quickly. just every so often. I’m pretty happy with it. He was driving. . Her face and arms had been bruised and lacerated. She told me about the motorcycle crash that had claimed the life of her cousin. She started crying and couldn’t stop.
Iwasaki. perceptual (Hong. 11). Even after decades of study. 1996. 2002. policy-makers. Drivers’ attentional (Most & Astur..2 million deaths in motor vehicle crashes worldwide (Peden.g. 2006. 2000). perceptual-motor processes (Young & Stanton. Green. This is particularly salient in developing countries. kinaesthetic (Zhang & Chaffin. 2004). 2007. 2007. Mohan & Hyder. scholars still search to identify the relative effects of vehicle. 2004). where rates of roadway accidents and deaths have been consistently higher than in other parts of the world (Peden & Hyder. state of mind and physical well-being. Enns. perceptual difficulties and drink driving” (p. Furuichi & Kadoma. Stanton & Pinto. 2002) and their impairment (de Raedt & Ponjaert-Kristofferson. Graham. “human factors play a major role in road accidents. cognitive (Vaa. 2002) and road safety engineering (e. judgement. anticipation. 1999). Scurfield. including the 1 . Mills & Vavrik. leading to a rich information base for regarding humancentred design as a “requirement for all elements in the traffic system. 2004) have been studied extensively. the most prevalent factors have been human failures associated with speed. 2000). 2001. Peters & Peters. Sleet. Sabey (1999). commented that. Consistently over the years.g. the quest for a better understanding of the causality and prevention of roadway mishaps has become an urgent task for safety researchers. Drivers’ performance and avoidance of collisions depend on their skills. Ogden. highway engineers and automotive design specialists.CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1. Theeuwes. 2001). 2000. Trick. Notwithstanding the extensive literature that exists on safety design factors for automotive products (e. Verwey.. road. such as Malaysia. for instance. environment and human characteristics on the risk of accidental events and fatalities. much of the recent attention on causal elements in roadway crashes has focused on the human factors involved. 2002). Olson.1 Background of the Study With an estimated 1.
790. 21). locus of control. including the study of a large number of variables. 1989).112). A total of 10. According to Dewar (2002b).roadway. hopelessness and other variables interacted to affect attitudes toward driving and the severity and frequency of participants’ self-reported involvement in motor vehicle crashes.332 drivers and 15. 2 . However. “the literature on personality has a long history. p. 2005). 1983). 1949) have since been replaced by more complex explanations that focus on the interaction between emotional. There was a total of 341. 2007). The research comprised five separate studies of Malaysian drivers aged 18 to 73 years.252 accidents in 2006 and over 6. More challenging has been the attempt to link personality and psychosocial variables to driver behaviour and performance. concludes by noting the delimitations of the research. as a “social menace”(Abdul Kareem. Very early initial attempts to identify an “accident proneness” personality trait (Tiliman & Hobbs. 2002. often labelled as “tragic” (Koh. there are conflicting findings and associated problems with this research” (p. 2003). behavioural and attitudinal characteristics of drivers and the environmental situations in which they find themselves (Haight. The high rate of roadway accidents and deaths has been described in both scholarly and popular print or internet media in extreme terms. This dissertation is a report of research into relevant psychosocial variables and their effects on self-reported driving behaviour.000 fatalities were recorded (Ministry of Transport Malaysia. 2004. McKenna. with the intent to determine the degree to which measures of aggression. describes its significance and presents an overview of the methodology used. Malaysia is also a nation with a disproportionately high frequency of motor vehicle accidents. and as a “major public health problem” (Subramaniam.732 motor vehicles were registered in 2006.351. This first chapter of this dissertation presents the background of the study. The chapter 1.2 Road Safety in Malaysia Malaysia is a nation of motor vehicle users. the vehicle and the new technologies that are increasingly being deployed by the road and fitted in vehicles” (Carsten.
1999. 2002b. Barrett & Alexander. Hence. Rimmö. 2004. Lajunen & Summala. 2002. Wells-Parker et al. 1979. 2004). aggression (Parkinson. Ball & Rizzon. 2005. Hwang. Historically. 2002) and many others. Investigations of individual differences have included driver age and gender (Beck. 1997). Blasco. 2000). 1997). 1997. 3). Cohn. 2002. attitudinal and personality correlates of roadtraffic crash risk. Verwey. Draskóczy. Shinar. Stewart. Hartos & Simons-Martin. 2001. 3 . Gal & Syna Desevilya. Many studies have been devoted to the examination of behavioural. Renner & Anderle. Gonzalez. 2003). 2002. Özkan. Ulleberg. Huguenin (2005) has argued that the field of traffic psychology arises from an “interdisciplinary. West & French. ethno-cultural background (Byrd. Barjonet & Tortosa. easily generalised to a variety of cultural and social settings. risk-taking and sensation-seeking (Horswill & Coster. Wu & Yen. Lin. Wells. Trimpop & Kirkcaldy. integrative and international viewpoint based on application in order to address changing situations and objectives” (p. Severson. often with widely varying results (Dewar. Gidron. 2004. 2001). 2007). and (b) the elimination or reduction of effects of task-induced or environmental stressors on human performance when driving (Brown. 1997). Huang. Schwebel. leading many researchers and safety organisations to regard road safety as a leading international development issue (Garg & Hyder. 1991. there has been an increasing recognition of the need for theoretical formulations and specific models. Vasconcellos. Loo. 2006. locus of control (Arthur. 2006. 2005. 1997). 2001.Trends toward high rates of motor vehicle crashes and fatalities have been observed in developing countries world-wide (Peden et al. Parada & Cortes. and the past twenty years has seen the emergence of the new discipline of traffic and transport psychology (Barjonet & Tortosa. Lajunen & Kaistinen. that allow for better prediction and explanation of roadway crashes (Risser & Nickel. 1994. Dewar. 2000. 1993. traffic psychology studies have tended to focus categorically on two main areas of interest: (a) an examination of the wide variety of individual differences in task performance among people sharing the same system. 2003. Sumala & Zakowska. Elander. 2005).
1. has been that such behavioural models have seldom been used as the foundation for developing an integrated. Sümer (2003). 2004). falsifiable hypotheses might be drawn (Summala. Hampson & Morris. with resulting outcomes often involving crash and injury. This has led to a growing interest in modelling human behaviour involved in the driving task and. road and environmental conditions that comprise the driving situation. theoretical basis for traffic psychology (Huguenin. drivers still operate automobiles and motorcycles in ways that reduce the likelihood of safe arrival at destinations.3 The Problem Statement Given widespread awareness about the high rates of death and injury resulting from motor vehicle crashes worldwide and in Malaysia. however. A frequent criticism. has recently proposed a promising contextual mediated model which distinguishes between distal (i. externally-focused frustration. Richardson and Downe (2000) and others have argued that there is a need to take into consideration the myriad of interactions between driver characteristics and the driving context and even between driver psychological variables themselves. leaving the field with inadequate theory development from which testable. 1996. vehicle. 1997. with the risk of roadway casualty? 4 . Speeding. in particular. in turn. The relationship between functional models which predict dynamic road user behaviour and the availability of broader integrative theory in traffic psychology is discussed at length in chapter 2 of this thesis. personality and demographic) and proximal (i. Parker.Increasingly. it has been recognised that the psychosocial factors involved in driving safely differ greatly across the range of human. loss of attention and the deliberate usurpation of right-of-way are frequent behaviours in traffic. for instance. What demographic and personality factors are associated and interact with unsafe driving behaviour and. 2005)..e. in developing general and specific cognitive models of individuals’ interaction with the world around them (Brown..e. aberrant driving behaviours) variables in predicting traffic accident involvement. 1997). Noy (1997).
but also on their interactions. (d) driver hopelessness. psychological and behavioural variables inherent in the dynamics leading motor vehicle crashes. (b) driving experience. the present research might be seen as making a contribution to our growing understanding of that very interface. (e) driver aggression. 9). Fifteen hypotheses are formulated to predict that distal variables including: (a) driver age. The specific purpose of this thesis is to further knowledge about drivers’ behaviour in traffic by applying Sümer’s (2003) construct of a conceptual mediated model. (c) driver locus of control. Results of the resulting analyses are detailed in chapter 3. 2005. gender and ethnicity. This is both a key goal and a persistent challenge within the emerging field of traffic psychology. While there is no doubt that collective knowledge pertaining to the causality and prevention of roadway crashes is growing exponentially.4 The Professional Significance of the Study With the frequency of roadway crashes. The effect of the proximal variables on self-reported crash experience and the severity of injuries associated with crashes are hypothesised to be moderated by the distal variables. in which distal psychosocial factors exert an influence on behavioural tendencies more proximally related to the crash event. situated as proximal variables. By better understanding the manner in which psychosocial characteristics of individuals might predispose them to engage in unsafe driving behaviour. 1. it becomes possible to construct a broader awareness of how demographic and personality variables contribute to motor vehicle crashes. By focusing on not only demographic. “the basic question must be asked as to whether traffic psychologists can appropriately solve the tasks that are to be mastered at the interface between people and road traffic” (Huguenin. 5 . with a view to assessing which preventive measures would be most effective.The aim of the present research is to determine those factors contributing to traffic accidents on Malaysia roadways. p. injuries and deaths. this research is important to organisations and people concerned with driving safety. and (f) drivers’ hostile automatic thoughts would not only affect each other but also four self-reported measures of behaviour in traffic.
Hatakka. 2000). Rothengatter. 2004). 6 . 2005. in the applied sciences. road safety measures and public policy. 2001. the Malaysian setting has remained relatively understudied (Richardson & Downe. The present research adds to the growing body of literature dealing with driver aggression and its various forms of expression. It is also the first attempt to examine closely the effects of the psychological construct of hopelessness on driver behaviour.Of particular interest may be variables related to driver affect. the breadth of their scope and the complexity of key constructs raise concerns as to whether they actually stimulate or retard practical work in a specialised field (Huguenin. Laapotti. the plethora of theories available. Katila & Peräaho. The present research offers a perspective on this divergence of viewpoints by discussing how empirically-based models of behavioural processes can be strengthened through a priori integration with broader theoretical precepts. all of which have been noted as purposes for traffic psychology (Brown & Noy. 2004. 1997). Some authors have suggested that. Moreover. the development and adaptation of in-vehicle safety devices or intelligent transportation systems and the construction of models to foster additional research. 1974). There is a growing sentiment that. Findings of the present research have implications for driver selection and training. an area that some authors have argued is overlooked in the current literature (Keskinen. they also have implications for a broader “theory versus model” debate in traffic psychology. Näätänen & Summala. “models that focus on specific aspects of road user behaviour seem capable of providing useful frameworks for organising and interpreting data … but experience suggests that such models are more likely to be useful if they are based on the consideration of empirical data rather than being derived from theoretical issues” (Grayson. 2004. 1993). p. Recent trends in the philosophy of science call conventional hypothetico-deductive processes into question (Becker. Despite considerable popular attention to the problem of motor vehicle crashes and fatalities in the developing countries of Southeast Asia. 94). Utzelmann. 1997.
2005) and attempts to link driver performance to road engineering (e. although adding additional layers of variables and complexity to the analysis. may be limiting the development of effective public policy and intervention measures. Radin Umar. It is useful. A multi-disciplinary approach has been generally considered one of the hallmarks of the new field of traffic psychology (Rothengatter. Che Ali. which deals with methodology.g. 2001). and is appropriate for this examination of psychosocial features of the Malaysian driver.Notwithstanding a handful of well-founded reviews of statistical trends and risk factors (e. very little research has been focused on the psychological and social features of the motoring population in Malaysia.. 2001).g. this work represents the first instance in which Baron & Kenny’s (1986) widely-cited procedure for establishing mediation has been performed using logistic regression. human motivation. 7 . Certain methodological considerations add to the professional significance of this research. This broader perspective. To the author’s knowledge. in turn. The present research contributes a new perspective by offering initial empirical observations on several psychosocial factors that could be important in understanding why Malaysian drivers behave as they do in traffic.. incorporating cognitive ergonomics. with emphasis on the importance of model comprehensiveness as a factor in addition to goodness-of-fit. this research draws on principles from a wide range of disciplines. This has left the door open for largely unsupported speculation about the character of Malaysian drivers and. In doing so.5 Overview of the Methodology Questions about how the study was conducted and the choice of research methods are answered fully in chapter 3. and on the manner in which those factors interact to affect safety outcomes on the roadway. goes some distance in differentiating the present study from other more narrowly-defined examinations of driver behaviour. Selection of alternate structural equation models is also discussed. 1. cultural anthropology and applied psychology. attitude theory.
in their capacity to explain which specific predictors 8 . access to vehicle) and psychological (locus of control. Black.however. 2003). hostile automatic thoughts) on four self-reported measures of behaviour in traffic (usurpation of right-of-way. in which there was no direct manipulation of independent variables in the laboratory or field setting. 711). cultural background). or outcome. p. In Study 1. destination-oriented activity) and two self-reported measures of accidentrelated (crash occurrence and injury occurrence) outcomes were assessed. driving (experience. 1B and 1C). each entailing data collection from a different sample. The present research applied an ex post facto research design. Structural equation modelling is a family of statistical methods that “examines the structure of interrelationships expressed in a series of equations. externally-focused frustration. the effects of selected demographic (age. hopelessness. Babin. These equations depict all of the relationships among constructs (the dependent and independent variables) involved in the analysis” (Hair. Study 2 and Study 3. variables (Sekaran. in their capacity to predict outcomes and. freeway urgency. Anderson & Tatham. at the conclusion of Study 1C. moderating and mediating relationships between variables. second. was a multi-dimensional path analysis depicting causal. but where differences which already existed between subject groups on independent measures were evaluated to determine their naturally-occurring influence on dependent. In this case. gender. aggression. to include in this first chapter a general statement of the method used in order to round out the introductory picture presented. Structural equation models were also used to explain the relationships between these variables. In each successive study. 2006. Maruyama (1998) has argued that the two prominent reasons why researchers use structural equation modelling techniques lie. three separate phases were carried out (Study 1A. This model drew on the similar conceptual theory used by Sümer (2003) in the construction of his earlier contextualmediated model. similar to a series of multiple regression equations. driving experience. The present research consisted of three studies: Study 1. The final result. different combinations of variables were added to the respective structured equation model and the level of complexity was examined. first.
a third model was constructed. a model was constructed using a sample of undergraduate participants for whom motorcycles were the primary mode of transport. This issue is discussed at some length in chapter 5 of the thesis.are most important in predicting. where it is argued that the “convenience sample” used in the model-building phases was. two additional studies (Study 2 and Study 3) were undertaken to test the resilience of selected components of the resulting structural equation model with different driver populations. These are discussed in detail in chapter 5 of the thesis but relevant issues are introduced here. this time sampling professional taxicab drivers in the Kuala Lumpur area. Generalisability of the present study may be constrained by the single-setting of the subject pool and the limitations of the particular methods selected. data were collected through classroom-based group administration of research instruments. 9 . leaving room for questions about the generalisability of findings to populations within and outside Malaysia. Such predictive capabilities were considered to be of importance in any examination of the dynamics leading to risks of roadway crashes and fatalities. In Study 2. representative of the characteristics of high-risk Malaysian drivers. In Study 3. behavioural inventories and personal profile questionnaires. Again. verbally administered psychometric instruments. Student participants sampled for two of the three studies were selected from an undergraduate population at a single university. with resulting variable relationships compared to the model that had been built from the responses of automobile users in Study 1.to 45-minute trips. in fact. A team of researchers flagged down taxi drivers at random and. 1.6 Delimitations All research is confined by the boundaries of its scope and design. over the course of 30. After the initial model-building had been completed.
lapses and violations as differing behavioural responses underlying the crash event (Reason. Lapses involve problems with attention and memory and include such things as switching on one thing when meaning to switch on something else. The relationship between the manner 10 . The prevalence of self-report measures in traffic safety research. 1997). and (c) culpability for crash outcomes. Are the attitudes. while recognising the distinction. 2001) and others down-playing them (Hattaka. Manstead. did not specifically compare these driving patterns within the context of participants’ self-reported behaviour in traffic. as well. along with its implications for the validity of results and potential alternative methodologies. In a meta-review of traffic safety research. Finally. 2002. against the first two and these are covered in chapter 2. the research did not address the question of differences arising from the extent to which drivers considered themselves to be liable for the self-reported crash outcomes. Errors are a type of driving mistake involving failures of observation and misjudgement. much of the recent driving safety literature has distinguished between errors. Stradling. The present research included procedural elements to mitigate. The present research. at least to a certain extent. such as failing to check the rear-view mirror before pulling out or changing lanes. Violations are deliberate deviations from those practices believed to be necessary to safely operate a vehicle and include such behaviours as speeding. Boyce & Geller. is discussed in chapter 5 of the thesis. However. (b) time-period for calculating accident frequency.Concerns with research of this nature also frequently centre around the question of self-reported data. 1990). af Wählberg (2003) outlined three significant methodological deficiencies that have plagued the study of traffic accident predictors. social desirability or response set biases? Indeed. there has been a vigorous debate about the utility of self-report measures in safety research for several years. Katila & Laapotti. close following or taking aggressive actions against another driver or vehicle. Keskinen. accident histories and behavioural trends reported by participants really valid? Or are they prone to the influences of confabulation. including: (a) test-retest reliability of predictors. with some authors emphasizing methodological risks (af Wählberg. Baxter & Campbell.
in which behaviour in traffic was measured in this research and the dimensions offered by Reason et al is discussed in chapter 5. 11 .
industrialisation and motorisation. 2006). in order of frequency. These are thought to have contributed. “bullies” and “selfish”. 2005). “peaceful”.000 fatalities were recorded (Ministry of Transport Malaysia. in aggregate. 2005). Malaysian drivers have been consistently characterized as “confrontational”. inconsiderate and aggressive. A developing country in Southeast Asia. 2007). Over 6.1 2.252 motor vehicle accidents in Malaysia. “friendly”. “patient”. or as “negligent” (“Malaysia Records Highest Single-Day Death Toll”. Recently. “obnoxious” and “cowardly” (“Cowardly Malaysian Drivers”. economic expansion. as a social “menace”(Abdul Kareem. to a rapid increase 12 . “laid-back” and “considerate”. and as a “major public health problem” (Subramaniam. Downe and Loke (2004) reported that. “ugly motorists” (“Rude Drivers”. “impatient”. when asked to provide five adjectives which would “describe what Malaysians are like”. The public image of driving in Malaysia – and the generally negative reputation of the driving community – suggests that roadway safety has emerged as a significant national problem.CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 2.1.1 Human Factors and the Motor Vehicle Safety Problem in Malaysia Roadway Crashes in Malaysia and Public Perceptions of Causality In 2006. Malaysia has experienced remarkable increases in population. A succession of online weblogs and internet sites authored by tourists and local writers alike have condemned Malaysian drivers as dangerous. “reckless”. the Minister of Health characterised Malaysian roads as “worse than a war zone”. In newspaper reports. 2007). 2003). “discourteous” (Davin Arul. there were 341. 2007). a sample of 348 first-year university students indicated. 2007). The high rate of roadway accidents and deaths has been described in scholarly and popular print or internet media in extreme terms. pointing out that annual fatalities exceed the total deaths among American combat personnel over four years of fighting in Iraq (Zolkepli. often labelled as “tragic” (Koh. they indicated “angry”. Nation-wide statistics seem to underscore the popular concern over safety issues. 2005). but when asked to “describe what Malaysian drivers are like”. 1989). “selfish” (“Our Roads are Filled”.
653 2004 326. Some of the urgency in discussions of Malaysia’s road safety problem has been related to the high frequency of roadway deaths and injuries occurring among adolescent and post-adolescent age groups (Radin Umar.in the number of road traffic crashes (Abdul Kareem. & Wong.218 2005 6.012 19. in Malaysia. In Malaysia.264 2006 341. Table 2.304 in 1994 to 6.552 37. This suggests that studies. The number of road fatalities has decreased slightly from 6. Table 2.815 2005 328. Subramaniam & Law.891 8.040 2004 6.000 vehicles in 1996 to 3. 2005). 2005).to 25-year-old age group (see table 2.228 9. one- third of all crashes in Malaysia involve automobile users or motorcyclists within the 16.98 deaths per 10.287 in 2006. Generally. 2003.000 vehicles in 2006.109 in 1996 to a total of 341.200 9.415 52.7111 2003 298.236 49.395 2006 6.645 54.286 9. drivers within the senior secondary school and university age ranges must be regarded as being at a potentially higher level of risk than other age cohorts. Mohd Zulkiflee. from 189.1: Malaysian Roadway Crashes and Casualties. 2002-2006 Motor Vehicle Crashes 2002 Total 279. Radin Umar. higher than any other age grouping or combination of consecutive age groupings. Studies 13 .741 38.417 47. Abdul Rahman.253 source: Royal Malaysian Police (2007) The road accident death rate in Malaysia dropped from 8. the number of crashes has increased 80% over the past ten years.287 9.000 vehicles (Law.091 37.252 in 2006 (Ministry of Transport Malaysia.425 5. 2007).885 35.1 summarises the five-year incidence of crashes and injuries.20 deaths per 10. 2005).252 Motor Vehicle Casualties 2002 Fatalities Severe Injuries Minor Injuries Total 35. but still lags behind frequencies in developed countries which generally fall below 3 deaths per 10.2).425 2003 6.
99 164 0.6 million a day on motor claims (Abdul Kareem.67 billion.10 3.65 2.997 14. or about 2.820 13.034 4.315 17.921 100 20.16 90 0.82 1.329 100 source:Royal Malaysian Police (2000.023 5.593 11.65 121 0.08 2.37 337 1.54 708 3.27 458 2.77 3.64 135 0.56 3. 2001.431 7.of university-aged drivers are critical to understanding behavioural and situational factors that predict the most commonly occurring class of crashes (Stevenson.50 979 4.41 302 1. Some Ministry of Health estimates of medical costs alone have been as high as RM5.63 160 0. 14 .620 7.48 323 1.07 2.91 984 4.84 1. and particularly among younger drivers.416 6.947 10.85 2.551 12.49 450 2.4% of the Gross Domestic Product (Asian Development Bank.953 17.418 100 19.180 10.48 105 0.178 15. or an average of RM4.71 543 2. Table 2.08 1.309 10.45 30 0. 2005).967 100 19.67 206 0.22 150 0.15 3.97 1.216 10.81 3. Palamara.68 128 0.15 572 2. in 1999 alone.92 2.29 2.40 1.005 15.72 554 2.08 585 2.709 8.26 463 2.05 1.05 2.7 billion.94 625 3.07 2. 2001).049 15.08 541 2.205 11.92 1.341 12. with one road accident victim admitted to hospital every six minutes (Bernama.15 43 0.389 6.110 10.76 22. 2002.81 1.086 9. It has been reported that.81 2. has resulted in considerable economic loss for the country.47 280 1.038 13.90 159 0.025 9.29 708 3.68 3. Recent international analyses have placed the total economic burden at around RM7 billion yearly.469 15.61 99 0.448 17. general insurers paid RM1. Morrison & Ryan.31 3.85 147 0.21 3.803 9.2: Numbers of Automobile Drivers and Motorcyclists Involved in Road Crashes by Age Group 2000 2001 2002 2003 Number % Number % Number % Number % 37 0.80 203 0.4 billion to RM5. 2006).23 2.11 2. 2003) Age 0-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-50 51-55 56-60 61-65 66-70 71-75 >75 Krishnan and Radin Umar (1997) pointed out that the prevalence of traffic injuries and fatalities among drivers.94 2. 2003).05 2.94 1.378 11.06 608 3.
Some seven years later. Criticisms of road configuration. In 1999. 1999). if people want to die? (Lim. physician and journalist has commented that: The human toll is unquantifiable. traffic congestion. There is no way to A popular measure the grief of those who have lost their loved ones. What else can we do. (Bernama. the same frustration was apparent when his Cabinet successor told a group of assembled journalists that: When I became Transport Minister two-and-a-half years ago I thought the biggest challenge was to build ports and airports. But it is nothing compared to bringing down the number of road deaths. The economic consequences can be estimated. signs and lighting have been levied in certain quarters 15 . In spite of numerous road safety campaigns the number of accident cases have been increasing. which is actually a nightmare. and that alone justifies making concerted efforts to address the issue … The economic costs in property damages are huge. controversy swirled over a reportedly cynical comment by the Transportation Minister of the day that: We have done what others have been doing around the world. economic figures and accident statistics provide only partial indications of the impact of the highway safety problem on Malaysian society. 2006). Politicians and government policy-makers have also struggled with the rising sense of public dissatisfaction over persistently high rates of traffic fatalities and with frustration in trying to find solutions to the problem. Public interest and political frustration has given rise to extensive speculation over the possible causes of the problem. The loss of potential income of the dead and maimed in turn dwarfs those medical outlays (Bakri Musa. or the pain of the maimed.Yet. but miniscule compared to the expenses of medical care and rehabilitation. lane definition. 2005).
The relatively high population of motorcycle riders. for instance.(Abdul Rahman et al. 2005).693 deaths among motorcycle operators and pillion riders. most accounts have come around to commenting on driver demographic and behavioural characteristics as significant factors in motor vehicle crashes (Che Ali. Those countries have had a motoring culture for nearly a century but our road-users are relatively newer to motoring (Sadiq. approximately 45 per cent of all registered vehicles in 2006 (Road Transport Department Malaysia. what they do – virtually all facets of the Malaysian driving population have come under increasing public scrutiny in an effort to further a better 16 . They are also bad in giving ample time to others and this is an example of non-defensive driving. 2006). In a recent newspaper interview. is often mentioned as a factor. senior policy-makers and politicians alike are shining the spotlight on the way in which Malaysian drivers’ traits and states may be contributing to the incidence of roadway accidents. 2001. Krishnan & Radin Umar. the Director-General of Malaysia’s Road Safety Department summarised popular opinion by stating: The problem we have is that our road-users are not mature. They don’t even stop to look left and right or look in the rear view mirror. In 2006. Researchers. Who they are. 2005). given greater risks of accident. A leading university professor and Director-General of Malaysia’s Institute for Road Safety Research similarly noted that: Malaysian drivers are not good in safety routines. unlike in other countries.215 deaths among motorcar drivers and passengers. 2007). serious injury and death (Per and Al Haji. newspaper columnists. though. the Royal Malaysian Police (2007) reported 3. Generally. 1997). 2007). how they think. as compared with 1. Maybe these drivers just never realised how simple it is to avoid accidents (Looi.
due to fewer trips and reduced traffic exposures as a result of slower economic activity. Conducting time-series regression analyses of police data. was personality or demographic factors of motorcyclist samples investigated. a needed focus in the analysis of programme effects. causal factors underlying crash and injury rates on Malaysian roadways have remained largely understudied. 1996). Ahmad Hariza. with a 27% and 38% drop in the rate of motorcycle casualties and motorcycle fatalities. In none of the studies of the MSP. Law et al. however. MSP interventions had been aimed at modifying motorcycle riders’ awareness and attitudes of safety issues related to helmet use. Radin Umar and Kulanthayan (1999) found that the same MSP had significantly improved motorcycle riders’ perception and understanding of safety issues. Ward.1. or else on the evaluation of specific safety interventions. The research that has been undertaken has tended to focus largely on the contribution of broader economic and social variables. Chalmers & Langley. rather than personality factors. In the same study. Musa. 2007) and crash Type And liability (Clarke.2 Studies of Causal Factors in Malaysian Roadway Crashes Notwithstanding this public outcry. 17 . This is. they reported that the Asian-wide economic recession significantly contributed to a reduction in traffic fatalities. reasons and social contexts of motorcycle use (Reeder. Bartle & Truman. risky behaviour (Chang & Yeh. Law. 2007). injuries and fatalities. since studies in other parts of the world have found that individual differences play a significant role in determining rider training outcomes. respectively. conspicuity and excessive speeding. Zulkaurnain and Kulanthayan (2005) examined the impact of economic variables on motorcycle-related crashes. For instance. (2005) also examined the impact of a national motorcycle safety programme (MSP) on crashes and found that it had effected a 25% reduction in the number of motorcycle accidents. 2.general understanding of the causes and potential prevention strategies related to the country’s traffic safety problem. Radin Umar. Mohd Nasir. In a separate study. perhaps.
these conflicting aims of speed and safety seemed to exacerbate them. 18 . The very monotony of the road surface. generalising to all driving environments and situations.Williamson (2003) offered a number of socio-political explanations for roadway safety issues in Malaysia as part of his analysis of the social effects of the national north-south expressway that. According to Williamson. motivated largely by the government’s fear of unregulated public assembly. he argued that national leadership intended it to be both a symbol of progress. Social attitudes and experience engendered by the rapid and high-profile growth of expressways and local road networks may have infiltrated the broader national consciousness. the factor that made the high speeds possible. 1996). He argued that. since 1994. Although the expressway was meant to avoid both traffic and accidents. This. road engineers devoted their efforts to creating a public artery in which speed and limited stoppage were design priorities. Describing the expressway as a “stunning infrastructural achievement” (p. including speeding and falling asleep at the wheel (“N-S Highway”. a capacity that makes them distinct as a society” (p. has linked peninsular communities. presented new circumstances because driving in empty space made staying awake a persistent problem … One strategy drivers have pursued to combat the boredom of the expressway is to drive faster … One of the potential challenges for drivers was the emptiness of the roadway itself (pp. 121-122). Williamson’s (2003) assertions do have certain implications for an understanding of how human factors may play a significant role in the high rate of motor vehicle crashes in Malaysia. It has been estimated by expressway management authorities that up to 95% of the crashes occurring along the northsouth artery are due to human error.122). they are accident prone. 110). however. resulted in a myriad of problems. “many Malaysians claim that as drivers.
experiential. 784). bad road conditions. the largest opportunities for harm reduction: A clear hierarchy of factors can be specified. “human behaviour makes a direct contribution to crash risk through the extent of knowledge and understanding of traffic systems. Panosch and Bukasa (2004) argued that: Road safety is less a technical but rather a human factors problem. Among engineering factors. West and French. driver behaviour (what the driver chooses to do) has much greater influence on safety than driver performance (what the driver can do).2 2. According to the Commission for Global Road Safety (2006). Evans (1996) further argued that changes in driver behaviour offer.1 The Professional Background Human Factors in Roadway Crashes: A Vexing Research Challenge Attention to the demographic. by far. The majority of accidents are not caused by problems of the vehicle. This has included the examination of age and gender. 62).2. Because at least one driver is involved in every traffic crash. roadway engineering has a much greater influence than automotive engineering (p. Among human factors. Christ. 1993). etc. 1993. 1991). Åberg. particularly. but rather 19 . research worldwide has focused on driver characteristics in an attempt to understand how human factors play into the causes and prevention of roadway accidents (Evans. personality characteristics (Elander. driver experience and skill and the relationship between risk and factors such as speed choice and alcohol consumption” (p. Lajunen and Summala (1997) noted that traffic safety researchers have attempted to identify the relationships between drivers’ individual characteristics and their involvement in motor vehicle crashes. levels of driving experience and. personality and behavioural characteristics of drivers has not been exclusive to the Malaysian scene. Human factors are far more important than engineering factors.2.
1997. 2005).by the behaviour of drivers. He conducted a meta-analysis of some 136 previous studies researching the effects of at least one psychological predictor of 20 . the individual-centered approach directly focuses on traffic relevant performance and personality aspects. The lack of progress in trying to identify psychological factors that cause. motor vehicle crashes has been attributed by af Wahlberg (2003) to three main methodological deficiencies: (a) an absence of reported test-retest reliability of the predictor. weak. While the system-centered approach aims at creating those road conditions that reduce the chance of accidents in advance. However. in reviewing early findings on human factors in this field. psychological factors may play different roles according to driver age (Dumais et al. unclear. prior accident experience (Lin et al. Haddon (1963). 2002. Lajunen & Summala. 2004). organisational climate (Caird & Kline. conflicting or of relatively little importance (Iversen & Rundmo. to a large degree. and (c) the failure to differentiate between culpable and non-culpable crashes. 641). Dewar (2002b) concluded that conflicting findings have been due largely to poorlycontrolled studies based on limited samples and on failing to control for driving exposure or alcohol use. empirical findings to date about the relationship between driver characteristics. 1994). as well as on the attitudes and behaviour of single drivers (p. or at least predict. 377). Further. There are two principle approaches in order to influence the driver: adjusting the traffic system to the driver or adjusting the driver to the traffic system. personality and traffic safety have been regarded by many as debatable. 2004) and other contextual variables. (b) the choice of time periods for calculating the frequency of crash-related outcomes. noted that “one of the remarkable aspects of motor vehicle accident research has been the willingness of many to base scientific investigations on data of a quality which would immediately cause their rejection as the stuff of research in any other subject area” (p. Ranney.
1965) but did not really gain momentum until the 1980s (Risser. the picture that emerges is indeed grave. 482). The need for a more specialised focus by applied psychologists and ergonomists on driving-related research problems and roadway safety was raised throughout the 1960s (Cozan. 1961. psychologists have given scant attention to this topic. driving behaviour and crash-related outcomes include: the use of self-reported crash data. 2003). Nevertheless. 1993). 2005). 2002.1 An Applied Perspective Ever since Tillman and Hobbs (1949) stated that “a man drives as he lives” (p. Novaco (2000) argued that: The field of transportation has always had a rich potential for psychology. 1997a).2. especially considering the salience of transportation in the routines of daily life.2 The Emergence of Traffic Psychology as a Scientific Discipline 2. information processing.traffic accidents and found to be wanting in one or more of these methodological aspects and concluded that: If these studies are representative of the research done. 2003). accuracy of witness recall of crash details (Crombag. Other methodological factors that may cloud the relationship between psycho-social variables. Preston & Harris.2. the lack of replication of many studies. It would seem that very few of the studies on accident predictors are actually possible to interpret in any straightforward way. Underwood & Milton. 321). and the influence of car and driver stereotypes on attributions of crash blameworthiness (Davies & Patel.2. there has been an interest in driver personality. the extent of exposure of drivers to the driving task (af Wahlberg. Wagenaar & van Koppen. motivation and behavioural performance as potential underlying causal factors in driver behaviour (Jonah. 2. 21 . 1996. and we are left with a very vague knowledge of what psychological variables can actually predict accidents (p. the use of inconsistent crash definitions.
traffic and transportation. These interrelationshps provide a vast terrain for psychological research (pp. but that complex traffic 22 . 246). medicine. or peculiar to. predict and provide measures to modify road user behaviour at the levels identified with. 2002).” (p. anthropology and sociology. transportation planning. 4). ergonomics. or the psychological support for intervention. integrative and international viewpoint based on application in order to address changing situations and objectives” (p. in a Spanish survey.2. Ochando. Groeger (2002) argued that there is “no psychology which is specific to. conferences and coordination of professional affiliations ever since (Groeger. psychology. To wit. as a general objective to minimise the harmful effects of traffic participation” (p. that individuals tend to combine their interests in traffic psychology with some other area of specialisation such as educational psychology.2 A Multidisciplinary Approach From the outset. eoncompassing engineering. 2. “the task of traffic psychology is to understand. This includes the research that serves this purpose” (p.2. Temes and Hermida (2001) found. traffic psychology has drawn from multidisciplinary perspectives. 4) and describes it as an “interdisciplinary. 3).) The Traffic and Transportation Psychology Division of the International Association of Applied Psychology was established in 1994 and there has been a steady growth in publications.Transportation systems shape the structure of our communities and impact the well-being of individuals … People’s reactions to the inconvenience and discomfort of a particular journey depend on many intertwined psychological processes including personality disposition. attitudes about the origin and destination of the trip and resources for choosing alternative travel modes and schedules. According to Rothengatter (2001).654-655. in the field of traffic. Indeed. Huguenin (2005) defines traffic psychology as “the psychological intervention.
1995. Garner and Zwi. Much of the ergonomic research carried out to date has been focused on adapting motor vehicle conveyances. Peden & Hyder.behaviour is a very important and worthwhile test-bed for psychology and psychological theory and. surrounding environments and 23 . which she described as the two main planks of social cognition. 1997. ergonomics is concerned with identifying and designing technical and organisational means for facilitating the driver’s interaction with the road environment. which are sometimes expressed in road markings and road signs (p. Ergonomics has made a contribution. and that “ergonomics has much to offer in the design of driver education and training programmes. It also includes the rules of the highway code Saad (2002) governing the use of the road infrastructure and interactions with other users. 2003. In a recent special edition. 2007. both by providing a better understanding of human-machine interaction. emphasising the primacy of attitudes and attributions. 2004. Stanton (2007) noted that. the design of vehicle automation and a deeper understanding of why drivers behave as they do” (p. Spielberger and Frank (1992) made similar comments with regard to the contribution of health psychology through the use of public health models and methodologies. 24). Parker (2004) pointed to the role played by social psychology in the area of road safety. the design of driver interfaces and driver assistance systems with motor vehicles. 1158). Johnston. the road environment comprises the vehicle. Odero. and of cognitive control over vehicle and highway systems involved (Bridger. a paradigm that has been applied increasingly to driving safety questions in developing countries (Dharmaratne & Ameratunga. over the past ten years. Wilson. the study of cognitive processes. commented that: From the perspective of the driver. 2002). 2000). Hyder & Peden. In the broadest sense. there have been 103 papers published in the Ergonomics journal alone. in particular. as well. the road infrastructure and other road users.
Walker. error and cognitive modelling. “This school of though. traffic psychologists frequently engage in theory-building. in which the goal is to manage automation and dynamic function allocations. Jannssen. Increasingly.3 2. Stanton & Young. which assumes a necessary communication between person and machine led to a dialogue between the various designers of car interiors.3. 2001). road signs and all the difference infrastructure and hence to a greater flexibility in their hitherto purely engineering approach which supposed that people would adapt to the machine” (p. ergonomic inputs into this body of knowledge are shifting from a perspective of understanding peoples’ interactions with driving-related artefacts to a role that contributes to the design of interacting systems in order to satisfy user needs and desires (Stanton. a paradigm that Boff (2006) described as “Generation One” ergonomics.tasks to human capabilities and limitations. which focuses on symbiotic technologies that amplify human physical and cognitive capabilities. Studies of human factors engineering of intelligent transportation systems are becoming increasingly important in the design of in-vehicle safety systems and driver decision support technologies (Lenior. According to Barjonet & Tortosa (2001). Noy. and “Generation Three” ergonomics. particularly the notions of mental load.1 Theories of Driving Behaviour Concepts. the most significant contribution of ergonomics was that it introduced the idea that motor vehicle operation was a task and therefore brought to traffic psychology the broad range of concepts and methods operating in industrial psychology and work-related accidents. This involves the coherent grouping of general propositions for use as principles in explaining various classes of driving phenomena. These applications are consistent with the paradigms Boff (2006) has described as “Generation Two” ergonomics. 2006. Concepts are the building blocks for theory and may be defined as: 24 . 26). Neerincx & Schriebers. 2. though. 2004). predict and modify road user behaviour. Theories and Models In attempting to understand. 1997.
this may be due to 25 . the latter is defined more narrowly as “a set of assumptions or postulates. Reasons for this are likely several. whether theories should explain everyday driving. which is then followed by a process of generalisation (Schneider. 1969).2 Traffic Psychology: Slow Progress in Theory-Building Theory development in traffic psychology has not progressed well (Summala. each ordering driving reality from its own particular set of empirical observations. generalisable understanding of the driving process can be deduced. Concepts can be linked together to form a theory. or both.3. or accident-causing behaviours. which attempts to provide a generalised working construct that can account for empirical data or relationships” (Chaplin. often providing a category for the classification of phenomena (Theodorson & Theodorson. Concepts are formed by a process of mental abstraction. 2005). “theory” is a term used interchangeably with the word “model”. In traffic psychology. which may be defined as: A set of interrelated principles and definitions that present a systematic view of phenomena by specifying relationships among variables with the purpose of explaining natural phenomena (Kerlinger. many models have been proposed.A word or set of words that expresses a general idea concerning the nature of something or the relations between things. 8) Any set of systematically interrelated concepts or hypotheses that purports to explain and predict phenomena (Robbins.. Ericsson & Bourne Jr. but for the purposes of this thesis. A-18) Often. Healy. Many of the theories that have been proposed have failed to generate testable hypotheses. Ranney (1994) pointed out that it has never been clear. often in mathematical form. To a degree. 1995). On the other hand. 2005. in traffic psychology. 2000. p. there is no generally accepted theory which elucidates principles from which a broad. 1985). 2. p.
Rothengatter. Notwithstanding these difficulties. five areas of theory attempt to explain and predict driving behaviour. 2004. Instead. hierarchical theories of driver adaptation. 2. given the complexity of human behaviour. and emotional determinants. attitudes. These may be classified as: theories of individual differences. Groeger (2000) took a similar position with regard to the range of driver motivations: Although any rational analysis would surely place preservation of one’s own personal safety at the heart of the concerns of a driver.the imprecise definition of concepts. enjoy driving. feel in control. social. motives and personalities (Robbins. avoid obstacles.3 The Individual Differences Approach Placed in similar situations. it does not mean that the driver had safety as a primary goal. For over ninety years. 2005). but it is also a reflection that the driving task is a highly sophisticated multi-factorial process involving perceptual. risk adaptation theories. cognitive.. perceptions. 189). taskcapability frameworks and attitude-behaviour models (Keskinen et al. Groeger and Rothengatter (1998) argued that. etc. it is highly improbable that a single theoretical stance is likely to be sufficient to account for behaviour in traffic. researchers have been trying to determine individual differences that lead to disparities in crash occurrence and outcomes and the literature associated with differential road-crash involvement is extensive. not all people act exactly alike and this is a function of their differing values. or ever had sufficient knowledge of possible outcomes on which to base a deliberate action (p. 2002). and most of the time is not especially influential. I believe it is but one of the goals a driver has. the driver’s aspirations are to reach destinations. … Just because we as investigators have an understanding of safety as a goal. 26 .3. minimise delay and driving time.
Trimpop and Kirkcaldy (1997). 1995. thrill and adventure seeking and tended to avoid socially stimulating situations when compared with violators. 1979). neuroticism. while the second high-risk group reported high sensation-seking. There have been theories of crash causation that have focused on particular groups of 27 . Similar studies of driver risk-taking and other individual differences have been largely absent with Asian populations and non-existent in Malaysia. for instance. Drawing from a large pool of data that included personality measures and both traffic and work-related statistics for 34 nations. In an attempt to identify subtypes of young Norwegian drivers. aged 16 to 29 years. found that a sample of young Canadian automobile drivers. Of the five factors examined – extraversion. crash frequency (Pestonjee & Singh. aggression. “these findings have yet to be embodied in a general theory of differential crash risk. According to Rothengatter (2002). 1980) and other safety outcomes. extraversion was found to predict traffic accidents. agreeableness and openness – the authors found low conscientiousness and low agreeableness to be valid and generalisable predictors of accident involvement in both occupational and non-occupational settings. Ulleberg (2001) found two high-risk groups. anxiety and driving anger. irresponsibility and driving related aggression. 1990). the first of which was characterised by low levels of altruism and anxiety and high levels of sensation-seeking. However. but not occupational accidents. Clarke and Robertson (2005) conducted a meta-analysis of 47 studies reporting relationships between accident involvement and the dimensions of the Five Factor Model (FFM). McRae &Costa. the extraversion variable has been associated with a higher frequency of traffic offences (Renner & Anderle. the search for individual differences relevant to crash involvement continues to yield a large body of literature. Lajunen (2001) reported that countries with high extraversion scores had more traffic fatalities than those with moderate or low extraversion scores. 2000). poorer perception of traffic signs (Loo. In a large number of studies of specific samples from various countries. or “Big Five” personality model (Costa & McRae. without driving violations had lower scores on measures of risk-taking behaviour. conscientiousness.
and that this is due to some characteristic or summation of characteristics associated with corporeal dexterity. it should be a reasonably simple matter to find 28 . sensori-motor skill.1 Accident Proneness One concept that sought to integrate individual differences within a predictive theory relates to the “accident-prone personality”. his or her accident proneness.3. In 1917. that individual is more likely at all times to incur an accident than his colleagues even though exposed to equal risk. differed from person to person (Greenwood & Yule.3. 1984). weight and perhaps even intelligence. The designation of a high-λ individual as “accident prone” implied that. but persists today. 1962. 290). The difficulty was that no one knew how to determine its value for a given individual. or higher conative or cognitive function” (Cresswell & Froggat. the British government established the British Industrial Fatigue Research Board. p. just as one can meaure height. West & French. ‘Accident proneness’ had a nice ring to it. It provided a challenge to the psychology profession to devise a way to measure it.152). the average number of accidents. in response to concern over the number of accidental deaths and injuries in World War I production industries (Blackler & Shimmin. found first that the frequency of accidents. could be modelled almost exactly by the Poisson distribution but then that. during and following the war years. According to Haight (2004). “irrespective of environment. 1993. p. an idea that has had an uneven level of acceptance by ergonomists and traffic psychologists through the years. 2. Research by board statisticians. personality. occupational and otherwise.finding. 1920). but none have attempted a more general integration” (Elander. λ. The individual values of each worker’s λ became known as the degree of accident proneness. in certain cases. If each individual has a unique λ-value.
in successive years. inappropriate. subjects reported significant. with shorter periods giving sharper contrasts (Moore. 1991. however. 2004). but did not take into consideration whether. Hale and Glendon (1987) concluded that the evidence for the transfer of accident liability differences across different work tasks or different working environments is quite weak so that accident proneness would appear to be largely task specific. more probably psychological (p. The accident-prone concept. 2004). 195). replicable result that correlated substantially with the accident experience of individuals (Haight. noting that. an individual driver’s prior crsh rate would not be an effective predictor of future crash rates even if some individuals did have expected rates higher than others” (Evans. motivated largely by a desire to select lorry drivers in Europe who were less likely to become involved in costly roadway crashes (Barjonet & Tortosa. Mintz and Blum (1949) argued that “the method of studying accident proneness by demonstrating that small percentages of people have large percentages of the accidents is unsound and fallacious” (p. 1939) and many others. made an assumption that. perhaps physiological. Arbous and Kerrich (1951) and much later McKenna (1983) systematically destroyed the supportive literature. A study by Salminen and Heiskanen (1997) provided empirical support for this position. 294). but very low correlations between accident frequency at work. it was pointed out are highly sensitive to the length of the survey period. Farmer and Chambers (1926. None of the experiments. produced a positive. The theory of the accident-prone individual also came under attack on a conceptual basis. with extensive critiques that concluded statistical analyses were almost all invalid. “Because crashes are so infrequent. in any sample. inadequate or irrelevant. Johnson (1946). by devising clever tests. 1929. that high-λ group would be comprised of the same individuals or of an entirely new cohort (Haight. 422). at home. in a Finnish telephone survey.out what that value is. p. as well. 1997). 1956). with a series of tests constructed by Greenwood and Woods (1919). Early work on the concept attempted to do just that. a certain percentage would experience a higher accident frequency than would other groups year after year. in traffic or when playing 29 . Scores on the λ dimension.
“it is still difficult to identify the accident prone individuals that compose this group. and assumes that individuals may vary along a continuum with regard to factors that affect their risk of crash (Elander et al. in no case did correlations between traffic crashes and other types of accidents exceed r =.sports. 1993).. pp. While their stated conclusion was that an accident prone group definitely existed. Visser. screened for operational and prevalence rates related to accident proneness within work. nothing can be done to identify individuals who may be accident-prone in order to treat them or to remove them from areas of greatest risk. it is still generating research and controversy (Vavrik. 1998). 2. Ultimately.05.3. Stolk. 8-9).3. This concept does not prejudge the issue of causation. The concept itself is ill-defined. It is seen as preferable to earlier formulations because it places more emphasis on contributing factors outside the person. roadway. moving away from the main conceptual criticism of traditional 30 . So. sports and family settings. no stable personality characteristics that can be identified with accident-proneness have been discovered. Only 15% of the studies included in their analysis had been conducted on road user crash experience. 1980. 562). Alternative explanations must be found for persons experiencing multiple accidents (Lindsey. Despite the low repute in which many have regarded the accident proneness concept. the consensus position became that: Accident proneness as a concept has little use in practical accident prevention. Pijl. Neeleman and Rosmalen (2007) have published a meta-review of 79 studies. because individuals can experience multiple accidents because of chance alone and also because of a higher exposure to risk independent of personal factors” (p. but the authors reported that the heterogeneous nature of sub-groups did not permit comparisons.2 Differential Accident Involvement McKenna (1983) suggested that the accident proneness concept should be replaced by the less historically loaded term “differential accident involvement”. it denotes an area of study rather than a theory. therefore.
1 Risk Homeostasis Theory (RHT) In an attempt to explain these findings. large earth-moving 31 . Dewar (2002b) noted that the notion of differential liability allows for the observation that some individuals do. in fact. people strive to maintain a target level of risk all the time and. when they perceive a discrepancy between the observed level of risk and the desired target level of risk. 1988) proposed that a control mechanism operates to keep overall risk per unit time constant. following their review of the literature. and that transient factors probably interact with stable traits of the individual in their causation.4. early studies showed that the actual safety effects of engineering interventions often were much less than expected stimulated an interest in the way that drivers reacted to them.3.4 Risk Theories Rothengatter (2002) has argued that a major factor in the growth of traffic psychology can be attributed to the law of diminishing returns with respect to engineering interventions designed to increase road safety. they adjust their behaviour to eliminate the discrepancy. crash barriers. in a study of driving on icy roads. Wilde (1982. compulsory seatbelts and vehicle design improvements reduced motor vehicle crash fatalities. suddenly confronted with uneven pavement. 2. 2000). Elander et al. Summala and Mersalo (1980) demonstrated that drivers using studded tyres increased their speed to a level where the skid margin approached that of drivers using normal tyres. After the relatively easy engineering measures were implemented to reduce the seriousness of the consequences of driver behaviour. A driver who enters a construction zone. However. but avoids the assumption of a stable phenomenon that accounts for more accidents in all situations. albeit not crash occurrence. researchers began to turn their attention to not-so-easy measures for changing driver behaviour.. substantially.3. experience more accidents than others. 2. The introduction of divided highways.accident proneness (Chmiel. That is. concluded that differential crash risk is not readily accounted for by previous crash rates. For example.
Fosser & Sætermo. 2002) and that driver education programmes need to be extensively revamped (Wilde. observers posing as passengers rated German taxicab drivers in vehicles equipped with anti-lock braking systems (ABS) as driving more aggressively. 1994) argued that this made the theory essentially untestable. p. In two separate studies. reduced the predicted safety benefits of such systems (Wilde. would perceive a level of risk above his target and would tend to reduce speed and increase vigilance. flat. 14). given that human behaviour will continue to be motivated by internal homeostatic processes. at least until the target risk level was reached. Huguenin (2001) noted that RHT has spawned a considerable number of studies. performing more dangerous manouevers and driving with significantly shorter headway distances than those driving without ABS (Aschenbrenner & Biehl. RHT research of this nature has been used to argue that most engineering interventions and roadway regulations have little or no benefit (Smiley. is if the level of target risk is reduced. for example. Wilde’s theory was couched at a societal level. 2005). Wilde. according to the theory. uncongested expressway would perceive a low level of risk and would be more likely to reach speeds above the minimum limit or to permit hand-phone distractions. and not on the specific measures taken in other sectors of the control system. Initially. RHT proponents argued that drivers were adapting behaviourally to the effects of ABS by driving less safely and that this.vehicles and warning flags. according to the theory. 2001. a driver motoring along a wide. 2002). “the aggregate target risk in a community is what produces the accident toll and the only way in which this toll can be reduced. 1994. Sagberg. many of which have attempted to observe and comment on individual behavioural change after the risk variable is manipulated. The central implication of RHT is that safety interventions need to be values-oriented and aimed at lowering the level of 32 . Wilde (1994) reframed the concept of target risk as an individual variable based on four perceived utilities. When others (Haight. Collectively. Michon. 1989. Ranney. 2008. Conversely. 1986. 1997). postulating that the number of accidents in any given country would only depend on the accident rate which the population is willing to tolerate. in turn. That is. McHugh & Pender. 1988.” (Fuller.
Criticisms have been aimed at Wilde’s theory on empirical as well as conceptual grounds.” (Vaa. More than any other driving theory. the community. “It is unclear whether risk homeostasis occurs at the level of the individual. Lichtenstein. 2004). psychologically weighing at every moment the perceived and targeted risk levels inherent in every environment. “Costs and benefits are central to the model. General consensus is that behavioural adaptation to vehicle and environmental conditions often does occur (Rothengatter. “The extent of risk taking with respect to safety and health in a given society ultimately depends on values that prevail in that society. but that the RHT neither adequately explains nor predicts the circumstances under which it does. Evans 33 . In a review of research offered as support of the RHT. 2004). Considerable criticism revolves around the imprecise nature of the theory itself. or the nation” (Brown & Noy. but they are not defined in psychological terms. The notion that people have a constant point of acceptable risk. 2002). 53). Slovic. p. To the contrary. but that does not mean that they do so systematically or that they know exactly how much to slow down to maintain constancy of risk. it has been argued people are not sufficiently sensitive to changes in low risk probabilities to react behaviourally as RHT predicts (Fuller et al.. p. however. 1989. Corrigan & Coombs. 223). 1994. 1151). and not on the available technology” (Wilde.. (p. Fischoff. 2002). a tenet for which no convincing support has been yet generated (Michon. 2008. 2001.target risk that people are willing to tolerate. Also. the notion of target risk implies that drivers are constant “comparers”. Wilde’s RHT has generated controversy and opposition (Keskinen et al. or have the knowledge and ability to constantly adjust their behaviour to achieve so-called risk homeostasis is ludicrous in view of what is known about human limitations. Rothengatter. Robertson and Pless (2002) made the case forcefully that: … some drivers may sometimes slow down in rain. pay sufficient attention to risk. 1977).
2004.4. p. 1988) proposed that drivers do not constantly assess risk while driving. 1987. drivers avoid ‘feeling fear’ (hence. or expecting. after a similar review. 26).2 Zero Risk Theory Another risk-based theory. Fuller (2005) has argued that the theory’s premise that safe margins are learned creates an implausible requirement to recognise. At this point.3. While overcoming many of the criticisms levied at RHT with regard to the concepts of target risk and the risk discrepancy comparative process. zero-risk theory still retains some of its conceptual shortcomings. 81). O’Neill and Williams (1998).(1986) concluded that “risk homeostasis theory should be rejected because there is no convincing evidence supporting it and much evidence refuting it” (p. for example. Rather. while Brown and Noy (2004) noted that it remains possible that factors other than risk underlie the behaviour changes that follow alterations to the traffic system. some degree of risk during the performance of this task. they experience uncomfortable feelings of fear and abruptly change behaviour. 2. Summala. In other words. Summala’s zero-risk model of driver behaviour (Summala & Näätänen. In addition. and 34 . experience ‘zero-risk’) when they drive by anticipating. argued that “these so-called theories that purport to explain human behaviour in the face of risk are nothing more than hypotheses with a large body of empirical evidence refuting the studies that allegedly validate them” (p. Summala (1986) suggested that estimating time-to-collision. a necessary and highly controversial assumption in Wilde’s theory. Only when the subjective risk reaches a level that was not anticipated will the drivers change their behaviour. Rothengatter (2002) has questioned how drivers can determine that a threshold has been exceeded if they do not constantly assess risk. increasing safety margins” (Brown & Noy. Michon (1989) noted that most studies attempting to support the RHT deal with data only at the aggregate level. drivers compare the distance from hazards or time-tocollision to a subjective safety margin threshold and take action only when the threshold is exceeded. 92). is a very basic human skill that can be carried out in the absence of extensive conscious processing.
very little if any research has been carried out with respect to intrinsic motivation. A large number of studies show that external motives. level of psychological processing and a functional taxonomy of driving actions (see Figure 2. as a result. and when confronted with various environmental conditions or psychological processes. Keskinen.5 Hierarchical Theories of Driver Adaptation Huguenin (2001) has argued that the main problem with considering driver behaviour within a risk-based framework is that drivers tend to adapt their behaviour in different way on differing strategic levels. If behavioural adaptation were to take place in response to the presence of a supplementary restraint system (SRS). Hataaka. 1996. In an attempt to deal with this and to expand on the role of extrinsic and intrinsic motivators. much of which arises from personality. age and social variables. for instance.3. Meijman & Roghengatter. 2. 1999).1).learn how to respond safety to. do appear to affect drivers’ willingness to accept risk levels that approach thresholds and. would vary depending on the combination of factors from the three dimensions. pre-meditated decision not to wear seatbelts. Gregersen. The cube presented three dimensions of driver behaviour: a functional hierarchy. in which he introduced a “task cube” to explain the driving process. Reeder et al. Summala argued that behavioural adaptation. 35 . A major element in the zero risk theory was the influence of motivation. it may not manifest itself as a less cautious speed or headway choice but rather as a conscious. and specific driver actions. Van der Hulst. their behaviour becomes less adaptive to prevailing circumstances (Delhomme & Meyer. Summala (1996. 2002. Glad & Hernetkoskis. such as time pressure. On the other hand. 1998. 1997) refined his earlier theory into a hierarchical model of driver behavioural adaptation. used to explain drivers’ tendencies to approach as closely as possible to the risk threshold. what is a virtually infinite number of roads and traffic scenarios.
Automated) Navigation Speed and time control Guidance Vehicle control Lane keeping etc. a property absent within the task cube concept. for example.1: Task Cube (from Summala. Rothengatter (2002) questioned the concept of a hierarchy. pointing out that a task hierarchy assumes that successful completion of the task at a lower level is required for successful performance of a higher-level task. but that is not 36 . at the same time. 1996) Keskinen et al. Headway control Obstacle avoidance Crossing management Passing and other maneuvers FUNCTIONAL TAXONOMY Figure 2. this does not necessarily imply a hierarchy as this is as much true for “lower” level as for “higher” level tasks … Drivers do perform tasks such as route finding and manoeuvring. 15). Even though it is true that the performance on one task can bear consequences for the performance for the other. (2004) noted that Summala’s task cube achieves its goal of conceptualising the driving process in ergonomic terms and praised the prime role given to motivational factors but.MOBILITY NEEDS LEVEL OF PSYCHOLOGICAL PROCESSING Decision making Supervisory monitoring FUNCTIONAL HIERARCHY Vehicle choice Trip decisions MOTIVATIONAL MODULE: MOTIVES EMOTIONS Attention control Perceptual-motor Control (constant mapping. seemingly concurrently. criticised the model for being overly complicated and resembling “more a description or a list of important variables than a solid model” (p.
3. Fuller (2000. 2. However.sufficient reason to presume they are two distinct levels of the same task rather than two different tasks (p. Most of the time. Loss of control occurs at the point where capability is less than that required to carry out the task safely. 1976) by proposing that drivers attempt to match task demands with their capability to maintain control. Safety Compensatory action by others Crash! Capability (C) Loss of control C>D Control C<D Task Demands (D) Safety Figure 2.g. 1988) and the zero risk theory (Näätänen & Summala. unexpected changes in task demand (decreased visibility.1). 252). 1982. high speeds.. this becomes more difficult when factors external to the driving task (e. affective states). unsafe behaviour of other road users) or over-estimation of capability (through lack of experience or impairment) and the driver is pushed closer to the critical control threshold. 2005) integrated competing components of the RHT (Wilde. Fuller argued that loss of control occurs when task demands exceed drivers’ capabilities.2: Task-Capability Theory (after Fuller. either by modifying task demand or by altering their capability. drivers are able to manage the interface between demands and capabilities (see Figure 2. 2000) 37 .6 Task Capability Interface (TCI) Theory In perhaps the most ambitious of the leading driving behaviour theories.
2.3. time pressure). neither of which was originally intended as a way of explaining driver behaviour. emotional state. the notion of matching competence with task demand promises to be very useful in understanding driver behaviour. Generally. for the most part. such that it is not capability but perceived capability that interfaces with task demand. 40). and is considered to be the immediate antecedent of behaviour. however. Brown & Noy have pointed out that TCI theory is limited in its ability to explain all of the decision points and responses that occur during a more complex driving scenario such as over-taking. been regarded as potentially more productive than earlier risk-based theories. generally referring to a positive or negative 38 .7 Attitude-behaviour Theories 2. Langdridge (2004) describes the theory of reasoned action as one of the most important theories in attitude-behaviour research. Fishbein & Ajzen. subjective norms and behavioural intentions can be used to predict behaviour. p. Intention is determined by the summed effects of: (a) attitudes toward the behaviour. 1985. 1975) and the subsequent theory of planned behaviour (TPB: Ajzen. It generally refers to the thoughts and feelings that impel us to behave in one way and not in another” (Parker. traffic psychology has seen a resurgence of interest in the role played by attitudes. 126).Fuller’s theory has. Rothengatter (2002) has stressed that the perception of capability is often influenced by external factors (impairment. 1991).3. (2004) have argued that it is deserving of more attention than it has received to date. people’s behaviour is determined by their intention to perform the behaviour. and Keskinen et al. simply because it is more straightforward to establish the parameters that drivers use to assess their competence than it is to measure target or subjective risk. institutions or issues (Chaplin. 2004.1 Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) An attitude is a relatively stable and enduring predisposition to behave or react in a certain way toward persons. Since 1985. Two limitations have been noted. objects. Intention is the cognitive representation of an individual’s readiness to engage in a given behaviour. 1985.6. providing an account of the way in which attitudes. p. largely due to the focus that has been provided by the theory of reasoned action (TRA. According to the TRA.
see Figure 2. p. such that every intended behaviour is a goal whose attainment is subject to some degree of uncertainty. he incorporated the concept of “perceived behavioural control” (PBC). 39 . Hartwick and Warshaw (1988) found that the theory had strong predictive utility.” (Azjen. and (b) the person’s subjective norm or perceptions of social pressure to perform the given behaviour (“most people who are important to me think that I should/shouldn’t run the amber light at crossjunctions”). denoting the subjective degree of control which individuals perceive themselves having over the performance of a behaviour. subjective norms (“do others feel this is a good thing for me to do?”). and perceived control (“do I really believe that I can do this?”). “Even very mundane activities. According to the TPB. Ajzen and Fishbein (2000) argued that intention is the best predictor of behaviour. are sometimes subject to the influence of factors beyond one’s control. and a meta-analysis carried out by Sheppard.7. 2. To deal with this uncertainty. 1985. which can usually be performed (or not performed) at will.judgement with respect to behavioural performance (“accelerating to pass through a cross-junction against an amber light is bad/good”).2 Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) Complications hindered the application of the TRA in circumstances where behaviours were not fully under volitional control. 24).2). then. however (Sharma & Kanekar. behavioural intention is the result of attitudes (“do I feel like this is a good thing to do?”). This extended framework was introduced as the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB. 2007).3.
the perception of what others would think (subjective norms) and lower PBC all influenced the behaviours chosen by subjects and that hypotheses derived from the TPB were confirmed. A belief that the described violations were not all that serious (attitudes)..3: Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen. creating a proxy effect that increases the likelihood that behaviour will be successfully performed. 2003). speed on a major road or overtake dangerously. 2002. In one study. Its inclusion as a predictor of behaviour is premised on the notion that. when intention is held constant. PBC is considered a determinant of both the individual’s intentions and the individual’s behaviour. 253). It has been applied to every conceivable type of road user behaviour and has reliably been able to produce comparatively robust relations between the model components and the behaviour in question” (Rothengatter. 1989) Within the theory.Behavioural beliefs and outcome evaluations Attitude toward the behaviour Normative beliefs and motivation to comply Subjective norm Intention Behaviour Control beliefs and perceived facilitation Perceived behavioural control Figure 2. stronger feelings that “I can do it”) will heighten an individual’s confidence level. p. 40 .e. it will directly influence behaviour (Armitage & Christian. or sense of self-efficacy. Forward (2006) used semi-structured interviews to examine the degree to which beliefs differentiated between Swedish drivers who did or did not intend to speed in an urban area. greater perceived control (i. The TPB has spawned a huge body of research. to the extent to which PBC reflects an individual’s level of actual control. on the performance of a wide range of behaviours. including driving and “it has to be admitted that the theory of planned behaviour has stood up well. Further.
2. but PBC did not contribute to the prediction of speeding violations measured with an intelligent speed adaptation (ISA) device that logged km/hr and location at all times the vehicle was in motion. to predict weather-related crashes in England and Wales. based on data extracted from police record forms. Wállen Warner and Åberg (2006) used structural equation modelling to predict drivers’ everyday speeding behaviour using the TPB as a frame of reference. used a negativebinomial regression technique to analyse highway-rail crash statistics within a sixstate radius in the USA and derived a predictive model in which the contribution of traffic characteristics. Scuffham (2003) used a different approach to model the changes in seasonal patterns of fatal crashes in New Zealand according to unemployment rate. Similar to later findings by Law et al. for instance. subjective norms and PBC were all significant determinants of self-reported speeding.4 2.In another study. This might be seen as evidence of the proxy effect earlier described by Armitage and Christian (2002). Austin and Carson (2002). (2005) in their Malaysian study (see sect. while Rautela and Pant (2007) modelled crash risk on mountain roads in India using geographical information system (GIS) data. 2002).4. Attitude toward speeding. Edwards (1996) developed a spatial model. vehicles. it was not significant (Scuffham & Langley. 2. Gross Domestic Product per capita and alcohol consumption. they found that real GDP per capita was related to the number of crashes. Many of these use accident data collected by national or sub-national government bodies or by the police and advanced statistical techniques to describe variable interrelationships that describe or predict crash outcomes. pedestrians and road environments in a range of 41 . A large number of studies have reported epidemiological characteristics of drivers.1. but after controlling for distance travelled. there has been no shortage of empirically-based models that show statistical relationships between specific variables related to given situations. roadway configuration and crossing design were weighted.1 Descriptive Models of Driver Behaviour Statistical Models If traffic psychology lacks a general unified theory of driving behaviour.2).
Koonchote & Tantiratna. the vehicle (V). the road (R) and the environment (E). and have proposed expanding the matrix to better provide for the analysis of inter-relationships between each of the four basic elements..locations and settings (e. Seow & Lim. This model has been instrumental in stimulating research designs and accident interventions for the last thirty yeasrs (Williams. PRE-CRASH CRASH POST-CRASH BASIC ELEMENTS OF A HIGHWAY EVENT Human (H) Vehicle (V) Road (R) Environment (E) Figure 2. concealing the interactions that underlie the behaviour of real traffic systems (Noy.2 Process Models 2. Law.4: The Haddon Matrix (Noy. however. Mahasakpan. within specific situational contexts. R. Swaddiwudhipong. 1997) 42 . Nguntra. 1999). Richardson & Downe. 1998.2. 2000). More recently. One way of accomplishing this may be through the creation of models that stress the mediational role played by certain V. Haddon (1970) proposed a framework in which each of these elements could be examined as part of an analytical matrix (see Figure 2. 1997. 2. some researchers have argued that the Haddon Matrix is limited by the way it considers each element independently.4).1 The Haddon Matrix Traditional studies of human factors in road safety have tended to view transportation as a system with four major component elements: the human (H).4.g. E and especially H factors.4. 1994).
2 A Contextual Mediated Model of Personality and Behavioural Predictors of Motor Vehicle Crashes Elander et al. it may influence crash risk through some other.2. Sümer (2003) used this as a point of departure for the construction of a contextual mediated model for predicting the effects of personality and behavioural variables on roadway crashes.g. Personality factors within the 43 . substance abuse) that... the proximal context is made up of driver behaviours and attitudes (e. (1993) discussed the problem of choosing predictor variables in studies of behavioural and personality influences on road-traffic crash risk.5). it may happen to correlate with some other factor that influences crash risk but play no role itself. extraversion. are affected by specific or collective factors from the distal context and. arguing that: Correlational studies suffer from the inescapable problem that causality cannot be established. Within the generic model. on the other hand. as well. Therefore. sensation seeking. By contrast. Factors within the distal context include not only road. when one observes a correlation between a behavioural measure and crash risk. on one hand. reckless lane transitions or overtaking. aggression). 283).2.g.g. gender. Sümer (2003) argued that the contextual mediated model could explain the relatively weak associations between accident involvement and personality characteristics observed in many previous studies. contribute directly to crash outcomes.. age. vehicle and environmental conditions related to accident causation but a range of driver demographic (e. relevant factors are grouped as occurring within either the distal context or the proximal context of the accident (see Figure 2. speeding. more proximal variable. there are four possible explanations: the behavioural measure may directly influence crash risk. or crash risk may influence the behavioural measure (p. driving experience) and psychological characteristics (e.4.
2003) 44 . sensation seeking. e. As such. hostility and psychoticism) – both on three proximal elements – aberrant driving behaviour. aggression and psychological symptoms (anxiety. with results generally supporting the notion that factors in the distal context contributed to accident causation and predicted accidents via their effects on proximal factors. it would be expected that relationships between the distal and proximal contexts would be stronger than those between the proximal context and crash outcomes.distal context were assumed to be capable of creating generalized tendencies that increased risks of accidents within behavioural variables measured within the proximal context. psychological symptoms. risk taking. Behavioural Predictors and Motor Vehicle Crashes (from Sümer. cultural driving habits and beliefs Relatively stable personality characteristics. DISTAL CONTEXT Road and vehicle condition Demographic characteristics Culture-specific factors. aggression Attributions regarding CRASH OUTCOMES accidents Fatalism Enforcement Figure 2. such that direct effects of distal factors would be most likely insignificant or weak.g. choice of preferred speed and dysfunctional drinking habits – and on the frequency of self-reported accidents.g. Variables within the distal context would be expected to affect accident frequency indirectly and through their relationships with measures of proximal behaviour factors. Sümer examined the effect of three distal elements – sensation seeking. PROXIMAL CONTEXT Safety skills Aberrant driving behaviors Violations Errors Speeding Drinking and driving Dysfunctional drinking e. depression.5: Contextual Mediated Model of Personality.
6(i). If. such that path c′ is zero. moderating or mediating effects. 2004). M. Partial mediation is the case in which the path from X to Y is reduced in absolute size but is still different from zero when M has been controlled (Kenny. 1986). In the case where X no longer affects Y after M has been controlled.2. for instance. the variable X is called the initial or predictor variable and it causes the variable Y. Figure 2. driver propensities to commit errors or violations. which in turn exerts an effect on Y through path b (Baron & Kenny.6(ii) illustrates the basic causal chain involved in mediation. In Figure 2. process or transformation exists through which one variable influences another (Frazier. then it can be concluded that complete mediation occurs. 2006). Also termed intervening variables. proximal variables (including safety skill levels. 45 . driver impairment and so on) were hypothesised to mediate the effect of distal variables on the frequency or likelihood of crash outcomes. while path a represents the effect of X on some mediator variable. called the outcome. 2003). then the significance level of path c would be reduced to insignificance or a less significant level (path c’). Tix and Barron. Heppner & Mallinckrodt. Regression analyses can be used to test these causal paths to the outcome variable. drivers’ safety skills were a mediator of the effects of personality or cultural background on crash frequency. in which there are two causal paths feeding into the outcome variable: path c′ depicts the direct effect of X on Y.4. mediators are variables that represent constructs proposed to explain the association between two variables (Hoyle & Robinson. In Sümer’s (2003) generic contextual mediated model. 2004) and a distinction can be drawn between partial mediation and complete mediation (Wei.3 Core Concepts in the Contextual Mediated Model: Moderation and Mediation Inter-variable relationships within the contextual mediated model can have direct. Mediation can be said to occur when some mechanism.2.
Baron and Kenny have further added that although the predictor and moderator can have significant effects on the outcome variable. and the interaction or product of these two (path c).(i) X Predictor Variable (Distal Variable) c′ c Y Outcome Variable (Crash Outcomes) (ii) X Predictor Variable (Distal Variable) a M Mediator Variable (Proximal Variable) b Y Outcome Variable (Crash Outcomes) Figure 2. or independent variable (path a).6: Inter-variable Relationships in Mediation Models In contrast. or dependent. these are not directly relevant conceptually to testing the moderator hypothesis. 1986). 2003). variable (see Figure 2. 46 . or testing the moderating effect. there are three causal paths that can effect the outcome. the impact of a moderator (path b). Only if the interaction (path c) is significant. a moderating variable is one that has a strong contingent effect on the relationship between independent and dependent variable (Sekaran.7): the impact of a predictor. can the moderator hypothesis be concluded as supported (Baron & Kenny.
In turn. errors). He examined their effects on three proximal variables: aberrant driving behaviour (violations. and non-professional students who were mostly students. Using structured equation modelling. he found that. Further. verbal aggression. anger). mostly from taxi and heavy trucking.4. A number of questions may be raised about Sümer’s (2003) analysis. sensationseeking and risk-taking (novelty.Predictor Variable X a Moderator Z b Y Outcome Variable c Predictor X Moderator Figure 2. His sample of 321 participants combined both professional drivers. hostility.7: Inter-variable Relationships in Moderation Model 2. Sümer also find that aberrant driving behaviour. hostility.2. anxiety. intensity) and aggression (physical aggression. dangerous drinking). No attempt was made to differentiate between these two groups. more relevant to the model he proposed. choice of speed and alcohol use (antisocial drinking. the effects of the proximal variables on the number of crashes experienced within a three-year period was examined. psychoticism). given wide 47 . However. while psychological factors did not predict speed choice.4 Studies of Driving Behaviour Using the Contextual Mediated Model In his initial study. a proximal variable significantly mediated the relationship between the three distal variables and the frequency of crashes. Sümer (2003) identified three classes of distal variables: psychological symptoms (depression. they did have a significant association with both dysfunctional alcohol use and aberrant driving behaviours.
Edward. tends to fit a Poisson distribution or. Tubré & Tubré. Notwithstanding these methodological considerations. 1998). Elander et. lapses. Finally. agreeableness (helpfulness. or “Big Five”. responsibility. Day. It is questionable whether crash details can be recalled accurately for up to 36 months and requires the assumption that the psychological characteristics.. Here. Watson. sensation seeking). McRae &Costa. as recommended by Elander et al. al. 1920). 2002. sensation seeking patterns. Arthur. 1919. personality model (Costa & McRae. applied the five factor. trust). 2003. self-discipline) and openness (adventurousness. Sümer. Sümer’s decision to use self-report data is subject to the usual validity considerations raised by several authors (af Wahlberg. the distal factors were: neuroticism (a tendency to experience negative affect and anxiety). violations) and the outcome measure was expanded to include the self-reported number of crashes and traffic offences committed over a three-year period. conscientiousness (dependability. 1990) to a similar analysis. 2005. Sümer’s early work did establish the usefulness of the contextual mediated model and structural equation modelling procedures in describing and predicting the mediational processes that connect certain driver psychosocial characteristics and crash outcomes. 1993). including the three-year time-frame over which drivers were asked to report crash occurrence. it was somewhat surprising that no attempt was made to control for differing levels of traffic exposure. a negative-binomial distribution (Greenwood & Woods. The proximal factor was again aberrant driving behaviour (errors. Bell. in that the standard multivariate correlation methods applied as part of his LISREL analysis assumed a normal distribution of crash frequency scores. driving style and other distal and proximal variables were the same at the time of the crash as they were when data were collected (af Wahlberg. (1993) and others. Greenwood & Yule. while it has been accepted since the early accident proneness studies of the IFRB that crash frequency. extraversion (interpersonal warmth. broad-mindedness). 1995. Results indicated that all five of the personality factors had indirect effects on crash risk through their effects on 48 . in most cases. Lajunen and Özkan (2005).739). for high-λ individuals.variation in the number of kilometres driven annually by participants (SD = 14. In a subsequent study. Sümer’s model construction might also be questioned.
49 . yielding support for the contextual mediated model. including perceived control. In other words. Iverson and Rundmo (2002). They found that the effect of proximal variables. optimism. some researchers have worked with models that are conceptually consistent with the contextual mediated model. Sümer. for instance. prior to the present one. air force and gendarmerie. 225). sensation seeking and normlessness (all of which which might be classified as distal. The authors recommended that “the contextual model should be refined considering other potential mediators. self esteem.4. have acted on those recommendations. perceived threat and gender on distress levels were partially or fully mediated by individuals’ feelings of coping self-efficacy.2. moderators and bidirectional associations between personality and accident involvement to better understand the underlying mechanisms” (p. material loss. within Sümer’s contextual mediated model) had direct effects on measures of more proximal risky driving tendencies. hostility. navy. Although no other studies of driving behaviour. Berument and Gunes (2005). Both studies were concluded to have demonstrated support for the use of the contextual mediated model. proximal behavioural variables mediated personality factors. Karanci. using a similar research design. Sümer and Erol (2005) found that a contextual mediated model was successful in showing relationships between distal and proximal predictors of depression. psychotic tendencies and psychosomatic complaints among a large sample of noncommissioned officers in the Turkish army. anxiety. but weaker significant effects on self-reported accident involvement.5 Use of the Contextual Mediated Model in Other Research Sümer’s model has been applied outside the traffic psychology domain. while the risky driving variables had strong and significant effects on accident involvement. Bilgic. reported that driver anger. phobia. for instance used the concept to examine predictors of psychological distress following the 1999 earthquake in Turkey. Sümer.aberrant driving behaviours. 2. In another study.
. 2002.5.g.. Odero et al. 2003.5.1 Age Young drivers are significantly over-represented among those injured or killed in road traffic crashes (Ballesteros & Dischinger.g.8). but young drivers are more likely to sustain crash-related injuries and to die in vehicular crashes (Massie.1 Distal Variables in the Present Study Demographic Variables 2. Weinstein & Solomon. 2007) 2. Williams & Shabanova. Retting.Downe (2007). in a study of safety training methods and personality factors in Malaysian rubber and palm oil plantations. heterogeneity in group composition: Part of this may be due to 50 . aggression) Safe Work Practices hazard identification and reporting risk avoidance procedural compliance use of safety devices and equipment occupational hygiene help-seeking and teamwork behaviour Experiential safety awareness domain-specific skill years of work experience prior accident experience Figure 2. Yet. uncertainty avoidance) temperamental factors (e.1.. Type A. Not only are they the most likely age group to be involved in crashes. proposed the use of a contextual mediated model for further research on agricultural safety (see Figure 2. Distal factors Safety interventions knowledge transfer ergonomic design safety audits Proximal factors Safety climate worker attitude toward safe work perceived management priority employee empowerment and control over safety post-injury administration return-to-work policies operating policies & procedures Outcomes Organisational Impacts lower injury rates and lost time relative to labour input and output reduced accident severity reduced risk assessment standards compliance increased worker satisfaction Psychosocial variables locus of control risk acceptance/aversion impulsivity cultural factors (e.8: Proposed Contextual Mediated Model for Safety Research in Agriculture (from Downe.5 2. 2003). 1995). 1997. Campbell & Williams. they have been less well studied than other groups and the general understanding of age effects is not clear.
The problems encountered by novice drivers are often attributed to age and inexperience together. follow too closely. less experienced with the use of alcohol and has different social and motivational needs that may contribute to risk taking on the road. 2002a. for these difficulties. are more likely to engage in alcohol use when driving and are less likely to use seatbelts when compared to other drivers (Lerner. In fact. 2007). and by high levels of sensation-seeking. but there are a great many differences between a 17-year-old and a 23-year-old driver. Ulleberg (2004) found that drivers reporting higher preference for risk-taking were also characterised by low levels of altruism and anxiety. The former is less experienced at driving. Moscati. the contrary appears to be true.. comfort eating and time spent in non-organised activities with friends. However. Jehle. p. Jonah. Several reasons have been proposed for high age-related crash risk levels. Graziano and Bonino (2006) have argued that. Foster and O’Neill (2005) studied self-rated driving attributes of 16. this is a reflection of lifestyle. tobacco smoking. Bina. Younger drivers tend to have a riskier driving style than others. specifically more likely to drive too fast. irresponsibility and driving related aggression. in many cases. not all young new drivers are alike (Dewar. 1986). overtake dangerously. Matthews & Moran. at least in part. 1997b. 2002a. 2001.to 29-year old drivers in New Zealand and found a marked crash-risk optimism. less emotionally mature. drive while fatigued. The factors of driving style and driving skill may account. Harré. 221). Vassallo et al. finding that the riskiest young drivers in an Italian sample were also more likely to have adopted a lifestyle characterised by higher involvement in antisocial behaviour. McDonald (1994) reported 51 . Connery & Stiller. Billittier. This was consistent with many other studies in which young drivers tended to overestimate their own skills and under-estimate crash risk (Dewar.The “young” category typically ranges from 16 to 25. in which they believed that they were better drivers and luckier in avoiding crashes.
since safe driving among younger drivers has been shown to be more prone to the effects of emotional states. are like to perceive the driving task with overconfidence and inadequate attention to risk. Similarly. on crash and injury occurrence. They have generally lower skill levels in acquiring and integrating information. In the present study. indirectly. Ulleberg. particularly under conditions of heightened emotionality. In a nation-wide survey of American teens. and have poor information processing and attention-switching skills. Since many of the violations commonly committed by younger drivers – speeding. This means that “young drivers must devote a greater proportion of their attentional resources to conscious decision making and monitoring their driving.that young drivers are less skilful in vehicle control tasks than older drivers. and that young drivers. it was hypothesised in the present study that. 76 per cent had seen peers drive while very upset stressed. managing velocity and regulating acceleration. capable of distracting attention from driving and increasing crash occurrence. 2007). 52 . angry or sad (strong negative emotions). particularly with respect to controlling deviations. as age decreased. Stevenson et al. 74 per cent had seen tem drive while very happy or excited (strong positive emotions). age was hypothesized to interact with emotional states such as hopelessness and aggression. Justification of age-related hypotheses. (2001) reported that drivers’ perceptions of their confidence and adventurousness in the road environment play a part in the causal pathway leading to a motor vehicle crash. 2002). they have cognitive schemata that are inaccurate and relatively undetailed. age was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. behaviour in traffic would become less safe and crash occurrence would be more likely. risky driving and crash frequency (Lourens.39). Vissers & Jessurun. Young drivers may also be more prone to drive under the influence of strong emotional states. and 55 per cent had seen them exhibit behaviour described as “road rage” (Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and State Farm Insurance. Since previous research had highlighted the association between age. so they have little spare attentional capacity” (p. 1999.
Raghunathan and Little (2001) noted that.4). Laapotti and Keskinen (1998) showed that when male drivers lost control of their motorcar..2 Gender A large number of studies have found differences between males and females.failure to use seat-belts. men have been shown to have a higher rate of crashes than women. 2004. This gender difference is most marked in the population under 25 years. rush hour) and in hazardous conditions (e.g. that males were significantly more likely to be involved in a loss-of-control accident. MacGregor. as age decreased. for instance. Williams and Shabanova (2003) found that young American males were significantly more likely than young females to be responsible for crash deaths..5. Hasselberg and Laflamme (2006) analysed Swedish police records and found the same ratio. Elliott. it 53 . reported that crash incidence for men in the United States was nearly double that of women. Tavris. more often at hazardous times (e. but is also evident among older drivers” (Social Issues Research Centre [SIRC]. Marked differences also occur between the genders in terms of the number of fatalities. Chipman. Åkerstedt and Kecklund (2001). Turner and McClure (2003) showed that young male drivers scored higher than females in driver aggression and thrill seeking and in their general acceptance of risk. Monárrez-Espino. darkness)” (p. without exception. and behaviours predictive of fatalities. it was also hypothesised that. Waller. found that men had twice as high a risk as women of being involved in a motor vehicle crash during the late night hours. Dewar (2002b) stated that “some of the reasons for this are obvious – men drive greater distances. in addition to having a higher number of crashes.g. as well. Smiley and Lee-Gosselin (1992). for instance. with respect to both driving behaviour and to crash involvement. “In all studies and analyses. Shope. and so on – were associated with greater risk of injury. p. male drivers incur their first crash earlier in their driving careers and are more likely to be held to blame for the incident. 2. 129). Kuhn and Layde (2001) found. self-reported injury would also increase.1. for instance. However. There appear to be differences in the types of crashes experienced.
525526). Woodcock. This is important. they noted that many studies have not disaggregated samples to separate the effects of gender on studied phenomena and that there is considerable contradictory evidence about whether changes in females’ driving patterns have accompanied social and economic status changes. for instance. in a sample taken in the U. as marked changes in the roles of women in society have profound implications for the design of transportation systems (Waller. Powers and McFadden (1999) noted that: The relevance of gender to road safety has long been recognised but it has been the contribution of men drivers to fatal and serious crashes which has. Flyte & Garner. (b) females drive increasingly more. 2001). worldwide. At the same time. found that while male drivers. Female drivers’ loss-of-control crashes usually took place under slippery road conditions and were more likely due to deficient vehicle handling skills. attracted the most attention … Road safety literature and road safety measures have tended to concentrate on men rather than women and the existing literature on women drivers tends to compare their behaviour with that of men. but for female drivers the loss of control usually resulted in a collision with another car. Lenard. reported more traffic citations and injuries. Laapotti and Keskinen (2004a) indicated that.S. Neighbors and Donovan (2007). Lonczak. (a) the number of female drivers is increasing. which typically took place during evenings and nights. 1997. Dobson. to date. they did not differ from female drivers in reported driving 54 . there is also a danger than concentrating on the differences between women and men drivers may obscure the identification of the major factors relevant to the safety of women drivers (pp.usually led to a single-vehicle crash. state of Washington. While there is much of value in such an approach. Welsh. Ball. Brown. and (c) female drivers are involved in more motor vehicle crashes than ever before. Male drivers drove too fast and under the influence of alcohol more often in loss-of-control crashes.
In a study of male and female drivers in Finland. as per the traditional pattern. alcohol consumption and for risky driving. In a study of Dutch drivers. Turner & McClure. Waylen and Burke (1998) disagreed. Laapotti and Keskinen (2004b) provided evidence in support of this view. Forward. Justification of gender-related hypotheses. Since previous research had highlighted the association between males. et al. it was hypothesised that males would be more likely to report higher-risk behaviour in traffic and would have higher aggression scores than would females. just as they had in 1978. (1998) and Laapotti and Keskinen (2004). it was hypothesised that males and females would differ on measures of behaviour in traffic. on the other hand. Laapotti. 2006.. Keskinen and Rajalin (2003) reported that Finnish females in 2001 drove less than males. committed fewer traffic offences and had a more positive attitude toward traffic safety and rules than males. indirectly. 2003). involved in proportionally more crashes connected to speeding. though. In other research. 11). Lourens et al. gender was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. were less frequently involved in crash situations. control of traffic situations. Linderholm and Järmark (1998) reviewed studies dating from 1970 to 1984 and compared them to results obtained between 1985 and 1997. McKenna. showing that male drivers were. on crash and injury occurrence. Female drivers. (1999) corrected for variation in annual mileage when performing multivariate analysis on a disaggregated data base and found that crash involvement differences between males and females disappeared. evaluated their driving skill lower.anger. had proportionally more crashes connected to inadequate vehicle manoeuvring. commenting that “despite the fact that there has been a massive shift in the population of women drivers. 55 . The authors in each case concluded that females’ attitudes and self-reported behaviour were becoming increasingly similar to the attitudes and behaviour of male drivers. crash frequency and risky or aggressive driving behaviour (Monárrez-Espino. and loss-of-control incidents. In the present study. In a subsequent report. Consistent with the findings of McKenna et al. there is little evidence that the sex difference in the pattern of accident involvement is changing over the years” (p.
Being a non-wealthy Catholic country was associated with higher fatality rates than being a wealthy Catholic country. Melinder concluded that the type of religion and wealth were important distal factors. for instance. 2005). Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS).1. But. more frequent histories of speeding offences and more extreme alcohol use. On the other hand. this has been the result of a change in reporting protocols within the U. Hauswald (1999) studied the incidence of covert non-compliance with seat belt regulations among Malaysian taxi drivers. Lezotte and Lowenstein (2000) compared Hispanic and non-Hispanic white motorists in the state of Colorado. A few studies have endeavoured to compare national driving cultures in terms of crash risk. In one of the few studies reported. Goldweig and Warren. Marine. traffic safety regulations and traffic fatalities. Summala and Hartley (1998). Schlundt. nonCatholic countries.3 Ethnicity A growing number of studies have examined the effect of ethnic differences on driving behaviour and crash outcomes.5.2. White and Hispanic drivers regarding red light violations. Melinder (2007) compared 15 Western European countries with regard to the relation between different sociocultural factors. Tippetts and Voas (2005) found no differences between African-American. Levine. Lajunen. Romano. Very little cross-cultural research related to traffic safety has been carried out in Southeast Asia. To a large degree. Haliburton. differences in fatalities persisted. he found that 60% of drivers had positioned belts or shoulder straps in a manner that appeared to 56 . being a wealthy Catholic country was associated with more traffic fatalities than were wealthy. Conducting curb-side inspections of taxicabs in Kuala Lumpur. reported few differences between Australians and Finns. lower rates of safety belt use. Harper.S. Garrett. that expanded the standards for collection of data on race and ethnicity in 1999 (Briggs. finding that the former group had higher fatality rates. Corry. Despite the fact that countries’ regulatory frameworks were becoming increasingly similar.
respect for elders. face saving. courtesy. humility..have them restrained but had not fastened the latch. Indirect communication. 1999). brotherhood/sisterhood. respect for elders. family honour. 2005). religion. Malay Differences have not always been consistent. few significant value differences between ethnic groups. respect for knowledge. prosperity and integrity. Spirituality. Fontaine and Richardson (2005) found that 82% of values were shared by all three ethnic groups. on crash and injury occurrence. there was no statistical differences between ethnic groups in the frequency of this practice. They concluded that there were.3: Key Value Clusters for Each Malaysian Ethnic Group Key Value Orientations Man’s relationship with God. Indian-Malaysian Pre-determination. in fact. it was hypothesised that ethnicity would have a significant effect on 57 . Chinese-Malaysian Pre-determined future. ethnic-Chinese and ethnic-Indian (Williamson. In the present study. regional distribution and socioeconomic status differs considerably between the three groups (Gomez. Karma. family ties. Roman et al. respect for elders. Family centeredness. piety. polite behaviour. Justification of ethnic difference hypotheses. hard work. In a study of 324 employees sampled from a cross-section of Malaysian industries. Abdullah and Peterson (2003) have outlined value orientations for each ethnic group (see Table 2. prosperity.. 2000. filial piety. shame-driven. gender was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. 1999). cultural differences can be more subtle. indirectly. Fatalistic. Strong relationship orientation. The Malaysian population is comprised of three distinct ethnic groups: Malay. However. Table 2. cooperation. dependence on family for direction in social and career decisions. Conscious of what other people say about us. harmony with nature. Based on studies that have demonstrated ethnic differences in driving behaviour (Harper et al.2). Strong relationship orientation. peace. hierarchical. While religious affiliation. Education.
the motorist is less likely to encounter situations very different from those they have encountered before (p.5. A large number of studies have shown that. etc. Allied to this.5. 2002).1 Experience Driver experience makes a difference in crash risk. such as driving at different times of the day or days of the week.g. 2. as drivers become more experienced. or (d) not have had enough experience of dealing safety with the effects of human factors on their performance (Fuller. passenger distractions different vehicles. and as such. in a given road and traffic scenario. 1995. 166). (b) not know how to carry out a particular manoeuvre correctly. with different weather conditions. and indicating that those recording higher mileage per year have fewer accidents per mile (Pelz & Schuman. (c) not have had enough practice in carrying out the manoeuvre correctly. they are less likely to make errors and commit violations that result in crashes (e. Laapotti. Keskinen.2 Driver Characteristics 2. inexperienced drivers may (a) not know the correct manoeuvre so they try a different manoeuvre which turns out to be unsafe. journey lengths.behaviour in traffic. On the other hand. increased experience usually. Given the absence of relevant prior research on Malaysian cultural groups. As experience grows.2. 1971). although not always.. Lajunen & Summala. implies the driver has had a broader variety of driving experiences. Hatakka and Katila. A useful way of conceptualising the experience effect is to draw on a cognitive framework proposed by Mikkonen and Keskinen (1983) and later extended 58 . 2001). allows many otherwise incompatible tasks to be performed together. directionality of the effect was not predicted. Groeger (2000) reviewed the reasons for this: … the weight of practice more experienced drivers have makes much of what they do routine.
Hatakka.9). When using those at the top of the hierarchy. 2001). GOALS FOR LIFE AND SKILLS FOR LIVING Importance of cars and driving for personal development Skills for self-control GOALS AND CONTEXT OF DRIVING Purpose. but also through verbal and pictorial description or by imagining the course of traffic events (Keskinen et al. 2004). experience effects have not been controlled (Rothengatter. It assumes that. direction and position Figure 2. they organise knowledge about the driving process within an internalised mental model that represents typical characteristics of the traffic environment and the flow of traffic events. and sometimes confounded by gender differences. 59 . Internal models contain knowledge of route. social context company MASTERING TRAFFIC SITUATIONS Adapting to the demands of the present situation VEHICLE MANOEUVRING Controlling speed.by Keskinen. 1996. environment. they tend to priortise conscious control of the vehicle over other elements of the driving experience. When drivers tap into models at the base of cognitive hierarchy. Internal models have connections to motivational and emotional systems of the driver. Experience can be gained through personal participation in traffic as a driver and through observing the behaviour of others. in many studies of age and gender differences. they take actions based on whether they are perceived to reflect lifestyle priorities and values. as young drivers generally have less experience than their older counterparts. and can be organised in a hierarchy that reflects the key purposes. including start and destination point and corresponding visual scenes.9: Hierarchical Levels of Driving Behaviour (after Keskinen. Hataaka and Katila (1992). 2000) The effects of driving experience and age are closely linked. as well as knowledge of risk elements and a cognitive map of control equipment in the vehicle and how it behaves. or most important facets of driving at different levels (see Figure 2. as individuals acquire experience. Yet.
Justification of driver experience hypotheses. such as problems in vehicle handling skills. 2007). explained because adult identity is still under construction so life goals and living skills are still under development.Laapotti et al. While motivational and differing skill levels are also important predictors of professional drivers’ crash risk. (2001) used the cognitive framework to explain the differing effects of experience.g. taking risks and consuming alcohol or drugs. was used in this study. Studies of crash predictors among professional drivers have been undertaken for over fifty years (e. Young novice drivers. Peltzer and Renner (2003). A simple measure of driving experience. and that taxicab drivers are more likely to regard low. for instance. all of which were seen to reflect deficient self-control and lifestyle management abilities. showed more problems connected to showing off driving skills to peers. Brown & Ghiselli. 1949. Driving experience was considered a distal variable that would have an 60 . 1948. They found that young drivers failed in applying both lower and higher models of the hierarchy than did middle-aged drivers. 1954).and medium-severity traffic violation penalties as unjust than are non-professional drivers (Rosenbloom & Shahar. Female novice drivers. the number of years since a driving licence was first obtained. on the other hand. frequently showing that they are lest frequently involved in motor vehicle crashes than other classes of drivers. was inversely correlated with driving experience and numbers of accidents witnessed. found that risk taking within a sample of 130 drivers of minibus taxis in the Pietersburg area of the Republic of South Africa. and especially young male drivers. There is some evidence that female taxicab drivers may be at higher crash injury risk than male taxicab drivers but not risk of crash incidence (Lam. Burns and Wilde (1995) found no relationship between collision history and personality when they studied sampled male taxi drivers in a small Canadian city. Ghiselli & Brown. One way to understand experience effects is to study occupations for which driving is an important work component. many studies have focused on the effects of experience. Mintz.. age and gender on motor vehicle crash risk. 2004). showed more problems than males connected to the lower cognitive levels of the driving hierarchy.
1995. All of these will affect the likelihood of crash involvement. it is accepted that the more one travels. the concept is much less well developed.5. the more one is going to be exposed to traffic situations in which a crash could occur.effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. the miles they drive. it was hypothesised that driving experience would have a significant effect on behaviour in traffic scores. but measuring exposure is not always as simple a matter as computing asking for an estimate of distance travelled per unit time (Evans. on crash and injury occurrence. 282). and the traffic conditions to which they are exposed. driving occurs (Dewar.. Generally. Based on research indicating that more experienced drivers tend to have fewer crashes (Lajunen & Summala. for instance. crash risk is affected greatly by the time of day when. 1971). 1986. showed that the risk of crash involvement is five to ten times higher during late night 61 . 1984. Second. Duncan & Brown. 2. 2001. with greater experience associated with safer self-reported behaviour. (1993) noted that: People vary in the time they spend on the road. 2002a). 1991).2. The concept of risk exposure has been examined in some detail from the point of view of comparing regional crash rates over different periods to assess the effects of demographic. In individual differences research. 1984). First. Rothengatter. and the problem of taking adequate account of individuals’ exposure to risk is only beginning to be properly addressed (p. and type of route where. Pelz & Schuman. McKenna. 1993). Wilde. indirectly.2 Driving Frequency and Traffic Exposure Many authors have discussed the effect of traffic exposure on crash risk and outcomes (Evans. Elander et al. Åkerstedt and Kecklund (2001). there may be considerable random or systematic error in subjective reports about distance travelled (Elander et al. technical or legal changes relating to road safety.
Towner and Ward. without correcting for annual mileage. in countries like the USA. Teoh & MCartt.. After correcting for the number of kilometres driven. In keeping with recommendations made by Elander et al. Yet. 2007). Canada and Germany where a legal penalty point system is in place to track drivers’ violations and involvement in road crashes. female drivers came out higher in number of crashes and in some types of traffic violations.. Justification of exposure hypotheses. and found that approximately one-third of all traffic injuries occurred during the night. a simple measure of driving frequency was used as a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. however. 62 . although much research does not (e. the resulting ‘driver records’ in combination with exposure data turn out to be the best predictors of future crashes. it was hypothesised that higher levels of driving frequency would result in less risky behaviour in traffic. Several authors have emphasised the importance of considering differences in traffic exposure when studying the effects of psychological or demographic factors on crash and injury risk (Abdel-ATy & Anurag. (1986). This was taken to be representative of traffic exposure. 2003). Mercer (1989) showed that. (1999) have argued that. (1997) reviewed published and unpublished reports on roadway crashes in developing countries from 1966 to 1994. Christie. nor are there valid category weightings that would allow the prediction of risk. Evans (1991) and others. Odero et al. the driving frequency measure was used as a co-variate in analyses of relationships between other distal variable and the proximal variables of the contextual mediated model. Because of earlier trends reported by Evans (1984) and McKenna et al. with the highest incidence being between 6:00 pm and midnight. there is little evidence that drivers are capable of reporting different categories of time or route conditions. 2007.. 2006. (1993). Lourens et al. on crash and injury occurrence. Ferguson. Williams & Shabanova.hours than during the forenoon. young male drivers were strongly over-presented in terms of both crash frequency and traffic-related fines. Bina et al. Cairns. 2007. In the present study. indirectly. as defined by Elander et al.g.
. according to the strength of their tendencies toward making attributions of internal or external control.3.1 Unidimensional and Multidimensional Constructs Locus of control refers to the expectancy that one’s personal actions will be effective to control or master the environment (Rice. Based on this multidimensional conceptualisation.5. 63 . 1991.10). or externals .2. view most events as dependent on chance or controlled by powers beyond human reach. people are thought to vary on a continuum between the two extremes of external and internal locus of control. or internals.3. Lefcourt (1976) defined external control (E) as the perception that positive or negative events are unrelated to one’s own behaviour and thus are beyond personal control External people. 15). 1975. Rotter’s (1966) original I-E conceptualisation of the locus of control construct viewed it as a unidimensional.5. and second. believe that very few events are outside the realm of human influence and that even cataclysmic situations may be altered through human action. bipolar continuum along which individuals could be placed. Levenson (1975. She argued that “it is quite conceivable that a person who believes in control by powerful others may also perceive enough regularity in the actions of such people as to believe that he or she can obtain reinforcements through purposeful action” (p. Holder & Levi. Lefcourt defined internal control (I) as the perception that positive or negative events are a consequence of personal actions and thus may potentially be subject to personal control. she assumed that the three resulting dimensions were conceptually independent.1. she separated the externality dimension into two.1 Locus of Control 2. In contrast. 2006. Originally conceptualised by Rotter (1966. Levenson constructed a scale has been used widely in studies of locus of control (e. 1999). such that it could be possible for an individual to score high on all three (see Figure 2. Stanley & Burrows. 1981) extended this concept in two ways: first. Hyman.g. one to reflect the influence of fate or chance (C) and the second to reflect the influence of powerful others (P). people who attribute behaviour to an internal locus of control.3 Psychological Variables 2.5. 1990).
1989.2 Locus of Control and Driving Behaviour Very early studies examined a link between locus of control and risk taking. Liverant and Scodel (1960) studied betting preferences using a simple dice-throwing task. E Unidimensional Model I Externalizers Individuals believe that what happens is determined by fate. Multidimensional Model Low Internality High Low Externality . They found that subjects with high internal control seemed to prefer intermediate probability bets or extremely safe bets over so-called long shots. a deity or higher power or other external circumstances Internalizers Individuals believe that what happens is the result of their own personal decisions and efforts. 64 . these results supported the idea that internals would be more cautious in their control efforts while externals would engage in riskier behaviour.5. 2007) and has given rise to a number of other instruments measuring multi-dimensional locus of control.Chance High Low Externality – Powerful Others High Figure 2.3.10: Contrast between Rotter’s Unidimensional and Levenson’s Multidimensional Conceptualisations of Locus of Control 2. According to Phares (1976). They also tended to bet more on safe outcomes than did the more externally oriented subjects.1.Luckner. luck. Sinha & Watson.
1999). however. Harrell (1995) sampled Canadian wheat farmers to show that those incurring injuries in the field were more likely to score high on a measure of risk taking and to believe that their accidents had been caused by fate. In a subsequent study. believing that fate will achieve its goals no matter what the individual does (p. s/he will be more likely to take precautionary measures such as wearing a seat belt and being vigilant to roadway cues.More recent studies have examined the relationship between an external locus of control and risky behaviour within driving or workplace behaviour. Iversen and Rundmo (2002) also failed to find an association with risky driving or crash involvement. A great many studies have investigated the effects of locus of control on driving behaviour. Serious methodological problems may have plagued this study. which focused heavily on situational scenarios. but results have been inconsistent. French & Chan. 39). Other authors explained an apparent link between external locus of control and crash risk on a motivational basis (Montag & Comrey. Their results indicated that internals had been involved in fewer crashes than externals on their transitional scale but there was no such relation between crashes and scores on the Rotter scale. According to Brown and Noy (2004). as Cronbach’s alpha values for the scales of their transitional instrument were below accepted criteria and scale content. however. only partially represented the original locus of control concept. Attitudes toward fate have been shown to be instrumental in determining the level of risk that persons will take with regard to delaying treatment for illness (Chung. 1987). 65 . On the other hand. Guastello and Guastello (1986) used the Rotter (1966) locus of control scale and their own transitional instrument in a study of American college students. Dixey (1999) found relationships between road crashes and fatalist attitudes in Nigeria. If an individual views herself or himself as being responsible for both positive and negative outcomes. those who see themselves as playing little or no part in the unfolding of evens will act in a less cautious manner.
Özkan and Lajunen (2005) found that internals reported a higher number of total crashes. On the other hand. In an important study. Gal and Desevilya (2003) investigated the interaction between road-hostility and internal locus of control in predicting the occurrence of self-reported dangerous driving behaviour (DDB). In a similar study investigating personality attributes and driving behaviour. leading the authors to conclude that “if a relationship exists. Gidron. personality and demographic/biographical predictors of vehicular involvement. aggressive and ordinary traffic violations and driving errors. cognitive. an internal locus of control was found to be associated with lower levels of crash involvement and with higher levels of cognitive ability. In a much earlier study. This study provided support for the view that the effects of personality traits on driving 66 . hostility was associated with worse DDB to a greater extent among drivers scoring low on internality than among drivers scoring high on internality. The same driving skill scores were positively correlated with an internal locus of control. Arthur et al. offences. although internality was unrelated to DDB. 1260). although scores on externality dimensions did not relate significantly to any of those dependent variables. when Lajunen and Summala (1995) gave Finnish university students a series of questionnaires that assessed driving abilities and personality. rather than examining its interaction with other predictors. Hoyt (1973) reported that internals reported wearing seat belts more often and experienced highway travel as more interesting and involving. driving skills were negatively correlated with externality scores. In a meta-analysis of information-processing. it strongly moderated the relationship between hostility and DDB. (p.Although externals reported more risk taking this trend was not significant. (1991) argued that these equivocal results were due to overly simple research designs which tended to investigate direct effects of locus of control. it may not be of sufficient magnitude to be of value. That is. They found that. Verwey and Zaidel (2000) observed that people scoring high on measures of external locus of control made more road departure errors than those scoring high on measures of with an internal locus of control.
India. Life situations may be viewed as being largely determined by circumstances outside personal control (p. complexity and unpredictability. Noting that Chinese culture. 122). which is considered to be full of ambiguity. is based on the notion that … luck.5. Noy (1997). Japan. whereas Americans scored high on internal control and Chinese-Americans were somewhere in-between. Israel. France.3 Locus of Control and Ethnicity Dyal (1984) argued that post-War geopolitical expansion and a growing interest in the role of attributions. Richardson and Downe (2000) and others. Parsons and Schneider (1974) administered Rotter’s (1969) I-E scale to 120 male and female students in Canada. and the USA. Italy. after correction for differences in socioeconomic status.behaviour can be better understood by adopting a more holistic approach in which interactions. Their results. 2. as hypothesised. reinforcement and sociocultural processes created fertile ground for cross-cultural studies using the locus of control construct.1. Hsieh. (1991). This point had also been argued earlier by Arthur et al. with situation-centred Confucian foundations. Canada and Japan. Hong Kong Chinese students were more externally controlled on Rotter’s (1969) I-E scale. In very early research. chance and fate are taken for granted in life. while externality scores for Indian students were significantly lower than those in France. US-born Chinese and Caucasian Americans).3. Japanese students had significantly higher external scores than in all other countries. Germany. indicated that. moderating and mediating relationships are investigated. More recent research has continued to find differences in locus of control between cultures and between sub-groups within cultures. Crittendon (1991) found that female university students in Taiwan were more 67 . Shybut and Lotsof (1969) sampled three groups of high school students (Hong Kong Chinese.
externally-controlled and more self-effacing than either American females or Taiwanese males. Indian students were more external than Canadians on personal control factors. where no significant differences were found between those of Indian. At the same time. skill and ability. Chinese and Indian populations. 68 . although there were no differences in internality nor externality involving powerful others. they found that the three ethnic groups in Singapore had greater commonalities in the measured personality constructs than Singaporean-Chinese subjects had with the normative sample. Chinese and Indian ethnic groups were found. He attributed this to the belief that dealing with widespread nepotism. and this was provided as part of a larger study comparing Singaporean ethnic groups to a Chinese normative sample from the People’s Republic of China. To the author’s knowledge. This was very true for the locus of control variable. all internal characteristics. but all three groups differed from the sample drawn in China. In very early research. Cheung. due largely to high scores on items measuring political ideology and social system control. No published accounts of research conducted in Malaysia with regard to locus of control differences among members of Malay. Chinese of Malay extraction. Carment (1974) found Indian university students to be significantly more internal than Canadian students on the full scale score for Rotter’s (1969) I-E instrument. a finding Carment interpreted as reflecting greater dependency on and conformity within the somewhat indulgent and closely-connected Indian family structure. ingratiation and bribery found in India requires effort. Howard and Lim (2006) have offered research evidence related to cross-cultural differences in locus of control within Malay. Using an English version of the Cross-Cultural Chinese Personality Assessment Inventory (CPAI-2). Much more recent research by Sinha and Watson (2007) used Levenson’s (1984) multidimensional model to show that Indian university students are significantly more externally controlled by fate and chance than Canadian university students. only Cheung.
1997. Given the strong research evidence suggesting an association between internal locus of control and less risky driving behaviour (Lajunen & Summala. 2.3. on crash and injury occurrence. given the large number of studies indicating ethnic differences in locus of control (Crittendon. Gilbody. but there are two conceptual arguments for doing so. 2007). McMillan. while the two dimensions of externality would have positive associations. et al.5.2 Hopelessness Rothengatter (2002) and Groeger (1997) have both noted the paucity of research on affect and driver behaviour. Kovacs and Weissman. Finally.Justification of hypotheses about locus of control. First. Ohberg. it was hypothesised that internality would have a negative association with unsafe behaviour in traffic. Montag & Comrey. 1991. 2005). Beresford & Neilly. Personality traits closely aligned with given mood states might well be expected to have an impact on the performance on driving tasks. 1973). Weissman. Özkan & Lajunen. 1987. (2003). Niméus. Fox & Klerman. 1975). it was hypothesised that locus of control would moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic. 1975. hopelessness has been consistently shown to be a predictor of suicidal intent (Beck. Pentilla and Lonnqvist (1997) studied all fatal car crashes in Finland from 1987 to 1991 and found that 5. without objective basis. Hopelessness has not been previously studied as a predictor either of driving behaviour or of crash risk. anticipate a negative outcome to any attempts that may be made to attain the individual’s major objectives or goals (Beck. 2007. it was hypothesised that Chinese participants would tend toward higher externality scores while Indian participants would tend toward higher internality. Based on the findings reported by Gidron et al. Hopelessness is one such trait in which the behaviour of individuals is derived from specific cognitive distortions that systematically misconstrue experiences in a negative way and. Cases usually 69 .9% could be classified as having an intentional suicidal component. indirectly. Sinha & Watson. 1995. Träskman-Bendz & Alsén. locus of control was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. In the present study.
finding that persons who perceived reinforcements to be a function of powerful others. locus of control and depression with university students in western Canada. 1998. Chioqueta and Stiles (2005) showed that hopelessness in Norwegian university students was positively predicted by high scores in neuroticism and depression. luck. 1962). Breen and Lussier (1976). assertiveness and positive emotion. 1990. have proposed that potentially self-destructive behaviours. mental disorders and alcohol misuse. in which hopelessness plays a significant part. hopelessness was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. Very early on. 1962). 1997. for instance. and negatively predicted by extraversion. whose crashes had resulted from extreme risks. Hernetkoski and Keskinen (1998). Selzer & Payne. and crash risk (Ohberg et al. Based on earlier findings about the relationship between depressive-suicidal states..involved head-on collisions between two vehicles with a large weight disparity and victims had often suffered from life-event stress. it was suggested that “many persons with self-destructive inclinations may unconsciously attempt to destroy or injure themselves through automobile accidents and that these accidents are rarely perceived as suicidal attempts by either the driver or the public” (Selzer & Payne. Henderson. Firestone & Seiden. investigated the relationship between hopelessness. In the present study. it was 70 . indirectly. Mendel. Justification of hopelessness hypotheses. in a more detailed study. 1974). Several authors. 1976. can be placed along a continuum between high hope for the future at the positive pole and a sense of hopelessness at the negative pole (Aylott. found that the most commonly reported mental state among Finnish drivers dying in crashes classified as suicidal had been “depression” and “hopeless”. usually when impaired by alcohol or drug use. They also classified a group of drivers whose highly negligent actions. chance or fate not only expressed greater pessimism about the future but were more likely to report depressive states. Prociuk. including risky driving. in fact. Second. hopelessness has been associated with personality and behavioural factors that have been shown to be good predictors of driver behaviour and crash risk. on crash and injury occurrence.
Wright & Crundall. learned disinhibitory cues. 2000. 2002. there is no shortage of evidence to suggest a consistent and reliable association between aggressive driving and motor vehicle crashes (Blanchard.hypothesised that participants scoring high on a measure of hopelessness would be likely to engage in behaviour in traffic that was less cautious. Underwood. Malta & Blanchard. In a largely unrelated study.3.3 Aggression Since the 1980s. 2002). Lynch & Oetting. attention to the issue of aggressive driving has grown exponentially. Filetti. While media reports and some authors (James & Nahl. learned cognitive scripts. Mizell. which acts to counter the influence of normative moral codes and to increase people’s impulsive responses to stimuli as one such disinhibitory cue. Richards. Most authors seem to agree with the early contention by Näätänen and Summala (1976) that aggressive driving could result from driver frustration at obstructions such as traffic congestion. and deindividuation. 71 . Tzamalouka.. Binzer (1999) suggested that hopelessness may play a moderating role in the effects of locus of control on some psychiatric symptoms associated with unconscious motivations.5. & Darviri. 1999) have argued that there has been a marked increase in the frequency of aggressive incidents and anger-related crashes. Barton and Malta. Koumaki. Chapman. it is difficult to accurately assess whether the problem is becoming more common or whether greater visibility has been due to a growth in awareness and reporting (Galovski. including subjective feelings of stress. sparked by a number of highly publicised accounts of road rage and improved techniques for measuring anger and aggression in drivers. Novaco (1991) proposed that driver aggression is produced when environmental triggers interact with a variety of predisposing factors. Demakakos. Wells-Parker et al. Chliaoutaks. 2. It was hypothesised here that hopelessness would moderate the manner in which locus of control affected behaviour in traffic. this concept became the basis for what is now known as the frustration-aggression hypothesis of aggressive driving. 1999. 2003. physiological arousal. 2000. Although uncertainty persists as to whether road aggression is actually increasing. O’Connell (2002) has described the use of alcohol. Deffenbacher. 2006). Bakou.
does indeed have all the ingredients that might give rise to increased levels of anger and hostility. threat to own safety and self-eesteem. Shinar (1998) argued that the frustration-aggression hypothesis provided an appropriate model for aggressive driving. 163). Snyder. Schwebel et al. as another. Bettencourt. Kurylo and Poirier (1997) created the Hostile Automatic Thoughts Scale to reflect the frequency 72 . This led to an interest in the sorts of self-talk in which individuals engaged under varying conditions and corresponded with the emergence of cognitive therapies (Beck. 1962). the display of aggression (p. Groeger (2000). More recently. Meichenbaum (1977) pioneered the use of cognitive restructuring. (2006) extended Shinar’s (1998) efforts to broaden the focus of frustration-based explanations by showing that sensation seeking interacted with anger and hostility to influence driving violations. Crowson. Talley. lack of control over events.which creates a sense of anonymity and diminished personal responsibility. Benjamin and Valentine (2006) conducted a meta-analysis of studies assessing personality variables and aggressive behaviour. stress induced by time pressure. to better cope with stress and achieve behavioural change. but needed to be expanded to account for the influence of personality factors such as Type A personality behaviour (TAPB). through the use of self-statements. They reported that trait aggressiveness and trait irritability influenced aggressive behaviour under both provoking and neutral conditions but that other personality variables. Ellis. and frustration of goals that comprises the driving task in the modern world. angry thinking and trait anger influenced aggressive behaviour only under conditions in which the individual was provoked. though. rather than a cause of. 1976. Houston. such as TAPB. However. cultural driving norms and situational conditions. it may equally be that the people involved would be aggressive in situations beyond driving – with driving being an opportunity for. raised the point that: It seems to me possible that the peculiar cocktail of personal challenge.
Miyake.. James & Nahl. Based on the extensive research on the association between aggression and unsafe driving behaviour (Galovski et. Deffenbacher. TAPB is characterised by a sense of time urgency. that the total amount. 2001). al. aggression was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. McKee. 1999). Frueh & Snyder. Narda.6. insecurity about status. Rice.1 Proximal Variables in the Present Research Type A Behaviour Pattern and Motor Vehicle Crashes The Type A Behaviour Pattern (TAPB) has been associated with a wide range of behavioural outcomes and is perhaps the most widely publicised and popularly discussed biotype (Rice. Blumenthal. 2. Those authors used the instrument to assess hostility and negative affect within a population of veterans diagnosed with combat-related posttraumatic stress disorder (Crowson. It was also hypothesised. impatience. Sato. 2002. (2003). Originally identified by Friedman and Rosenman (1974).with which individuals make cognitive statements reflecting aggressive sentiments. Elofsson & Krakau. In the present study.6 2. Petrilli. Carbone. Sani. Oetting and Swaim (2003) used the same approach to examine angry cognitions made by drivers under varying conditions of provocation. indirectly. Bettencourt et al. hostility and difficulty achieving states of relaxation (Ben-Zur. 1981. Later still. on crash and injury occurrence. 73 . and specific content. 1999. 2006. Kamada. Thurman. consistent with earlier research by Deffenbacher et al. Dewar (2002b) noted that TAPB has been one of the variables most consistently linked to driving performance. Williams & Haney. 2000. Justification of aggression-related hypotheses. 1985). of hostile automatic thought would moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic. it was hypothesised that aggression would have a negative effect on behaviour in traffic. Kumashiro & Kume. aggression. competitiveness. Undén. Magnavita. 1999. They found that perjorative labelling and vengeful or retaliatory thoughts correlated highly with self-reported aggressive driving. 1998. 2006). Karlberg. Lynch.
Nabi et al. studied police officers in Italy. Raikkonen. Perry and Baldwin (2000) argued that it was the tendency of Type A drivers toward a heightened sense of urgency and impatience that created crash risk. gender.DeLorenzo and Sacco (1997). Perry (1986) fond significant simple correations between scores on a commonly used measure of TAPB. Chiron. (1998). and drivers’ attitudes toward traffic regulations – when examining the association between motor vehicle crashes and Type A scores in a prospective study of 20. violations and self-reported driving impatience in a sample of 54 American students. but not with accident risk. tested drivers on a TABP questionnaire in 1993 and then tracked their driving behaviour to record crash history from 1994 to 2001. Elander and French (1993) found that TAPB had a strong association with excessive driving speed. Although their research design accounted for the influence of potential confounds. alcohol consumption. category of vehicle. They found a robust association between scores on a measure of TAPB and later serious crashes. Although there is some evidence as to the long-term stability of TAPB (Keltikangas-Jarninen. age. (2003) with respect to data collection time periods. 1990). where Type A drivers were 4. for instance. it may be questionable as to whether subjects would have recorded the same score on the measure of Type A behaviour on the day of their motor vehicle crash as they did when tested in the laboratory up to eight years earlier. Karlberg et al.2 times more likely to have an accident than others. Chastang.000 employees of a French oil and gas company. it may have been flawed by methodological deficiencies discussed by af Wählberg (2003) and by Elander et al. Zzanski & Rosenman. driving style. however. was driving frequency. Nabi. the Jenkins Activity Survey (Jenkins. Lafont and Lagarde (2005). West. similarly. 1989. particularly in driving situations that require prudence. focused on the time urgency component 74 . In a correlational study of British drivers. Other authors have examined which of the behavioural dimensions of TAPB has the strongest impact on driving outcomes. socio-professional category. did control for the effects of a range of potential confounding variables – annual mileage. Consoli. traffic exposure or driver gender controlled as variables. 1979) and number of accidents. In none of these studies. however.
with higher BIT scores reflecting a stronger Type A orientation. If all four BIT factors contribute to accident proneness. The BIT scale was positively correlated with the student version of the Jenkins Activity Survey (SJAS.2 A Conceptual Shift from TAPB to Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) as a Variable Synodinos and Papacostas (1985) also attempted to examine the TAPB dimensions that related to driving behaviour in a sample of Hawaiian university students. only externally-focused frustration was consistently correlated with Type A behaviour. namely “externally-focused frustration”. Of the four BIT factors. freeway urgency (excessive speed choice).of TAPB that had the most significant influence on driving risks. In a subsequent study. 2. Gender. Papacostas and Synodinos concluded that: Type A/B behaviour is consistently related to only one of the four driving factors obtained by the BIT. on the other hand. all four BIT factors significantly predicted participants’ self-reported driving characteristics. as measured by the student version of the SJAS. ethnicity. externally-focused frustration (congestion irritation and hostility toward other drivers) and destination-activity orientation (inattention to the driving task related to journey motives or outcomes). specifically measuring the effects of drivers’ usurpation of right-of-way (lane violations and reluctance to yield). stressed the relationship between Type A individuals and the tendency to engage in more aggressive acts while driving as the key factor in the relationship between TAPB and crashes. 1977). Glass. then use of the Type A/B 75 . Miles and Johnson (2003). driving exposure and the place where they had learned to drive all had direct effects on Type A results.6. Using an instrument with items at extreme ends of the Type A/B continuum. they examined the influence of TAPB on a number of driving outcomes. Papacostas and Synodinos (1988) reported several further analyses of their original data. At the same time. emphasising the four individual dimensions of behaviour in traffic rather than the composite BIT total score.
1988) attempt to relate scores on their BIT scale to crash frequency or injury. participants’ behaviour in traffic was considered a proximal variable that. 13). ethnicity. In neither of their studies. the extent to which other personality factors influence the four components comprising behaviour in traffic was not investigated. on the other hand. They argued that it would be preferable. aggression and the amount and content of 76 . At the present time. Similarly. thought to be critical in the relationship between TAPB and motor vehicle crashes. no further use of BIT scale has been reported in studies of driving safety. driving experience. locus of control. Justification of BIT-related hypotheses. Specifically. In the present study. including gender. To the author’s knowledge. all that can be concluded about the BIT concept is that composite scores have been indicative of high Type A scores on the student version of the SJAS and that the SJAS was unable to predict three of the four component scores.construct as the basis of further investigation into the question of highway safety will provide only an incomplete picture. it will not be sensitive to “usurpation of right-of-way” which is related to aggressive driving. did Papacostas and Synodinos (1985. that are measured by the BIT scale. although ethnicity. gender and other demographic factors were shown to affect BIT subscales. though. “freeway urgency’’ which manifests itself in speeding and frequent lane changing. would be influenced by drivers’ psycho-social characteristics. hopelessness. on one hand would have an effect on crash and injury occurrence and. in studying the effects of Type A behaviour on safe driving patterns to use the BIT scale instead of measures of TABP because the latter tended to allow only for the direct measurement of Type A-related hostility and were often insufficiently sensitive to the effects of other components of the behaviour pattern on driving. and “destination-activity orientation” which is possibly a cause of inattentive driving (p.
hostile automatic thought. Nabi et al. 1993) and. externally-focused frustration. freeway urgency and destination-activity orientation would each have positive effects on both crash and injury occurrence. 1986. 1985). 2005. Further. it was hypothesised here that BIT total scores would have a positive effect on both crash and injury occurrence. since Papacostas and Synodinos (1988) found that all four component factors of BIT were related to driving characteristics. Miles & Johnson. it was hypothesised that drivers’ scores on measures of usurpation of right-of-way. since the composite BIT score has been shown to be an accurate reflection of over-all Type A behaviour (Synodinos & Papacostas. 77 .. Many studies have suggested that drivers’ TABP is a factor in motor vehicle crashes (Perry. 2003.. West et al.
driving and psychological variables were linked to each other and to self-reported driving behaviour.1).2). each of which sought to replicate and expand the previous one. the present research attempted to support the notion that variables in the distal context (psychological factors) contributed to crashes and injuries. 78 .CHAPTER 3 METHOD OF INVESTIGATION 3. Study 1A investigated the effects of demographic (driver age. 1B and 1C. the effects of the same demographic and psychological variables as used in Study 1B were evaluated as predictors of self-reported BIT and then of self-reported crash and injury occurrence. gender and ethnicity) and psychological (locus of control and hopelessness) variables in predicting self-reported BIT and then on self-reported crash and injury occurrence (see Figure 3.1 Conceptualisation and the Research Framework Based on the discussion in the previous chapter. hostile automatic thoughts (see Figure 3. In Study 1C. using automobile drivers as the units of analysis.3). The research model was developed and tested over the course of three separate studies: Study 1: Units of analysis consisted of only automobile drivers Study 2: Units of analysis consisted of only motorcycle drivers Study 3: Units of analysis consisted of only taxicab drivers In Study 1. each study explored the extent to which demographic. The extent to which drivers’ self-reported behaviour in traffic (BIT) predicted motor vehicle crash occurrence and injury occurrence was assessed first by examining each of five successive samples of drivers. with the addition of a fourth psychological variable. with the addition of a third psychological variable. In Study 1B. through their action on proximal variables (behaviour in traffic). the effects of the same demographic and psychological variables in predicting self-reported BIT and then in predicting self-reported crash and injury occurrence were evaluated. Then. the research model was developed and tested in studies 1A. aggression (see Figure 3.
In Study 2, using motorcycle drivers as units of analysis, the research model was tested to investigate the effects of demographic (driver age, gender and ethnicity) and psychological factors (locus of control and hopelessness) in predicting self-reported BIT and then on self-reported crash and injury occurrence (see Figure 3.2).
In Study 3, using taxicab drivers as units of analysis, the research model was tested to study the effects of demographic (driver age, gender and ethnicity) and psychological factors (locus of control, hopelessness and aggression) in predicting self-reported BIT and then on self-reported crash and injury occurrence (see Figure 3.4).
DISTAL CONTEXT H2
Driver experience Driving frequency
Gender Ethnicity Age
Locus of Control
Internality Externality (chance) Externality (Powerful Other)
Behaviour in Traffic (BIT)
Usurpation of right-of-way Freeway urgency Externally-focused frustration Destination-activity orientation
Crash Occurrence Injury Occurrence
BHS x Locus of Control
Figure 3.1: Research Model (Study 1A and Study 2)
Driver experience Driving frequency
Gender Ethnicity Age
Physical aggression Verbal aggression Anger Hostility Indirect aggression
Behaviour in Traffic (BIT)
Usurpation of right-of-way Freeway urgency Externally-focused frustration Destination-activity orientation
Locus of Control
Internality Externality (chance) Externality (Powerful Other)
H7 H12 H9
Locus of Control x AQ
BHS x Locus of Control
Figure 3.2: Research Model (Study 1B)
Driver experience Driving frequency
Demographic Variables Gender, Ethnicity & Age
Hostile Automatic Thoughts (HAT)
Physical Aggression Derogation of Others Revenge
Behaviour in Traffic (BIT)
Usurpation of right-of-way Freeway urgency Externally-focused frustration Destination-activity orientation
Aggression Questionnaire (AQ) Locus of Control
Locus of Control x AQ
BHS x Locus of Control
HAT x AQ
Figure 3.3: Research Model (Study 1C)
Driver experience Taxicab experience
Ethnicity & Age
Physical Aggression Verbal Aggression Anger Hostility Indirect Aggression
Behaviour in Traffic (BIT)
Usurpation of right-of-way Freeway urgency Externally-focused frustration Destination-activity orientation
Locus of Control
Internality Externality (chance) Externality (Powerful Other)
Locus of Control x AQ
Figure 3.4: Research Model (Study 3)
Definition of the Variables This section identifies, classifies and provides an operational definition of each
of the variables used in the present research. Variables included (a) self-reported driving characteristics; (b) demographic variables; (c) locus of control; (d) hopelessness; (e) aggression; (f) hostile automatic thoughts; (g) self-reported behaviour in traffic; (h) selfreported crash occurrence; and (i) self-reported injury occurrence. Variables (a) through (f) were grouped within a super-ordinate class as distal variables. Variable (g) was considered as a proximal variable. Variables (h) and (i) were grouped within a superordinate class as outcome variables.
Driver Characteristics: Driver Experience and Driving Frequency Driver experience was defined as the length of time, in months, that participants
reported they had held a valid driving licence, consistent with the approach used in earlier research by Synodinos and Papacostas (1985). Frequency of travel was measured by asking participants to respond to the question, “how often do you travel in a car” as a driver, using a six-point Likert-type scale.
Demographic Variables: Age, Gender and Ethnicity Participants reported their age in years, their gender and chose a descriptor of
their “ethnic background” from a list including “Malay”, “Chinese-Malaysian”, “IndianMalaysian” and “Other, please specify”. The use of ethnic self-identification has been the most frequently used means of establishing cultural affiliation in previous studies of driving behaviour (Ey, Klesges, Patterson, Patterson, Hadley, Barnard & Alpert, 2000; Romano, Tippetts & Voas, 2005a, 2005b).
Locus of Control Locus of control refers to the extent to which individuals believe that they are in
control of the events that affect them (Rotter, 1966). The present research, adopted Levenson’s (1973) assumption that there are three independent dimensions to locus of control: internality; chance and powerful others. Within this model, one can endorse
hostility and aggression are often inconsistent. a future directed information-processing bias or schema which functions to distort individuals’ subjective experience of external reality (Velting. aggression is regarded here as referring to the hostile behaviour that occurs as a result of it. overlapping and ambiguous. While Beck (1999) and others have reserved the term anger for the feeling that accompanies such an internal state. consistent with the way the variable has been described by Beck (1987a) and Beck. It has been accepted for a long time that aggression finds its 85 .5 Aggression Spielberger et al (1995). anger was defined as a negative internal state of physiological arousal and cognition that involves interactions between physiological.2. such that an individual might simultaneously believe that oneself and powerful others control an outcome. hopelessness was measured as a unidimensional construct. externality related to chance (C) and externality related to the influence of powerful others (P) was obtained. 3. For each of the five studies undertaken.each of these dimensions independently and at the same time. 25). a separate score for internality (I). Galovski et al (2006) and others have noted that the definitions of anger. In the present research. cognitive. 1988) and tends to manifest itself under antagonistic conditions (Novaco. 3. 1994).4 Hopelessness Hopelessness has been defined as a cognitive or motivational state characterised by negative expectancies. Lester and Trexler (1974). 1999). Weissman. According to Farran et al (1995): Hopelessness constitutes an essential experience of the human condition. but not chance. It functions as a feeling of despair and discouragement.2. affective. and a behavioural process in which the person attempts little or takes inappropriate action (p. motoric and verbal components (Sharkin. For the purposes of the present research. a thought process that expects nothing.
hitting or interpersonal violence. 1957. Lynch & Morris. 2003. emotional lability and temperamental gesturing.expression in a range of behavioural manifestations (Buss & Durkee.2. social alienation and paranoia. 3. (d) hostility – including attitudes of bitterness. 2005). (c) overt anger – the tendency to experience high levels of emotional arousal and a perceived loss of control. generally to the point where the needs or feelings of others cannot be taken into consideration. the following variables were examined: (a) physical aggression – the tendency to use physical force when expressing anger or aggression. expressed through the presence of irritability. 1996). but it has only relatively recently been considered in light of driving aggression (Deffenbacher et al. Oetting. taken as a sum of measures of each of the foregoing. Deffenbacher. Specifically. The present research examined the effects of a set of cognitive statements – described as hostile automatic thoughts (Snyder et al. The effects of participants’ total aggression.6 Hostile Automatic Thoughts While the role of cognitive self-talk in directing behavioural responses has been accepted since the early work of Beck (1976). (b) verbal aggression – the tendency to be unduly argumentative and to use quarrelsome and hostile speech in dealing with others in antagonistic situations. Bergeron & Vallerand. and. were also investigated. 1997) – on the behaviour in traffic of drivers in Study 1C. through fighting. the three forms of hostile automatic thoughts were defined as: 86 . Vallières. In the present research. frustration. (e) indirect aggression – the tendency to express aggressive impulses in actions that avoid direct confrontation. Ellis (1962) and Meichenbaum (1977).
(a) physical aggression – cognitive self-talk that contained content indicating an intent or desire to violently attack.. competitiveness. Four separate dimensions of BIT were examined: (a) usurpation of right-of-way – representing self-reported behaviours that took the form of evasive or uncooperative manoeuvres such as speeding to get away from others. and an expressed preference for operating powerful vehicles.2. motorcyclists and taxicab drivers sampled in the five successive studies undertaken.. (c) revenge – cognitive self-talk that contained content indicating an intent or desire to take some action against another individual to get even for a perceived wrong.g. 1998). hostility and time pressure (Karlberg et al. characterised by excessive impatience. hit or kill another individual. the BIT score. frequent lane changing. (c) externally-focused frustration – consisting of emotional reactions to the actions of other drivers on the road (e. degraded or wished to be rid of another individual. not allowing others to merge or overtake. (b) derogation of others – cognitive self-talk that contained content which belittled. was defined as indicative of Type A Behaviour Pattern (TABP). A global measure of selfreported driving tendencies. driving consistently in the fast lane and travelling above the speed limit. 3. and. (b) freeway urgency – including an expressed preference for freeway driving.7 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) The present research attempted to determine the effects of variables related to the self-reported patterns of driving behaviour among car drivers. being irritated by slow drivers) and of directive behaviours toward 87 .
3 3.8 Crash Occurrence Participants reported whether or not they had experienced a motor vehicle crash.g. gender and ethnicity) and two psychological variables (locus of control and hopelessness) on BIT was tested. the interrelationships between the demographic variables. travel frequency. Then.them (e. while driving. 3. the influence of driving experience.9 Injury Occurrence Participants also indicated whether they had been forced to seek medical treatment for an injury incurred during the reported crash.1 Research Design of the Study Study 1A Specifically.2. to the extent of inattention conditions. urging others to move faster or out of the way by sounding the horn).3. to contemporaneous roadway and traffic 3. in Study 1A. 88 . a “1” was scored if the participant reported a crash and a “0” was scored if the participant did not report a crash.2. within the preceding twelve months and provided details about the nature of the crash.. three demographic variables (driver age. In the resulting measure of this variable. (d) destination-activity orientation – defined as a preoccupation on the part of drivers with reaching their destinations on time and with the tasks to be performed there. and. In the resulting measure of this variable. the extent to which self-reported BIT of automobile drivers predicted crash and injury occurrence was assessed while controlling the effects of driving experience and the drivers’ self-reported travel frequency. Then. 3. a “1” was scored if the participant reported that they had sought treatment at a medical clinic or had required hospitalisation as a result of physical injury sustained during the crash and a “0” was scored if the participant reported that the crash had resulted in no damage or only damage to the vehicle.
travel frequency. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) on BIT was tested.2 illustrates the research design for Study 1B. the mediating effect of BIT on the relationship between psychological factors and crash occurrence and injury occurrence was tested. In this study. the psychological variables and BIT were examined. two moderating effects were tested: (a) the moderating effects of hopelessness on the relationship between locus of control and BIT. 3. the mediating effect of the BIT on the relations between psychological variables and crash occurrence and injury occurrence was tested. travel frequency. 3. Then. the interrelationships between the demographic variables. Then. In this study. gender and ethnicity) and three psychological variables (locus of control. Figure 3. three demographic variables (driver age. and (b) the moderating effect of locus of control on the relation between aggression and BIT. the moderating effect of hopelessness on the relationship between locus of control and BIT was tested.3. Figure 3. the psychological variables and BIT were examined.3 Study 1C In Study 1C. the interrelationships between the demographic variables. Then. Then.1 illustrates the research design for Study 1A. hopelessness. the influence of driving characteristics. three moderating effects were measured: (a) the moderating effect of hopelessness on the relationship between locus of control and BIT. gender and ethnicity) and four psychological variables (locus of control. the effects of driving experience and drivers’ self-reported travel frequency were controlled and the extent to which self-reported BIT predicted crash and injury occurrence in automobile drivers was assessed.2 Study 1B While again controlling the effects of driving experience and drivers’ self- reported travel frequency.psychological variables (locus of control and hopelessness) and BIT were examined. Finally. the influence of driving characteristics. hopelessness and aggression) on BIT was tested.3. three demographic variables (driver age. the extent to which self-reported BIT predicted crash and injury occurrence in automobile drivers was assessed. (b) the moderating effect of locus 89 . In Study 1B. Finally.
of control on the relationship between aggression and BIT. Finally. and (c) the moderating effect of hostile automatic thoughts on the relationship between aggression and BIT. Then. 3. and (b) taxi experience.1 illustrates the research design for Study 2. using a sample that indicated motorcycles as their primary mode of transportation. 3. Two measures of experience were included: (a) driving experience. This was justified for three reasons. the moderating effect of locus of control on the relationship between aggression and BIT was assessed.3. Figure 3. the effects of both measures of experience were controlled and the extent to which self-reported BIT predicted crash and injury occurrence in automobile drivers was assessed. It should be noted that certain of the variables examined with the automobile drivers in Study 1 and with the motorcycle drivers in Study 2 were not included when taxicab drivers were sampled in Study 3. the mediating effect of the BIT on the relations between psychological variables and crash occurrence and injury occurrence was tested. First.5 Study 3 The final study used a sample of on-duty taxicab drivers. the mediating effect of the BIT on the relations between psychological variables and crash occurrence and injury occurrence was tested. or the length of time they had been licensed to operate a taxicab. In Study 3. 90 . the interrelationships between the demographic variables.3 illustrates the research design for Study 1C. Finally. Variables and analyses in Study 2 were the same as those carried out in Study 1A. the psychological variables and BIT were examined. Figure 3. three demographic variables (driver age and ethnicity) and two psychological variables (locus of control and aggression) on BIT was tested. In Study 3.4 illustrates the research design for Study 3. or the length of time they had held a valid automobile operator’s licence.4 Study 2 The research design for Study 1A was replicated.3. Then. the influence of experience. Figure 3.
1.2.4:Destination-Activity orientation will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1. the following fifteen hypotheses and sixty sub-hypotheses were formulated: Table 3.1: Research Hypotheses STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 H1: Behaviour in traffic will have a positive influence on motor vehicle crash outcomes H1. a risk that would have been unethical to impose both on the drivers and on the research assistants who were collecting the data.given that data were collected during in situ interview and testing sessions with drivers during a rolling trip from point to point through Kuala Lumpur streets.2. limitations were imposed on administration time by driver willingness to participate and by research cost considerations.3: Taxicab experience will have a negative influence on total BIT score 91 . Second. 3.2. Gender was not included as a demographic variable in Study 3 because all taxicab drivers in the sample were male.2: Travel frequency will have a negative influence on total BIT score H2.4 Formulation of Hypotheses Based on the conceptualisation and research framework.2: Freeway urgency will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H184.108.40.206: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.2 :Freeway urgency will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.3: Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.1: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.1. instruments employed to measure hopelessness and hostile automatic thoughts used language and response formats not conducive to verbal administration procedures.2: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.1.4: Destination-Activity orientation will have a positive influence on injury occurrence Y Y Y Y Y 3 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y H2: Driver characteristics will influence behaviour in traffic H2.1: Driver experience will have a negative influence on total BIT score H2. potentially raising questions of reliability and validity.3:Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1. Third. the measurement of hopelessness and hostile automatic thoughts would have required a level of attention and concentration on the part of the drivers that could have distracted them from the safe operation of their taxicabs.1: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.
Table 3.4: Aggression will have a positive influence on Destination-Activity Orientation 92 .2: Age will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.1: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Internality H4.2: Aggression will have a positive influence on Freeway Urgency H11.4: Hopelessness will have positive influence on Destination-Activity Orientation H8: Locus of Control will influence behaviour in traffic H8.2.1: Aggression will have a positive influence on Usurpation of Right-of Way H11.3: Age will have a negative influence on Hopelessness H6.3: Age will have a negative influence Aggression Y Y Y Y Y Y H11: Aggression will have a positive influence on behaviour in traffic H11.1: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Usurpation of Right-of Way H7.2: Ethnicity will influence total BIT score H3.3.3: Aggression will have a positive influence on Externally-focused Frustration H11.3: Externality-Powerful-Others will have a positive influence on total BIT score H9: Hopelessness will moderate the locus of control-BIT Relationship H9.2: Externality-Chance will have a positive influence on Hopelessness H220.127.116.11: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Freeway Urgency H7.3: Hopelessness will moderate the Externality(Powerful-Other)-BIT relationship H10: Demographic variables will influence aggression H10.1.1: Internality will have a negative influence on Hopelessness H6.3: Age will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others Y Y Y Y Y Y H5: Demographic variables will influence hopelessness H5.1: Gender will influence total BIT score H3.1 (continued) STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 3 H3: Demographic variables will influence behaviour in traffic H3.1: Ethnicity will influence Locus of Control: Internality H4.2: Hopelessness will moderate the Externality(Chance)-BIT relationship H9.1: Age will influence Locus of Control: Internality H4.1: Hopelessness will moderate the Internality-BIT relationship H9.1.2: Ethnicity will influence Aggression H10.2: Externality-Chance will have a positive influence on total BIT score H8.2.1: Gender will influence Hopelessness H5.2.2: Ethnicity will influence Hopelessness H5.1: Gender will influence Aggression H10.3.3: Age will have a negative influence on total BIT score Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y H4: Demographic variables will influence locus of control H4.3: Ethnicity will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H4.3: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H4.1: Internality will have a negative influence on total BIT score H8.3: Externality-Powerful-Others will have a positive influence on Hopelessness H7: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on behaviour in traffic H7.2: Gender will influences Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.3: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Externally-focused Frustration H7.2: Ethnicity will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.
5. and those from the third round of data collection were included in Study 1C. within a 14-month period.1: Thoughts of Physical aggression will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation H15.1 (continued) STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 3 Y Y Y H12: Locus of control will moderate the aggression-BIT relationship H12.1: Internality will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12. Participants from the first round of data collection were included in Study 1A.5 3. Data were collected during three consecutive trimesters.1: Thoughts of Physical Aggression will have a positive influence on total BIT H14.2: Thoughts of the Derogation of Others will have a positive influence on BIT H14.Table 3. All participants had a valid driving licence but had indicated that a motorcycle was the mode of transportation most of the 93 .3: Thoughts of Revenge will have a positive influence on total BIT score H15: Hostile automatic thoughts will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H15. using the same procedures as in Study 1. with psychological tests and inventories administered to groups of students during lecture sessions.3: Externality (Powerful-Other) will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y H13: Demographic factors will influence hostile automatic thoughts H13.2: Externality(Chance) will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12.1: Gender will have a positive influence on hostile automatic thoughts H13. Participants in Study 2 were undergraduate students at the same private university.3: Age will have a negative influence on hostile automatic thoughts H14: Hostile automatic thoughts will have a positive influence on Behaviour in Traffic H14.2: Ethnicity will influence hostile automatic thoughts H13.1 Methods of Data Collection and Analysis The Sample Participants in Study 1 were undergraduate students at a private university in peninsular Malaysia.3: Thoughts of Revenge will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation Note: Y=YES 3.2: Thoughts of Derogation-of-Others will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation H15. Only participants with a valid driving licence who had indicated that a car was the mode of transportation they used most of the time when they travelled were included. registered in a freshman course offered within the Faculty of Management. those from the second round of data collection were included in Study 1B.
For inclusion in the study. while participants were driving. Drawing from the earlier Driving Habits Questionnaire (DHQ. In all cases. by postal mail.2. Participants were provided with an opportunity to receive a debriefing report about the results of the study by e-mail and/or. 1978). 3. Participants in Study 3 were taxicab drivers in the Kuala Lumpur area. I try to urge its driver to move 94 . Stokols. participants had to have a minimum of six months’ experience as a taxicab drivers and no gaps in their taxi operator’s license longer than three months.. Participants in Studies 1 and 2 were not remunerated.5.g. Participants in Study 3 received the meter or negotiated fare for the trip.time when they travelled. Synodinos and Papacostas (1985) developed 26 pairs of two-alternative items. in the case of Study 3 participants. Novaco.1 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) Scale This 52-item measures time-urgent behaviour. High total scores on the scale are considered to be indicative of Type A behaviour while low total scores were considered to be indicative of a type B approach to driving. with one of the items in each pair written to measure a TABP response and the other a contradictory statement (e. This sample was combined from all three rounds of classroom data collection. Participants were recruited during a curb-side introduction of the study by one of a group of four research assistants.2 Research Instruments 3. Data collection took place within the taxicab. all of whom possessed a valid driving licence and a commercial permit for the operation of a taxicab. although results were used to demonstrate teaching points related to the syllabus at a point later in the trimester.5. Stokals & Campbell. consistent with of a Type A Behaviour Pattern (TAPB) when driving (see Appendix A). participation was voluntary and confidentiality was assured. during a point to point trip. “ When a traffic light turns green and the car in front of me doesn’t get going immediately.
Synodinos and Papacostas reported that Form A and Form B (which correlated .” “While travelling to work (or to school). Items in Form A and Form B are presented in random order.2. Table 3.on” versus “When a traffic light turns green and the car in front of me doesn’t get going immediately. to school or to an appointment with someone. Six of the items are answered on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree”. as indicated in table 3. I usually think about what I have to do when I get there.” “I usually get upset at drivers who do not signal their driving intentions. with a coefficient alpha of . I usually feel like pushing them off the road.91) were found to be internally consistent. based on a principal components analysis of earlier-reported data.2: Dimensions of the BIT scale Factor I. Externally-focused frustration 6 IV. Freeway urgency 14 III.” “I often blow my horn at someone as a way of expressing my frustration.” “On a clear highway.” “When a motor vehicle cuts in front of me. In a later study.” II. I usually drive a few kilometres above the speed limit.” “I get extremely irritated when I am travelling behind a slow moving vehicle. Usurpation of right-ofway No. 20 items are answered on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from “most like me” to “least like me”. then the item of the pair representing the opposite end of the continuum was placed in Form B and vice versa. Destination-activity orientation 8 Total 52 95 . Their analysis revealed four dimensions. On each form. of items 24 Sample items “When I am in a traffic jam and the lane next to mine starts to move. Papacostas and Synodinos (1988) provided additional psychometric parameters of the BIT scale.80. such that if the TABP alternative of an item pair was placed in Form A. Items were presented in two alternate forms (Form A and Form B). I try to move that lane as soon as possible. I just wait for a while until it moves”) for a total of 52 item stems.” “I often find myself checking the time while driving to work.
Participants scored all 24 items on a 6-point scale. 3. High scores on the externality-chance (C) scale indicate that respondents expect expect chance forces or luck to have control over their lives. ranging from +3 (“agree strongly”) to –3 (“disagree strongly”). The phrase “cross-junction” was added to items pertaining to behaviour at intersections. High scores on the externality-powerful-others (P) scale indicate that respondents expect that powerful others exert a high degree of control over their lives. A sample item is “Although I might have good ability. References to the “gas pedal” were replaced by “accelerator”.2. 96 .5. I will not be given leadership responsibility without appealing to those in positions of power”. It contains three 8-item sub-scales that measure perceptions about the level of control exercised over the events and circumstances in their lives. A sample item is “I have often found that what is going to happen will happen”.2 Levenson Locus of Control Scale This widely-used questionnaire is based on Levenson’s (1981) multidimensional view of locus of control. High scores on the internality (I) scale indicate that respondents expect to have a high degree of control over their own lives. References to the faster. it’s usually because I worked hard for it”. Luckner (1989) noted that this instrument has among the highest reliability and validity of all locus of control tests and is particularly applicable when gearing instruments to broad linguistic structures and varying academic levels. References to “miles per hour” were changed to “kilometres per hour”.Certain items in the original American version were re-worded to make them relevant to the Malaysian context and driving jargon. passing lane were changed from “left lane” to “right lane” and the word “pass” was replaced with “overtake”. A sample item is “When I get what I want.
” “When people annoy me. 1993.5. Each of the 20 statements is scored 1. Table 3. I may tell them what I think of them. Tanaka et al. 5 = “completely like me”) that best represent how well the item describe them. of items 8 5 7 8 6 34 Sample Items: “At times I can’t control the urge to hit someone. Of the 20 true-false statements. verbal aggression. 1974).” “I get into fights more than most people. 3.2.4 Aggression Questionnaire (AQ) This questionnaire is a 34-item scale measuring constructs related to the expression of aggression.” “At times I feel I have gotten a raw deal out of life. Participants indicate a response on a five-point Likert-type scale (1 = “not at all like me”. if not.3). High scores are taken to indicate a generally pessimistic view of the future and a high degree of hopelessness.” “At times I feel like a bomb ready to explode. or 0. Beck et al. I might give him or her the silent treatment. 2005. a sample item of which is “I look forward to the future with hope and enthusiasm”.2.” “I sometimes feel that people are laughing at me behind my back. anger. a sample item of which is “I might as well give up because there is nothing I can do about making things better for myself”.3 Beck Hopelessness Scale (BHS) This 20-item scale contains true-false statements that assess the extent of negative expectancies about the immediate and long-range future (Beck & Steer.” “When someone really irritates me. Eleven items are keyed true to indicate pessimism about the future. 9 are keyed false to indicate optimism about the future. if endorsed.” “I let my anger show when I do not get what I want. Item scores are summed to yield a total score ranging from 0 to 20.3: The Five Subscales of the Aggression Questionnaire Subscale Physical Aggression (PHY) Verbal Aggression (VER) Anger (ANG) Hostility (HOS) Indirect Aggression (IND) Total No. hostility and indirect aggression (see Table 3.” “I often find myself disagreeing with people.5.” 97 .” “If I’m angry enough. 1996).3. A total aggression score can be calculated from summed item responses. and five subscales measure physical aggression. I may mess up someone’s work. High internal consistency has been reported across a range of samples (Benzein & Berg. Durham. 1982.
Boyd. 1997. Snyder et al. derogation of others and revenge – were identified and are included as subscales (see table 3. derogation of others and revenge respectively. Williams. 2000).5. gender.” “I want to get back at this person.” 3. Previous studies have established high levels of concurrent validity (Harris.6 Personal Information Form (PIF) Participants also completed a 4-page questionnaire recording personal information.4: The Three Subscales of the Hostile Automatic Thoughts (HAT) Scale Factor Physical aggression Derogation of others Revenge Total No. Cascardi & Pythress. Table 3. (1997) reported high internal consistency for all three sub-scales.5. 98 . of Items 11 10 9 30 Sample Items “If I could get away with it.92.91 for physical aggression. High scores on a sub-scale indicated that type of hostile thinking had occurred to the participant frequently. .2. Questions included details about the participant’s licensing and driving background.” Participants responded on a 5point Likert-type scale (1 = “not at all”.High internal consistency has been reported with a coefficient alpha of . 2000) and discriminant validity (Archer & Haigh. Shapiro. ethnicity and history of motor vehicle crashes and injuries. I’d kill this person!” “I’d like to knock his/her teeth out” “What an idiot!” “This person is a loser. 3.94 for the total aggression scores and ranging from .5 Hostile Automatic Thoughts (HAT) This 30-item self-report index measures the frequency of recurring hostile thoughts. with coefficient alpha values of . Each item includes a statement expressing some hostile thought and respondents are asked to indicate “whether that thought (or one like it) has occurred to you about another driver when you have been driving. 5 = “all the time”).71 to .4).88 for the five subscales (Buss & Warren. 1996).” “I just want to hurt this person as bad as s/he hurt me.2.88 and . Three factors – physical aggression. age. 1997.
Levenson. AQ and HAT. in random order. BHS. BHS. BIT scale. A brief written description of the purpose of the research and general instructions (see Appendix B) was distributed. After the briefing period. the instruments were presented in the following order: (a) the PIF was the first one in the package. Study 1C: PIF. (e) put down the first response that came into their mind. (b) the second instrument was either Form A or Form B of the BIT scale.1 Procedure Studies 1 and 2 Data collection took place within a classroom or lecture hall during a regularly- scheduled class periods. (d) read instructions for each questionnaire very carefully and complete them in the order they were distributed. between the two forms of the BIT. Study 1B: PIF. (c) not discuss answers with others as they were completing the questionnaires. upon request. with an e-mail summary of results.3.6 3. BIT scale and AQ. (c) the last instrument in the package was the opposite for of the BIT from the one presented second. Levenson and BIT scale. (d) the remaining instruments used in that particular study were presented. and (f) not spend too much time on any one answer. (b) give honest answers that described themselves rather than putting the “best things to say”. Levenson. In studies 1 and 2.6. Instructions advised the participants to (a) answer all questions on each questionnaire. 99 . Participants were provided with up to 60 minutes to complete the scales but in no cases did the average administration time exceed 45 minutes. BHS. Participants were assured of confidentiality and were de-briefed. Participants were informed about the study and invited to participate on a voluntary basis. packages of research instruments were distributed as follows: Study 1A: PIF.
each research assistant hired a taxicab to drive to some location elsewhere in the Kuala Lumpur area. four female final-year undergraduate students. research assistants verbally administered the PIF. as well. Specific statistical tests have been summarised in Table 3. The PIF was always administered first. All four research assistants spoke fluent English and Bahasa Malaysia. 13. Reliability coefficients of all instruments were calculated using SPSS. analyses of variance (ANOVA). 100 . 8. At initial contact. AQ and Levenson scales. rel. Data collection took place in taxicabs. Taxis were flagged down at roadside. Independent-sample t-tests.3. data collection was confined to times between 8:00 am and 9:00 pm.0. BIT. AQ and HAT to determine validity using LInear Structural RElations software (LISREL.7 Analysis of the Data Data collected were entered and processed using Statistical Package for the Social Science (SPSS for Windows. the research assistant informed the taxicab driver about the study. 2002). with the team of research assistants meeting regularly three times each week to calibrate administration procedures. 2004). approached at a taxi stand or booked over the telephone. Two to four times daily. Over the course of the trip. Levenson Locus of Control scale. provided assurance of confidentiality and secured participation. with the remaining instruments administered in random order. linear and multiple regression analyses and logistic regression analyses were used to test the hypotheses. Single-word substitutions in items were made in English or the driver’s first language if comprehension difficulties arose. Confirmatory Factor Analyses (CFA) were performed on the BIT. aged 22 to 24 years.5.5. Structural equation models and path analyses were estimated using the same version of LISREL. as well as at least two additional Malaysian languages. For safety reasons.2 Study 3 For study 3. This section provides a brief example of each one and details its use in the present research. rel. 3.6. with prior research experience were retained to assist in the study.
3: Externality (Powerful-Other) is positively related to Hopelessness Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression The Direct Effect of Hopelessness on BIT H7.1: Gender influence the Locus of Control H4.1: Internality is negatively related to hopelessness H6.3: Age influence the level of Hopelessness Independent Sample t-Test Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance The Direct Effect of Locus of Control on Hopelessness H6.2: Ethnicity background influence the level of BIT H3.1: Gender influence the level of BIT H3.1: The level of BIT influence the crash occurrence H1.2: Externality (Chance) is positively related to Hopelessness H6.2: Ethnicity influence the Locus of Control H4.1: Gender influence the level of Hopelessness H5.2: Ethnicity background influence the level of Hopelessness H5.2: The level of BIT influence the crash injury Logistic Regression Logistic Regression The Direct Effect of Driving characteristics on BIT H2.3: “Access to a motor vehicle” influence the level of BIT Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance The Direct Effect of Demographic Factors on BIT H3.3: Age influence the level of BIT Independent Sample t-Test Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance The Direct Effect of Demographic Factors on Locus of Control H4.1: “Length of having driving licence” influence the level of BIT H2.Table 3.4: Hopelessness influence the level of Destination-activity Orientation Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression 101 .2: Hopelessness influence the level of Freeway Urgency H7.3: Hopelessness influence the level of Externally-focused Frustration H7.2: “Frequency of traveling” influence the level of BIT H2.3: Age influence the Locus of Control Independent Sample tTest Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance The Direct Effect of Demographic Factors on Hopelessness H5.5: Statistical Methods for Hypothesis Testing Data Analysis Methods The Direct Effect of BIT on Accident Involvement H1.1: Hopelessness influence the level of Usurpation of Right-of Way H7.
3: Externality (Powerful-Other) moderates the Aggression-BIT relation Multiple Linear Regression Multiple Linear Regression Multiple Linear Regression The Direct Effect of Demographic Factors on HAT H13.5 (continued) Data Analysis Methods The Direct Effect of Locus of Control on BIT H8.2: Ethnicity influences hostile automatic thoughts H13.2: Hopelessness moderates the Externality(Chance)-BIT relation H9.2: Externality(Chance) moderates the Aggression-BIT relation H12. the lower the BIT level H8.2: Ethnicity background influences the level of Aggression H10.3: Aggression influence the level of Externally-focused Frustration H11.1: The higher the Internality.1: Hopelessness moderates the Internality-BIT relation Multiple Linear Regression H9. the higher the BIT level H8.3: Age has a negative influence on hostile automatic thoughts Independent Sample t-Test Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance 102 . the higher the BIT level Additional Analysis: Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression GLM Univariate Analysis of Variance The Interaction Effect of Ethnicity and Locus of Control on BIT The Moderating Effect of Hopelessness on Locus of ControlBIT Relation Multiple Linear Regression H9.2: The higher Externality (Chance).3: Age influences the level of Aggression Independent Sample t-Test Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance The Direct Effect of Aggression on BIT H11.3: The higher Externality (Powerful-Other).1: Aggression influence the level of Usurpation of Right-of Way H11.1: Internality moderates the Aggression-BIT relation H12.1: Gender has a positive influence on hostile automatic thoughts H13.1: Gender influences the level of Aggression H10.2: Aggression influence the level of Freeway Urgency H11.Table 3.3: Hopelessness moderates the Externality (Powerful-Other)-BIT relation Multiple Linear Regression The Direct Effect of Demographic Factors on Aggression H10.4: Aggression influence the level of Destination-activity Orientation Additional Analysis: Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression The Interaction Effect of Ethnicity and Aggression on BIT GLM Univariate Analysis of Variance The Moderating Effect of Locus of Control on AggressionBIT Relation H12.
hopelessness.1: Thoughts of Physical Aggression have a positive influence on BIT H14.2: Thoughts of Derogation-of-Others will moderate the AggressionBIT relation H1353: Thoughts of Revenge will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation Multiple Linear Regression Multiple Linear Regression Multiple Linear Regression 3.7. In the present study.1 Independent-sample t-tests Generally. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) differed for drivers with different ethnic backgrounds. 103 . locus of control. When significant differences were observed. t-tests were used to determine whether participants’ scores on psychological variables (BIT. ANOVA was used to determine whether participants’ scores on psychological variables (BIT.2: Thoughts of Derogation-of-Others have a positive influence on BIT H14.1: Thoughts of Physical Aggression will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation H15. In the present research.3: Thoughts of Revenge have a positive influence on BIT Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression The Moderating Effect of HAT on the Aggression-BIT Relation H15. 3.Table 3.7. locus of control. 2000).2 One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) ANOVA is used to compare means for more than two groups. post hoc analyses were carried out using the Scheffé method (Klockars & Hancock. hopelessness. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) differed for male and female drivers. t-tests are used to compare the means of two groups.5 (continued) Data Analysis Methods The Direct Effect of HAT on BIT H14.
In the present research. In the present research.7. first P scores were entered into the regression equation. hopelessness.3 The General Linear Model (GLM) Univariate Analysis This procedure allows a factorial analysis of variance by comparing means of a dependent variable for groups defined by factor variables. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) on behaviour in traffic (BIT). hopelessness. Also. In the present research. R-square and coefficient values were then estimated to determine the significance of the moderating effect of hopelessness. It is useful for analysis of variance models with one or more factor variables or covariates and a single dependent variable. the products of P x hopelessness scores were added into the regression equation.4 Linear Regression Analysis This analysis is used to determine if a relationship exists between a dependent variable and an independent variable and. 3. multiple regression analysis was used to test whether internality (I). the direction of the relationship (positive or negative).7. For instance. if so. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) and behaviour in traffic (BIT). the moderating effects of the variables were tested using hierarchical regression methods. 104 .3. linear regression was applied to examine the relationship between psychological variables (locus of control. Application of multiple regression analysis involves more than one single independent variable. to test whether hopelessness moderated the P-BIT relationship. GLM univariate analysis of variance was used to determine whether there was an interaction effect between ethnic background and psychological factors (locus of control.5 Multiple Regression Analysis This analysis aims to examine if there is a relationship between the dependent variable and independent variables.7. second. 3. externality-chance (C) and externalitypowerful-others (P) have an effect on hopelessness.
Linear or multiple regression seek to measure the degree of influence that variables will have on a dependent variable. Since driver experience and travel frequency were expected to have an influence on the outcome variables. and (b) examine the interrelationships among variables included in the research design. In the present research. “1” was scored if a crash had occurred and “0” if no crash had occurred. using LISREL.7. logistic regression. the purpose of which was to distinguish the distal and proximal contextual factors related to crash outcomes. “1” was scored if a crash injury had occurred and “0” if no crash injury had occurred. The validity of this measurement model was dependent on its goodness-of-fit and on the construct validity of its component variables. 710). seeks to determine the odds that an event will or will not occur. these variables were controlled as covariates in the logistic regression equation. on the other hand. each of the two outcome variables (crash occurrence and injury occurrence) was framed as a binary variable. Covariates (driver experience and travel frequency) and the independent variable (BIT) were entered into the logistic regression equation to predict the probability of participants’ crash and injury occurrence. In the present research. Hair et al (2006) has defined structural equation modelling (SEM) as a “multivariate technique combining aspects of factor analysis and multiple regression that enables the research to simultaneously examine a series of interrelated dependent relationships among the measured variables and latent constructs (variates). Goodness-of-fit indicates how 105 .7. SEM was carried out.3. The result was a measurement model described as a contextual-mediated model. as well as between several latent constructs” (p. Path coefficients were calculated to demonstrate correlates of unsafe driving according to their contextual proximity to crash and injury occurrence.6 Logistic Regression Analysis Logistic regression is similar to linear regression but differs with respect to the nature of data that can be treated and in the manner in which coefficients are interpreted. That is. 3.7 Structural Equation Modelling. to (a) assess the validity of the instruments.
In the present research. Incremental fit measures included the comparative fit index (CFI).well the measurement model reproduces the covariance matrix among indicator items That is. the better the model is said to fit. but a wide array of tests of the overall fit of SEM models – “more. these can be classified as absolute fit indexes and relative or incremental fit indexes. Thus. additional measures were used to compare the relative fit of two models under consideration. than anyone would want to report” (Maryuma. the absolute fit measures included the χ2 statistic. (Hair et al. 1998). Once a researcher’s theory is used to specify a model from which the parameters are estimated. the estimated covariance matrix (∑k) and the actual covariance matrix (S) would be the same. (1988). For Study 1C. the χ2/df ratio the goodness-of-fit index (GFI). p. the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) and the root mean square residual (RMR). the estimated covariance matrix is compared mathematically to the actual observed covariance matrix to provide an estimate of model fit. Absolute fit measures are a direct measure of how well the model specified by the researcher reproduces the researcher’s data. the model fit compares the theory to reality as represented by the data. Incremental fit measures assess how well a specified model fits relative to some alternative baseline model. The closer the values of these two matrices are to each other. including: (1) two absolute indexes. 1998) – presently exists. the adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI) and the expected cross- 106 . If a researcher’s theory were perfect. 745). The fundamental measure of fit is the chi-square (χ2) statistic (Byrne. 2006. in fact. According to Marsh et al..
1 Chi-Square (χ2).7. However. (2006) have highlighted that for sample size greater than 250 (with a number of observed variables less than 12). The probability value associated with χ2 indicates the likelihood of obtaining a χ2 value that exceeds the χ2 value when null hypothesis (specific matrices for the model under study is valid) is true (Byrne.7. an insignificant p-value is expected. 1998.3 Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) and Root Mean Square Residual (RMR) This index measures the error of approximation in the population and to question “how well would the model. one incremental index. and a measure of parsimony fit.7. with unknown but optimally chosen parameter values. 3. the higher the probability associated with χ2.7. pp. Thus. RMSEA values can range from zero to 1. fit the population covariance matrix if it were available” (Byrne. the ratio indicates a good fit.10 indicate poor fit. Hair et al. p-Value and χ2/df Ratio χ2 is the fundamental measure used in SEM to quantify the differences between the observed and estimated covariance matrices (Hair et al. 107 . 3. For a sample size less than 250 (and with number of observed variables that is less than 12).7. 2006). the parsimony goodness-of-fit index (PGFI).validation index (ECVI). 112). the normed fit index (NFI).00 in which values greater than . when the ratio of χ2 to df yields a value of less than 3. 3.7. the closer the fit between the hypothesized model (established under the null hypothesis).. an insignificant p-value can result in good fit.2 Degrees of freedom (df) The df measure the amount of mathematical information available to estimate the model parameters and are calculated based on the number of unique covariances and variances in the observed covariance matrix (Hair et al. Carmines and McIver (1981) have noted that.0. 1998). 2006).
10 usually suggests a poor fit of the data for the model. but AGFI values are typically lower than GFI values in proportion to model complexity.00 being indicative of good fit.7.7.90 is usually associated with a model that fits well.00. 108 . the normed fit index (NFI. 3. The index ranges between zero and 1. Since the CFI is insensitive to model complexity. and a model with perfect fit would produce an NFI of 1.00. 3. 1980) represents a ratio of the difference in the χ2 value for the fitted model and a null model divided by the χ2 value for the null model.7.00 with value closes to 1. 2006). 1985) accounts for differing degrees of model complexity by adjusting the GFI by a ratio of the degrees of freedom used in a model to the total degrees of freedom available.5 Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) and Comparative Fit Index (CFI) The GFI can range from zero to 1.. Tanaka & Huba.6 Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index (AGFI) An adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI.7. 3. Thus.00.00 with value more than . The AGFI penalises more complex models and favours those with a minimum number of free paths. CFI is an improved version of the normed fit index.7.4 Normed Fit Index (NFI) One of the original incremental measures of fit. The index can range from zero to 1. an RMR greater than .Root mean square residual (RMR) is another badness-of-fit measure.7. with higher values indicating better fit. it is known as one of the most widely used indices (Hair et al. Values range from zero to 1. Bentler & Bonnet.
7. The ECVI also takes into account the number of estimated parameters for a given model. p.8 Parsimony Goodness-of-Fit Index (PGFI) A third class of measures is sometimes recognised as the parsimony indices. means a model with fewer estimated parameter paths (Hair et al. the model with the higher ECVI value is generally regarded as presenting a better fit. It should be noted that. Browne & Cudeck.3. it takes into account the actual sample size and the difference that could be expected in another sample. designed specifically to provide information about which model among a competing set of models is best. based on the combination of fit and parsimony represented by the index.7. The parsimony goodness-of-fit index (PGFI.. Although values range from zero to 1. 1982) uses the parsimony ratio to adjust the GFI in order to compare two models. considering its fit relative to its complexity. 3. Mulaik & Brett. 109 . Values range between zero and 1. A parsimony fit measure is improved by a better fit and/or a simpler model which. 750).00.7 Expected Cross-Validation Index (ECVI) The expected cross-validation index (ECVI.00.7. and the model with the higher PGFI is considered preferable. The parsimony ratio is calculated as the ratio of degrees of freedom used by a model to the total degrees of freedom available (Marsh & Balla. 2006). 2006.. a PGFI value is meant only to be used in comparing it to another model’s PGFI value” (Hair et al.7. In such cases. 1994). in this case. Like other parsimony fit indices. James. 1989) is an approximation of goodness-of-fit that the estimated model would achieve in another sample of the same size Based on the sample covariance matrix. “a PGFI taken alone is not a useful indicator of a single model’s fit. it is most commonly used when comparing the performance of one model to another.
If the opposite holds. If a distribution is assymetrical and the larger frequencies tend to be concentrated toward the low end of the variable and the smaller frequencies toward the high end. 1956).05.9 Skewness and Kurtosis Skewness refers to the symmetry or asymmetry of a frequency distribution.3.7. in this case. the distribution is said to be negatively skewed (Ferguson.8 Kolmogorov-Smirnov One-Sample Test The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test is concerned with the degree of agreement between the distribution of a set of sample values (or observed scores) and some specified theoretical distribution. the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to assess whether there was a significant departure from normality in the distribution of variable scores. and platykurtic if it is less peaked. then it is possible to conclude the the data do not violate the normality assumption (Carver & Nash. When p-values for the Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic are greater than our α=. In this case. 2000). it is said to be positively skewed. which means that it falls between leptokurtic and platykurtic distributions” (Ferguson. 37). 1976. “It is conventional to speak of a distribution as leptokurtic if is more peaked than … the normal distribution. Many parametric statistics assume that variables are distributed approximately normally and SPSS calculates values for skewness and kurtosis to assist in determing 110 . Kurtosis refers to the flatness or peakedness of one distribution in relation to another. 1976). The normal distribution is spoken of as mesokurtic. the distribution of test scores to the normal distribution. p.7. It determines whether the scores in the sample can reasonably thought to have come from a population having the theoretical distribution (Siegel. the larger frequencies being concentrated toward the high end of the variable and the smaller frequencies toward the low end. 3.
the variable is at least approximately normal (Leech. Barrett & Morgan.normality of variable distributions. Marcoulides & Hershberger. 111 . A commonly used guideline is that. 2005. 1997). if skewness and kurtosis less than ±1.
4% 269 27. The contextual mediated model was tested using (1) regression analysis (SPPS) and (2) structural equation modelling (LISREL).13 years (SD = 1. 4.5% 27.5% MalaysianIndian 64 14.1).5% 6.1 Description of the Samples Age. with results of these tests reported in this chapter.5% 57. Thirteen of the participants did not complete all the questionnaires and two participants completing questionnaires reported that they did not have driving licences. Thus 977 participants were included in the analysis. descriptive statistics are presented and the results of hypothesis testing are reported.1% 121 22. Gender and Ethnicity Participants were 992 undergraduate students at an English-language Malaysian university.9% 23.CHAPTER 4 ANALYSIS OF THE DATA This chapter presents the results of the research.9% 977 100% 100% Female Total 112 .1% 34.9% Total 441 100% 45.5% Ethnicity MalaysianChinese 229 51. Then. Ages of participants ranged from 18 to 29 years. Table 4.6% 15.55).6% 12.6% 82 15. with a mean age of 20. There were 855 participants for whom the primary mode of transportation was the automobile and 133 for whom the motorcycle was the primary mode of transportation (see Table 4.4% 333 62.1 4. A contextual mediated model showing interrelationships between variables is introduced.1.4% 146 14.3% 8.1% 562 57. It begins with a discussion of reliability and validity tests of the instruments.1: Gender and Ethnicity of the Sample for Studies 1 and 2 Malay Gender Male Count % within Gender % of Total Count % within Gender % of Total Count % within Gender % of Total 148 33.9% 14.1% 536 100% 54.
Female participants (approximately 55 per cent) slightly out-numbered males.5 per cent). In Study 1C. Malaysian-Chinese represented the highest number of participants (57. In Study 2. In Study 1A. with a mean age of 20.5 per cent) and Malaysian-Indian (14. range from 18 to 25). with a mean age of 20.43 years (SD = 1. range from 18 to 27). 113 . with a mean age of 20. range from 18 to 29).63.9 per cent). 122 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode of transportation to be the motorcycle comprised the sample.53. In Study 1B.1) showed that most of the drivers were female Malaysian-Chinese. In Study 3. 252 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode of transportation to be the automobile comprised the sample. but 16 were excluded from the sample due to language and comprehension difficulties or because they chose to withdraw from data collection before all instruments had been administered.01 years (SD = 1. 301 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode of transportation to be the automobile comprised the sample. Thus. range of 18 to 26).89 years (SD = 1.35. with a mean age of 19. 302 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode of transportation to be the automobile comprised the sample.68. 149 taxicab drivers participated. followed by Malay (27.25 years (SD = 1. A crosstabulation between gender and ethnicity (see Table 4.
3). Gender and Ethnicity of Participants in Studies 1.25 43.1 6.responses from 133 taxicab drivers were included in data analysis. The mean age was 43.89 20. range from 23 to 73).19 S. Johor or Perak made up 53.3% of the sample. Participants from East Malaysia comprised 5.2: Age. Kuala Lumpur.2 7.35 1.5 114 .19 years (SD = 11.1. Table 4.65.68 1.2.4% of the sample.3: States from Which Study 1 Participants Had Acquired Their Original Drivers’ Licenses Johor Kedah Kelantan Kuala Lumpur Melaka Negeri Sembilan Pahang N 109 42 20 98 70 61 56 % 12.7 4. Descriptive data for each sample are provided in Table 4. Participants who had received their driving licenses in Selangor.63 11. Table 4.65 Male Female Malay Ethnicity MalaysianChinese MalaysianIndian 105 175 88 73 133 196 127 164 49 0 68 87 81 33 55 202 166 128 66 52 31 49 43 23 26 Note: N=sample size .5 8.D. 1.43 19. 2 and 3 Gender STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 3 N 301 302 252 122 133 Mean Age 20.53 1.2 Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 1 Although participants in Studies 1A.9 2.01 20. SD = standard deviation 4.3 11. they hailed from across the country (see table 4. 1B and 1C were all students at a single Malaysian university.
1.9% of the sample.1.4).7 3.7 100 4.4 0.Penang Perak Perlis Sabah Sarawak Selangor Terengganu 67 102 6 27 19 147 31 855 7.0 7. Participants who had received their driving licenses in Selangor.9 0.4: States from Which Study 2 Participants Had Acquired Their Original Motorcyclists’ Licenses N Johor Kedah Kelantan Kuala Lumpur Melaka Negeri Sembilan Pahang Penang Perak Perlis Sabah Sarawak Selangor Terengganu 17 9 1 11 9 5 11 13 14 2 2 3 18 7 122 % 13.2 17.5 14.2 3.2 2.4 Geographic Distribution of the Sample in Study 3 Participants in Study 3 were all professional taxicab operators who had been licensed to drive their vehicles commercially within Kuala Lumpur.4 4.9 7. Perak or Penang made up 50.1% of the sample.3 Geographic Distribution of the Sample in Study 2 Participants in Study 2 were all students at a single Malaysian university.6 100 4.1 9. As the sample was 115 .6 1.0 10.8 5.8 11.8 9. Participants from East Malaysia comprised 4.5 1. Table 4.7 11. but again they held licenses from various states (see table 4.6 2.
4.70 or greater is generally considered acceptable (Nunnally.2 4. 2000). Sekaran (2000) offered a similar definition in which the reliability of a measure indicates the stability and consistency with which the instrument measures a concept and helps to assess the “goodness” of the measure. The reliability of the measures used in this research was calculated for each of the three studies and values for Cronbach’s Alpha in all cases were found to be satisfactory (see Table 4. The closer Cronbach’s Alpha is to 1. the higher is the internal consistency of the measure. 116 . This statistic reflects the consistency of respondents’ answers compared to all the items in a measure (Sekaran. In the present research.1 Reliability and Validity Reliability Test Results: Cronbach’s Alpha Cooper and Schindler (2000) claimed that reliability relates to the accuracy and precision of a measurement procedure. reliability was measured using Cronbach’s coefficient alpha. A Cronbach’s Alpha of . 1978).5). no attempt was made to determine the geographic location in which drivers had originally received noncommercial drivers’ licenses.intended to be representative of Kuala Lumpur taxicab drivers.2. Neuman (2003) defined reliability is defined as “dependability or consistency” and further explained that reliability suggests that the same event is repeated or recurs under identical or very similar conditions.
830 .783 .720 .890 .786 .715 .782 .782 .808 .808 .810 .781 .784 .742 .817 .735 .904 .711 .701 .740 .749 .906 .714 .727 .741 .726 Not Applicable Not Applicable α .827 .910 .756 .718 .733 .768 Not Applicable Not Applicable .754 .772 α .739 .783 .747 .5: Summary of Internal Reliability Coefficient Results Study 1A (N=301) Study 1B (N=302) Automobile Drivers (student sample) Study 1C (N=252) Variables No.887 .Table 4.811 .703 .727 .720 .774 .702 .738 Behaviour In Traffic (BIT) Usurpation of right-of-way Freeway Urgency Externally-Focused Frustration Destination-Activity Orientation Locus of Control Internality Externality (Chance) Externality (Powerful Other Aggression (AQ) Physical Aggression Verbal Aggression Anger Hostility Indirect Aggression Hopelessness (BHS) Hostile Automatic Thought (HAT) Physical Aggression Derogation of Others Revenge 26 11 8 3 4 8 8 8 8 5 7 8 6 20 11 10 9 .701 Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable 117 .824 .715 .730 .788 .737 .798 . of Item α Study 2 (N=122) Motorcycle Drivers (student sample) Study 3 (N=133) Taxicab Drivers α .740 .881 α .738 .707 .734 .
Reliability coefficients in all studies where both forms were used are acceptable since Form A and Form B were highly correlated. 205).807 Study 1B .805 . 2002) was used to establish evidence of construct validity for various measures.953 .801 .804 .800 . ordering or other test construction factors” (p. 118 .08 to .803 . depending on which is used (Byrne. more than .807 .916 .811 . with minimal error variance caused by wording.802 4.80 or above). The root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) index measures the error of approximation in the population and determines whether the model. Sekaran (2003) notes that “if two comparable forms are highly correlated (.804 .6: Parallel-Form Reliability for Form A and Form B (BIT) Form A & Form B BIT Usurpation of right-of way Freeway Urgency Externally-Focused Frustration Destination-Activity Orientation Study 1A .10 indicate poor fit (MacCallum et al.958 . 1998).806 .6. 1985). values ranging from .903 .2 Parallel-Form Reliability In the case of the BIT scale. The Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) is a measure of the relative amount of variance and covariance in sample data that is jointly explained by sample data (Byrne.80. confirmatory factor analyses using LISREL (Jöreskog & Sörbom. Table 4. 1998). we may be fairly certain that the measures are reasonably reliable. with unknown but optimally chosen parameter values. fits the population correlation matrix or covariance matrix.10 indicate a mediocre fit.2.4. RMSEA values less than .808 Study 2 .876 . 1998.929 . only Form A was used. and those greater than .05 indicate good fit. 1998).3 Validity Test Results In the present research. it was also possible to measure reliability as a coefficient of correlation between Form A and Form B (Synodinos &Papacostas. In Study 3. The results of parallel-form reliability for the BIT instrument in different studies are shown in Table 4.857 .2.804 Study 1C . Byrne.
4.048 .91 .00 .96 .99 .000 .00 Study 2 RMSEA Study 3 CFI RMSEA GFI GFI CFI Behaviour In Traffic (BIT) Usurpation of right-of-way Freeway Urgency Externally-Focused Frustration Destination-Activity Orientation .96 1. Table 4. If the value of CFI exceeds .000 . RMSEA values in each case were less than . although the GFI index ranges from zero to 1.000 .00 .1 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the BIT Scale In the present research.054 .2. As shown in Table 4.00 .97 .000 .070 .089 .097 .00 1.92 1.90. A third statistic.97 1. drivers’ behaviour in traffic was measured by the four component factors of the BIT scale: usurpation of right-of-way.91 .98 Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation.7: Validity of BIT scales – Summary of Confirmatory Factor Analyses Study 1A RMSEA Study 1B CFI RMSEA Study 1C CFI RMSEA GFI GFI GFI CFI Behaviour In Traffic (BIT) Usurpation of right-of-way Freeway Urgency Externally-Focused Frustration Destination-Activity Orientation .00 .99 .98 . and both GFI and CFI were more than .97 1.99 . This reflects that the model fits worse than no model at all.074 .98 1. the higher the goodness-of-fit).00 .00 1.95 1. it is possible to have negative GFI.93 .047 .098 .00 1.98 1.000 .Jöreskog and Sörbom (1993) reported that.99 .96 .00. freeway urgency.96 .000 .00 (the closer to 1.7. the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) is estimated to indicate whether complete covariation in the data is achieved.100. parameter values for all four of these factors were within acceptable ranges.097 .90.00 1.061 .000 .00 1. GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index.024 .00 . CFI= Comparative Fit Index 119 . and destination-activity orientation.00 1. indicating good fits.3. it is generally considered an acceptable fit to the data (Bentler. 1992).077 .000 .00 1.98 .92 .99 .00 1.92 . externally-focused frustration.00 1.
083 .91 . under the assumption that locus of control is a multidimensional phenomenon.96 .3 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the AQ Scale The AQ was used to measure driver aggression in Study 1B and 1C (with automobile drivers sampled from a student population) and in Study 3 (with taxicab drivers).93 .100.085 .081 .92 .93 .2.98 Study 2 RMSEA Study 3 CFI RMSEA GFI GFI CFI Locus of Control Internality Externality (Chance) Externality (Powerful-Other) .93 .8. verbal aggression (VER).085 .058 .98 . and both GFI and CFI were more than .00 .99 . hostility (HOS) and indirect aggression 120 .071 .98 Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation. indicating good fits (See Table 4. anger (ANG).95 .063 .2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Levenson Locus of Control Scale Locus of control was measured across three dimensions: internality (I). RMSEA values were less than . CFA revealed that parameter values for I. CFI= Comparative Fit Index 4.97 .96 .3.93 .96 .93 .95 .93 .91 . C and P scales were all within acceptable ranges.98 .96 .2.91 .000 .091 .4.90.3. Each component of the locus of control was measured separately.073 .92 . Five component factors of aggression were measured: physical aggression (PHY).95 1.97 .99 .8: Validity of the Levenson Locus of Control Scale – Summary of Confirmatory Factor Analysis Study 1A RMSEA Study 1B CFI RMSEA Study 1C RMSEA GFI GFI CFI GFI CFI Locus of Control Internality Externality (Chance) Externality (Powerful-Other) .030 .059 .98 . externality-chance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P).052 . Table 4.081 . GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index.93 .92 .096 .
070 .97 .98 .070 .073 .98 .98 . RMSEA values were less than . indicating good fits (See Table 4.081 .10: Summary of LISREL Results on Validity for HAT (Study 1C) RMSEA Hostile Automatic Thought (HAT) Physical Aggression Derogation of Others Revenge GFI CFI .96 Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation.9).97 .99 .97 .98 .98 . CFA revealed that parameter values for all three measurement scales were within acceptable ranges.90.92 . derogation of others and revenge. Table 4.92 .083 .090 .098 .088 .096 .98 . and both GFI and CFI were more than .088 . RMSEA values were less than .98 .96 .10).96 .047 .92 .2.98 . CFI= Comparative Fit Index 4.9: Validity of the AQ scales – Summary of Confirmatory Factor Analysis Study 1B RMSEA Study 1C CFI RMSEA Study 3 CFI RMSEA GFI GFI GFI CFI Aggression (AQ) Physical Aggression Verbal Aggression Anger Hostility Indirect Aggression .081 .(IND).94 .97 Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation.98 . CFI= Comparative Fit Index 121 .97 .97 .94 . Table 4.100. GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index.98 .97 . indicating good fit (see Table 4.3. GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index.058 .025 .95 . A total aggression score was arrived at by summing the five subscale scores.055 .98 .4 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the HAT Scale The HAT was only used in Study 1C (with automobile drivers sampled from a student population).100.97 .93 . CFA revealed that parameter values for all five aggression subscales were within acceptable ranges. and both GFI and CFI were more than .95 .90.095 . Three classes of hostile automatic thoughts were measured: physical aggression.98 .97 .97 .97 .098 .96 .089 .
010 (.064(.106) 1.280) -.154(.064(.280) .190) 1.280) .107 (.203(.099) 1.085 (.280) .280) -.11: Normality Tests.140) -.140) -.331(.126(.379(.278(.183) 1.297(.409(.102) 1.11 indicates that variable distribution fell within these limits.183) 1.186) 1.05).656(.140) -.356 (.280) -.037(.057) 1.099) 1..428) .192) 1.260) .219 (.410(.719(.280) .280) -.280) -.091(.069) 1.280) .403(.280) .094 (.353(.179(.140) Study 1B Internality Externality (Chance) Externality (Powerful Other) Hopelessness BIT Usurpation right-of-way Freeway Urgency Externally Focused Frustration Destination-activity Orientation AQ Physical Aggression Verbal Aggression Anger Hostility Indirect Aggression 122 . 1997).408(.280) -. 2005.280) -.280) -.280) .140) -.082 (.140) -.146(.085) 1.140) .239 (. Normality can also be assessed by examining sknewness and kurtosis values (Hair et al.297(. values for the Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic were non-significant (p>.256 (. Marcoulides & Hershberger.140) .140) .140) .140) -.280) -.805(.140) -.875(.511(.278(.4.226 (.351 (.241(.191) 1.140) -.140) .140) .064) 1.140) .091(.022 (. but with a non-signficant platykurtic tendency for the locus of control data. Skewness and Kurtosis Data were studied to determine whether they were normally distributed and therefore capable of satisfying parametric assumptions.140) -.409(. Table 4.280) .246(.140) .280) .920(.188(. 2006).140) .085 (.085) 1. In all cases.091) 1.560(.280) .052) 1. Table 4.560(.195 (. Kurtosis and Skewness Statistics KolmogorovSmirnov Z (Significance Level) Skewness Kurtosis Statistic Statistic (Standard (Standard Error) Error) Study 1A Internality Externality (Chance) Externality (Powerful Other) Hopelessness BIT Usurpation right-of-way Freeway Urgency Externally Focused Frustration Destination-activity Orientation 1.962 (..204(.280) .099(.332 (.120) 1.140) -.107) 1.140) -.297 (.126(. indicating that the distribution of scores did not depart from normality.080(.3 Normality.105 (.323 (.034 (.020 (.192(.179(. Skewness and kurtosis values of ± 1 are acceptable (Leech et al.280) .099(.582(.453(.
024 (.435) -.426) .306) -.Table 4.952(.417) .264) .153) .160 (.317) 1.128) .195 (.948(.805 (.417) .113 (.567(.256(.131(.360) .147(.640(.147(.011 (.084) 1.807 (.279 (.052) 1.297 (.153) .219) .295(.057) 1.962(.236(.306) .128 (.022 (.567(.153) .360) -.053(.210) .003 (.153) .198(.244(.210) -.537(.266 (.135) 1.265) 1.210) .030(.681(.417) -.915(.629(.469) 1.153) .366) 1.210) Study 2 Internality Externality (Chance) Externality (Powerful Other) Hopelessness BIT Usurpation right-of-way Freeway Urgency Externally Focused Frustration Destination-activity Orientation Study 3 Internality Externality (Chance) Externality (Powerful Other) BIT Usurpation right-of-way Freeway Urgency Externally Focused Frustration Destination-activity Orientation AQ Physical Aggression Verbal Aggression Anger Hostility Indirect Aggression 123 .219) .153) 983(.973(306) .417) -.715(.359 (.210) .435) -.219) .210) .940(.157) .417) .978(.306) .713(.276(.153) .11 (continued) KolmogorovSmirnov Z (Significance Level) Kurtosis Statistic (Standard Error) Skewness Statistic (Standard Error) Study 1C Internality Externality (Chance) Externality (Powerful Other) Hopelessness BIT Usurpation right-of-way Freeway Urgency Externally Focused Frustration Destination-activity Orientation AQ Physical Aggression Verbal Aggression Anger Hostility Indirect Aggression HAT Physical Aggression Degrerotion Revenge 1.478(.435) -.370(.306) -.210) -.443(.271(.417) .106(.435) -.247) 1.214) 1.360) .210) -.052) 1.359 (.001 (.321) 1.159(.277(.153) .306) -.417) -.503(.099) 1.911 (305) 1.719(.154) -.153) -.070 (.138) 1.153) .362(.088 (.219) -.064) 1.156(.100) .986 (.913 (.847 (.270) 1.293 (.247) .306) .417) -.327 (.186(.962 (.417) -.799(.219) -.276 (.812(.006(.300(.338 (.533) .324(.153) -.360) .153) .852(.414(.130(.210) .435) .219) .106(.306) -.104) 1.979(.210) .417) -.994(.209(.417) -.884(.106 (.306) -.306) -.142(.913(.062(.822 (.375) 1.219) -.510) 1.463(.497(.153) .098) 1.223 (.306) .435) -.451(.051) .852(.501(.048(.022 (.187) 1.120(.540(.210) .435) -.138(.153) .053(.959 (.051) 1.153) .467(.306) .102) .972(.024 (.219) .417) -.392(.259) .098) 1.354 (.919 (.423(.210) .841(.366(.101) 1.435) -.110 (.267) .007(.
1B and 1C selfreported that they had been involved in at least one motor vehicle crash over the preceding year (see Table 4. 124 . whether the accident had resulted in (1) no injuries or injuries insufficiently severe to seek medical attention (see Table 4. (3) injuries requiring hospitalisation (see Table 4. males were more than twice as likely to report involvement in two or three automobile crashes. (2) injuries severe enough to require out-patient treatment at a medical clinic (see Table 4.12. column a). For motorcycle drivers. Between 10 and 13 per cent of all automobile drivers in Study 1 sought medical treatment at a hospital in the preceding year as a result of motor vehicle crashes.4.12: Crash and Injury Occurrence OUTCOME VARIABLES STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 3 N 301 302 252 122 133 Number of Participants’ Reported Crash 181 255 174 157 22 Vehicle Damage a 84 142 102 45 17 Out-patient Treatment b 68 75 47 58 3 Hospital Admission c 29 38 25 54 2 More than half of the automobile drivers sampled in Studies 1A. Male and female automobile drivers reported involvement in one crash with almost the same frequency. However. column b). with 44.12.4 Crash and Injury Occurrence Data Participants in all studies indicated whether they had experienced an accident within the preceding twelve months in which their vehicle had sustained more than RM100 damage and. if so.12. column c). injury occurrence was much higher.3 per cent being hospitalised. Table 4.13).
14) Regardless of ethnic background. involved in two crashes Total Ethnicity No. involved in one crash Total Ethnicity No. involved in three crashes Total Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Gender Male Female 20 8 25 13 16 1 61 22 17 4 15 4 11 0 43 8 10 1 6 1 3 0 19 2 Total 28 38 17 83 21 19 11 51 11 7 3 21 125 . Gender and Ethnicity in Study 1 (N=855) Automobile Drivers Ethnicity No.13: Crash Occurrence Frequency. involved in one crash Total Ethnicity No. male motorcycle drivers reported higher crash occurrence than female motorcycle drivers.Table 4. Gender and Ethnicity in Study 2 (N=122) Motorcycle drivers Ethnicity No. Table 4. involved in two crash Total Ethnicity No.14: Crash Occurrence Frequency. involved in three crashes Total Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Gender Male Female 80 57 119 103 33 44 232 204 24 9 19 7 7 2 50 18 12 5 9 3 1 2 22 10 Total 137 222 77 436 33 26 9 68 17 12 3 32 More than half of the motorcycle drivers sampled in Study 2 reported that they had been involved in at least one motor vehicle crash over the preceding year (see Table 4.
05).5 4. I was significantly correlated with all variables except with VER and hostility. proximal and outcome variables within the sample of automobile drivers. Table 4. Table 4. proximal and outcome variables within the sample of automobile drivers. Both externality-chance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P) were not significantly correlated with the HAT subscale measuring hostile automatic thoughts related to the derogation-of-others. freeway urgency. standard deviations and relationships between distal. and destination-activity orientation. externally-focused frustration. Study 1B. Table 4. BHS was not significantly correlated with verbal aggression (VER).5. However. Hopelessness (BHS) was the only independent variable that was not significantly correlated with crash occurrence and injury occurrence.4.05). in Study 1B. proximal and outcome variables within the sample of automobile drivers. Although VER was significantly correlated with crash occurrence.15 shows means.1 Distal and Proximal Variable Data Results of Study 1 Study 1A. it was not correlated with injury occurrence. Most of these correlations were significant (p<. Study 1C. All distal and proximal variables were positively correlated except internality (I) which was negatively corrected with other variables.05). Also. All distal and proximal variables were positively correlated except I which was negatively corrected with other variables. Most of these correlations were significant (p<. All these correlations were significant (p<.16 shows means. VER was not correlated with the total score for behaviour in traffic (BIT) nor with any of the BIT subscales: usurpation of right-of-way.17 shows means. All distal and proximal variables were positively correlated except I which was negatively corrected with other variables. 126 . standard deviations and relationships between distal. standard deviations and relationships between distal. crash occurrence and crash injury.
15: Means.D.804** . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 9.01 level (2-tailed) 127 .247** .516** 1 -.901** .482** .476 .2691 6.129* .78 .942** 1 .562** -.027 1 . Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1A (n=301) Mean Distal Variables1 1 Internality (I) 2 Externality-Chance (P) 3 Externality-Powerful-Other (O) 4 Hopelessness (BHS) Proximal Variables1 5 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) 6 Usurpation of right-of-way 7 Freeway Urgency 8 Externally-Focused Frustration 9 Destination-activity Orientation Outcome Variables2 10 Crash Occurrence 11 Injury Occurrence S.186** .04 26.231** .201** .625** .345** 1 -.155** .00 165.58 .544** -.036 .76 3.376** .818** 1 .435** .662** 1 .331** 1 * Correlation is significant at .371** .388** .202** .96 19.147* .471** .306** .278** .416** 1 .209** 1 .45 6.434** .Table 4.553** -.280** .381** .97 43.316** .246** .442 1 -.566** 1 -.218** .211** .152** .08 2.191** .69 24.147* -.05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .391** -.405** .376** .23 2.5 5.749** .88 7.340** .64 7.396** .57 4.44 4.533** .339** .716** .52 34.22 3.513** .342** -.239** .3455 .
051 .842** 1 .16: Means.53 19.518** .414** .298** .103 -. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1B (n=302) Mean S.491** .85 9.41 3.028 .386** .310** .355** .347** 1 -.099 .312** 1 -.003 .225** .334** .731** .254** .103 -.816** .140* .430** .847** .294** 1 .45 5 87.461** .05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .509** .372** .167** .580** 1 Note: (1) Internality (2) Externality-Chance (3) Externality-Powerful-Other (4) Hopelessness (5) Total Aggression (6) Physical Aggression (7) Verbal Aggression (8) Anger (9) Hostility (10) Indirect Aggression (11) Behaviour in Traffic (12) Usurpation of right-of-way (13) Freeway Urgency (14) Externally-Focused Frustration (15) Destination-activity Orientation (16) Crash Occurrence (17) Injury Occurrence * Correlation is significant at .97 Outcome Variables2 16 .278** 1 -.448** .9 28.550** .14 4.401** .178** .00 14 19.200** .319** .268** .380** .97 4 4.028 -.82 7 13.254** .65 Proximal Variables1 11 170.408** .514** .440**.5695 .254** .9 12 71.162** .489**.06 3 2.240** .520** .688**.516** .382** 1 -.013 1 .403** .213** .407** 1 -.400** .521** .56 2 4. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Distal Variables1 1 9.50 5.159 -.602** 1 .353** .213** .D.438** 1 .213** .286* .779** 1 -.331** .84 5.84 7.855** .452** .335** .91 15 27.172** .342** .176* .669** 1 -.380** .586** .279** .331** .393** .86 6.089 -.542** .Table 4.444** .343** .363** .071 .463** .369** .921** .337** .443** .69 8.067 -.272** .275** .5 6 17.462** .445** .555** .418** .341** .515** .48 5.9 13 46.22 4.172** .587** 1 -.584** -.496** .491** .481** .355** .148* .55 9 21.276** .376** .173* .236** .378** .434** .271** .343** .3079 .540** .039 .60 10 16.153** .358** .762** .816** .157** .324** .523** .964** 1 .01 level (2-tailed) 128 .366** .43 12.150** .411** .48 3.4624 1 -.505** .25 8 18.195** .697** 1 .531** .355** .4960 17 .763** .338** .66 3.147** .
281** .109 .370** .17 -.385** .069 .192**.428** .230** .508** .193**.250** .434** .387** .150* .320** .378** .038 .275** .191** .422** 1 9 22.095 .306** .158** .101**.296** .530** 1 Note: (1) Internality (2) Externality-Chance (3) Externality-Powerful-Other (4) Hopelessness (5) Total Aggression (6) Physical Aggression (7) Verbal Aggression (8) Anger (9) Hostility (10) Indirect Aggression (11) Hostile Automatic Thoughts (12) HAT-Physical Aggression (13) HAT-Derogation of others (14) HAT-Revenge (15) Behaviour in Traffic (16) Usurpation of right-of-way (17) Freeway Urgency (18) Externally-Focused Frustration (19) Destination-activity Orientation (20) Crash Occurrence (21) Injury Occurrence * Correlation is significant at .86 -.314** .356** .545** .451** .67 7.05 -.203** .97 -.390** .246** .245** .856** 1 17 43.235** .7 28.838** .199** .342** .103** .58 9.70 3.17: Means.275** .254** .377** .162**.254** .192** .141* .8 -.615** .481** .186** .174** .52 7.483** .228** .03 5.383** .373** .70 8.526** .016 .735** .324** .456** .313** .03 -.402** .304** .057 .401** .166** .D.137* .082 .210** .202** .310** .454** .98 4.05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .293** .343** .323** .224** .259** .294** .423** .01 level (2-tailed) S 129 .349** 1 16 67.745** 1 7 13.345** .076 .189** .501 .183** .516 .549** 1 Proximal Variables1 15 161.306** .592** .364**.357** .265** 1 19 25.42 3.120 .747** .304** .227** .402** .263** .130** .91 -.641** 1 4 4.17 -.11 12.109 .80 17.264** .412** .292** .302** .196** .191** 1 3 .241** .270** .31 -.379** .202** .033 .271** .181** .413** .307**.278** .277** .081 .241** .228** .221** .49 6.051 .224**.251** .079 1 Outcome Variables2 20 .588** 1 14 20.9 -.003 .506** .465** .7 -.106 .36 -.259** .725** .286** .199**.366** .448** .095 .37 6.534** 1 18 19.9 -.354** 1 5 88.-181** .110 .296** .268**.230 .119* 1 21 .278** .261** .167** .212** .338** .70 1 2 4.131* .296** .348** 1 6 16.404** .00 -.183** .288** .424** 1 12 18.340** .85 19.355** .292** .151* .311** .151* .277**.252** .291** .210**.476** .392** .Table 4.518** .446** .139** .178** .150* .343** .219** .81 5. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Distal Variables1 1 10.075 .226** .221** .189** .277** 1 8 19.502** .69 -.235** .229** .148** .484** .749** .209** .530** .218** .281** .804** .222** .258** .31 3.89 5.308** .565** .270** .298** .18 -.230** .185** .81 -.367** .38 5.895** 1 13 26.862** .364** .78 8.531** 1 10 16.166** .395** 1 11 65.183** . Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1C (n=252) Mean S.64 -.305** .422 -.368** .216** .
proximal and outcome variables within the sample of motorcycle drivers in Study 2. 4. The BIT subscale measuring destinationactivity orientation was significantly correlated to crash occurrence but not to injury occurrence. but it was not correlated with crash occurrence or injury occurrence. freeway urgency. Similar to observed results in study 1A.5. All distal and proximal variables were positively correlated except internality (I) which was negatively corrected with the BIT total score. However. all BIT subscales.2 Results of Study 2 Table 4. Hostility (HOS) was significantly correlated with all other variables except with crash occurrence and crash injury.18 shows means.BHS was significantly correlated to the total BIT score and to BIT subscales: usurpation of right-of-way. crash occurrence and injury occurrence. it was not correlated with crash occurrence or with crash injury. BHS was significantly correlated with total BIT score and with all of the BIT subscales. and destination-activity orientation. externally-focused frustration. Of these negative the BIT subscales measuring freeway urgency and externally-focused frustration were significant. 130 . 1B and 1C. standard deviations and relationships between distal.
66 5.5738 8.76 48.212* .413** 1 .349** .226** .167 .795** 1 * Correlation is significant at .880 .01 level (2-tailed) 131 .485 11. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 2 (n=122) Mean Distal Variables 1 Internality (I) 2 Externality-Chance (C) 3 Externality-Powerful-Others (P) 4 Hopelessness (BHS) Proximal Variables 5 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) 6 Usurpation of right-of-way 7 Freeway Urgency 8 Externally-Focused Frustration 9 Destination-activity Orientation Outcome Variables 10 Crash Occurrence 11 Injury Occurrence S.356** .535** 1 .313** 1 .269** .035 3.66 1.415** .192* -.201* .4966 1 .48 5.367** .025 -.Table 4.334** .409** .750** .290** .043 .165 .562** 1 .917 3.374** .259** .179 7.072 .05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .30 .314** .323 23.183* 1 .371** -.200* -.418** .182* -.621 3.14 27.383** .428** .18: Means.139 .413** .500** . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 3.D.219** .50 73.376** .291** .028 1 .55 175.081 8.6803 .580** 1 .4683 .06 20.264** .232** .758** 1 .941** 1 .240** .876** .150 -.630** .233** .614** .111 -.325** .122 7.251** .317** .
Externality-chance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P) scores were significantly and positively correlated with crash occurrence and injury occurrence. 1C and 2.4. AQ subscales were significantly and positively correlated with each other. verbal aggression (VER) and anger (ANG) were significantly correlated only with crash occurrence.19 shows means. 132 . proximal or outcome variables in Study 3 were weaker than those observed in Studies 1 and 2. As indicated in Table 4. In general. correlations between I and distal. neither an observed weak positive correlation between I and C. However. BIT total scores had a significant positive correlation with crash occurrence but not with injury occurrence.3 Results of Study 3 Table 4. nor a weak negative correlation between I and P achieved significance. In this study.19. 1B. standard deviations and relationships between distal. Differing from Studies 1A. proximal and outcome variables within the sample of taxicab drivers in Study 3. While physical aggression (PHY) and hostility (HOS) were significantly correlated with crash occurrence and injury occurrence.5. significant negative correlations were observed between the internality (I) variable and with physical aggression (PHY) subscale scores on the AQ and with BIT total scores. but remaining I correlations with BIT and AQ subscales did not achieve significance.
040 .116 .88 1 .149 .204* .060 .236** .200* .05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .65 75.292** .418** .117 .178** .072 .257** .618** 1 .378** 1 .030 .51 3.054 .072 -.121 .276** .213** .032 1 .117 .021 1 * Correlation is significant at . Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 3 (n=133) Mean S.240** .10 1.636** .588** 1 .149 .371** .373** .171 .31 8.229** .106 .749** .194* 1 .643** .864** 1 .148* .32 3.023 .19: Means.43 8.576** .095 .156 .853** .324** .2000 .3 6.112 -.17 20.092** .45 19.74 15.048 .11 15.165 .120 . Distal Variable 1 Internality (I) 2 Externality-Chance (C) 3 Externality –Powerful-Others (P) 4 Total Aggression (AQ) 5 Physical Aggression (PHY) 6 Verbal Aggression (VER) 7 Anger (ANG) 8 Hostility (HOS) 9 Indirect Aggression (IND) Proximal Variables 10 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) 11 Usurpation of right-of-way 12 Freeway Urgency 13 Externally-Focused Frustration 14 Destination-activity Orientation Outcome Variables 15 Crash Occurrence 16 Injury Occurrence 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 12.Table 4.182* -.275** .114 .028 .039 .071 .816** .15 32.240** .020 .177 1 .07 8.235** .153** 1 .067 .82 11.646** .721** .245** .117 .091 -.06 2.194* .197* .08 15.604** .193* -.013 .222* .147** .254** -.060 -.12 4.404 .061 .99 10.54 11.121 .4 5.172** .018 -.091 .152 .070 -.658** .528** 1 .82 5.271** .263** .05 3.161 -.235** .156 .180** .025 -.246** .35 11.268** .167** .286* 1 .443** 1 .141 .32 7.261** .289** 1 .255** .023 -.622** .01 level (2-tailed) 133 .13 3.151 -.42 66.128 .401** -.84 2.103 .561** 1 .D.166 .454** .213** .0301 .234** .521** .150** .338** 1 .109 -.173* .218* .807** .872** .225** .
20: Results of Logistic Regression Analyses Showing the Effects of BIT Component Factors on Crash Occurrence Study 1A Usurpation of Right-of Way Freeway Urgency Externally-focused Frustration Destination-activity Orientation B=. p<.01 B=.20).238. Study 1B: B=.4.01 B=.034.6 Hypothesis Testing This section reports the results of analyses to test the hypotheses formulated in chapter 3 (see Table 3. results from the logistic regression analyses in all studies indicated strong relationships between total BIT scores and the likelihood of a motor vehicle crash occurrence (Study 1A: B=.1 through H1. p<. p<. p<.01 B=. While controlling driver experience and driving frequency. that behaviour in traffic influences crash occurrence.01. p<. and externally-focused frustration.146.041.1. p<. freeway urgency.01 B=. Study 2: B=. p<.01 B=. Table 4. p<. p<.229.01 B=. were significantly related to crash occurrence (see Table 4.125.095.6.01 B=. p<.1 Hypothesis 1: Behaviour in Traffic Influences Motor Vehicle Crash Outcomes First. analyses were conducted to test whether BIT scores influenced crash occurrence.01 B=.172.01 Study 1B B=.01 B=.315.01 B=.01 Study 3 B=. p<. p<.117.180.090. p<.4 was not supported.1).080. p<. 4. p<. For the destination-activity factor. p<.01 B=.3 inclusive.095.01. p<.01).01 B=. p<.01 134 . p<.01 B=.088 p<.048. p<.063. Study 1C: B=. These results supported H1. p<.120. results of logistic regression analyses indicated that usurpation of right-of way.278.01 and Study 3: B=.102. H1. When the relationships between the four component factors of the BIT scale and the likelihood of a crash outcome were tested.1.1.135.063. These results supported H1.1. p<.04. but not destination-activity orientation. p<.202.01 Study 1C B=.01.01 B=.01 Not Significant Study 2 B=.
Table 4.019. p<. freeway urgency.01 B=. that behaviour in traffic would influence injury occurrence.075 p<.033 p<.158.038.2. p<.01 B=.064. p<.21).21: Results of Logistic Regression Analyses Showing the Effects of BIT Component Factors on Injury Occurrence Study 1A Usurpation of Right-of Way Freeway Urgency Externally-focused Frustration Destination-activity Orientation B=.054.2 Hypothesis 2: Driver Characteristics Influence Behaviour in Traffic ANOVA indicated that driver experience and travel frequency had a statistically significant effect on total BIT scores of automobile drivers sampled in Studies 1A.23 and Table 4. p<. When driver experience and travel frequency were controlled.035.01 and Study 2: B=. p<.01 Study 1C B=. p<. Study 1C: B=. 1B and 1C (see Table 4.01 B=. the results of logistic regression showed that total BIT scores were strongly regressed with the likelihood of experiencing an injury related to a motor vehicle crash (Study 1A: B=.01 B=.120.118.095.01 Study 3 Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant 4. p<. p<.01 B=.059.Behaviour in traffic also influenced injury occurrence in all studies except Study 3. p<.01 B=.01.01 B=.24. p<. p<. p<. respectively).01).05 Study 1B B=. These results supported H1.091.01 B=. logistic regression analyses indicated that usurpation of right-of way.087. p<. Study 1B: B=. p<.01.22. externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation were significantly related to traffic crash injury in all studies except Study 3 (See Table 4.165.01 B=.074.035.6.01 Not Significant Study 2 B=. p<. 135 . When the relationships between the likelihood of injury occurrence and the four component factors of the BIT scale were tested.01 B=. p<.140. p<.01 B=.069. Table 4.
25 5.16 3.44 178.52 25.35 24.50 28.074* 110 81 37 45 29 181.68 26.64 26. * p<.98 33. N M SD F 221 60 19 2 168.01.43 20.35 4.Table 4.56 175.25 25.184** 136 .77 8.01 N M SD F 186 88 18 9 161.92 157.60 185.22: The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores in Study 1A (N=301) Variable Driver experience 3 years or less 3 to 5 years 5 to 7 years More than 7 years Travel frequency Everyday Several times a week About once or twice a week About once every two weeks Almost never Note: ** p<.41 167.82 168.30 22.600** Table 4.06 19.29 21.88 28.32 147.32 28.73 170.48 171.64 27.320** 64 110 41 17 69 173.15 161.03 25.05.23: The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores in Study 1B (N=302) Variable Driver Experience 3 years or less 3 to 5 years 5 to 7 years More than 7 years Travel Frequency Everyday Several times a week About once or twice a week About once every two weeks Almost never Note: ** p<.77 165.98 171.35 155.89 21.35 33.31 161.82 33.
about once every two weeks (p<. and those who almost never travelled (p<.39 19.05).00 16.06 8.06 160. Drivers who travelled every day had significantly higher total BIT scores when compared to those who travelled several times a week (p<.01). 137 .01). Drivers who travelled everyday had significantly higher total BIT scores when compared to those who almost never travelled (p<.05). post hoc analyses indicated that drivers with 3 years or less of licensed driving experience had significantly lower total BIT scores when compared with drivers that had 3 years experience but less than 5 years of licensed driving experience (p<.77 16.12 154.52 3.81 167.29 15. In Study 2. In Study 1C. motorcycle drivers’ experience was not significantly related to total BIT scores (see Table 4.53 17.01).12 161.01).Table 4.73 157.61 165. * p<.345* 67 69 33 45 38 170.05).01.88 167. N M SD F 187 46 16 3 159. drivers who travelled everyday had significantly higher total BIT scores when compared to those who travelled several times a week (p<. On the other hand. drivers with 3 years of licensed driving experience had significantly lower total BIT scores when compared with drivers that had 3 years experience but less than 5 years of licensed driving experience (p<. the effect of travel frequency on total BIT score was significant.01 14.05) and about once every two weeks (p<.25).00 14.060** In Study 1A. Drivers who travelled about once or twice a week had significantly higher total BIT when compared to those who almost never travelled (p<.73 24. In Study 1B.14 15.24: The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores in Study 1C (N=252) Variable Driver Experience 3 years or less 3 to 5 years 5 to 7 years More than 7 years Driving Frequency Everyday Several times a week About once or twice a week About once every two weeks Almost never Note: ** p<.05.01).
81 22.01.S) Therefore.S.94 20.01.55 73.753* 38 48 27 20 77.437 (N.S. N. * p<.316 1.62 10.52 172. it is concluded that Hypothesis 2. However. However.528** In Study 3. Table 4.27 14.89 20.33 78. * p<. the difference in means of total BIT scores among the drivers in Study 3 was not statistically significant regardless of their years of experience as taxicab drivers.58 188.05.80 22.31 78.31 2.S) 52 32 7 17 14 182. the direction of the difference was opposite to what had 138 . that drivers’ demographic characteristics would significantly influence total BIT scores was supported in studies of automobile drivers.26).381 10.64 24.25: The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores in Study 2 (N=122) Variable Driver Experience 3 years or less > 3 years but < 5 years 5 to 7 years More than 7 years Driving Frequency Everyday Several times a week About once or twice a week About once every two weeks Almost never Note: ** p<.97 8. Not significant N M SD F 77 31 10 4 174.47 5. both driver experience and taxicab experience were tested. N.859 11.82 162.71 168.63 1.26: The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores in Study 3 (N=133) Variable Driver Experience 5 years or less >5 years but < 10 years 10 to 15 years More than 15 years Taxicab Driving Experience 5 years or less >5 years but < 10 years 10 to 15 years More than 15 years Note: ** p<.37 9.81 161.81 175.74 77.920 (N. taxicab driver experience was not statistically related to total BIT score.50 24.60 72.50 184.55 10.05.65 73.26 10. In other words.Table 4. It was found that the driver experience was statistically related to total BIT score (see Table 4.56 3. Not significant N M SD F 3 16 23 91 82.68 20.09 15.
3 Hypothesis 3: Demographic Variables Influence Behaviour in Traffic The direct effects on total BIT scores of three demographic variables – gender. the direction of the effect was consistent with the hypothesised relationship between driver experience and total BIT score.27). 4. however. 1B. In Study 2. the lower was the total BIT score. only H2. 1B. the longer the taxicab operator had been driving. Hypothesis 2 was partially supported in the study of motorcycle drivers. driver experience and travel frequency actually increased total BIT scores. For ethnicity. ANOVA indicated that mean total BIT scores in Studies 1A. 139 . ethnicity and age – were investigated.1 and H2.1 was confirmed. where male automobile and motorcycle drivers scored significantly higher than female drivers. the observed effect was opposite to what had been predicted by H2. Contrary to the subhypothesis. in that driver experience significantly influenced total BIT score but taxicab experience had no statistically significant effect. Again. Hypothesis 2 was partially supported in the study of taxicab drivers. In this case. ANOVA results for age.6. t-tests indicated that mean total BIT scores differed significantly between male and female participants. 1C and 2. indicated no significant differences in mean total BIT scores. though.2 was supported in that travel frequency significantly influenced total BIT score but driver experience had no statistically significant effect. In Study 3. only H2. travel frequency actually increased total BIT scores. Contrary to the two sub-hypotheses.2. 1C and 2 differed between different ethnic groups (see Table 4.2.been predicted by H2. In Studies 1A.
it is concluded that Hypothesis 3 was partially supported in studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers.05).2 was confirmed. p<. 4. N.62. p<. Study 1C t=3. t(250) = 2. p<.S Study 3 Not Applicable F=3. Study 2 t=3. p<. Note: Not significant In Study 1A.01 F=19.05). H3. N. In Study 1C. Study 1B t=2. and Externality-Powerful-Others (P). Therefore. post hoc analyses indicated that MalaysianChinese automobile drivers and motorcyclists scored significantly lower total BIT scores than either Malaysian-Indian or Malay drivers (p<. 1C and Study 2.01 F=2.S.Table 4. however.01 F=1.4 Hypothesis 4: Demographic Variables Influence Locus of Control The direct effects of the same three demographic variables on locus of control were also investigated.66. p<. For taxicab drivers studied in Study 3.12.6. N. in that ethnicity significantly influenced total BIT scores. p<.98. p<.518.104.22.168. Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers scored significantly higher total BIT scores than Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers (p<. In Study 1A and Study 2.S. it was found that female automobile drivers scored significantly higher levels on the I dimension when compared to male automobile drivers.27: Effects of Demographic Factors on total BIT Scores Study 1A Gender Ethnicity Age t=2.S.9.05 F=4. H3. male 140 .1 and H3. so the null hypothesis could not be rejected and H3. Malaysian-Indian taxicab drivers had significantly lower total BIT scores than either Malaysian-Chinese taxicab drivers (p<.01 F=1.3 was not supported.01 F=8.01).44. p<. Externality-Chance (C). results showed that gender had no influence on the three dimensions of locus of control: Internality (I).05.05 F=11.01 F=.00. p<. In Study 1B.2 were confirmed. N. In all studies.68. age had no statistically significant direct effect on total BIT scores. p<.05. N. In Study 1B. in that gender and ethnicity significantly influenced total BIT scores.81.01 F=9. In Study 3.S.56.
05 and F(2. 2 and 3 the age variable had no significant direct effects on any of the three dimensions of locus of control.05 respectively. In Study 1C.05 and F(2. 1C. 249) = 3. post hoc analyses showed that Malaysian-Indian drivers scored significantly higher on the C and P dimensions than did Malaysian-Chinese drivers (p<. p<. p<. 119) = 5. ethnic group differences were significant only with respect to P subscale scores. Consistent with findings in Study 1A. In Study 1B. p<.05.490.01 respectively). Malaysian-Indian drivers had significantly higher scores on the C dimension than did Malay drivers (p<. F(2.05. 1B.01). 298) = 3. F(2.05 and p<. Post hoc analyses indicated that Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers had significantly lower I scores than did either Malaysian-Chinese or Malay drivers (p<. 299) = 3.476.041. 298) = 6. 299) = 5.05) and Malaysian-Indian drivers scored significantly higher on the P dimension than did drivers in all other ethnic groups (p<.01). 141 . F(2. In Study 2.527. ethnic group differences were significant only with respect to I subscale scores. In Study 1A.462.01 respectively. p<. 298) = 3.05).05 respectively. t(120) = 2. t(299) = 2. p<. E and P scores.941. F(2. F(2.370.automobile and motorcycle drivers scored significantly higher on the P dimension than did female automobile and motorcycle drivers.566. p<. p<. p<. For Studies 1A. Post hoc analysis showed that MalaysianIndian automobile drivers scored significantly higher than did Malaysian-Chinese drivers (p<. Post hoc analyses showed that Malaysian-Indian motorcycle drivers scored significantly lower than all other ethnicity groups on the I dimension (p<. all ethnic groups had significantly different mean I. ethnic group differences were significant only with respect to mean C and P subscale scores.05).01.503.
Female motorcycle drivers scored significantly lower than male motorcycle drivers. ethnicity and age on hopelessness were investigated. In addition. Hypothesis 5 was not supported with respect to automobile drivers in Study 1. that age influences hopelessness.5 Hypothesis 5: Demographic Variables Influence Hopelessness The direct effects of gender. was not supported in either Study 1 or Study 2. H4.3 was supported. that gender and ethnicity influence hopelessness. 142 .3. H5. Age was found to have no influence on BHS scores with the sample of motorcycle drivers in Study 2. 4. H5. that ethnicity significantly influenced internality. externality-chance and externality-powerfulothers. so H4.2 and H4. 1B or 1C.22.214.171.124 and H4. H4. were supported.1 and H5. p<. In Studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers.1. in that gender was observed to significantly influence the externalitypowerful-others scores. in Study 2. it was observed that age had no significant effect on any of internality. Therefore. Hypothesis 4 was partially supported in studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers. Malay motorcycle drivers had a significantly higher BHS score when compared to Malaysian-Chinese motorcycle drivers (p<. Hypothesis 5 was partially supported in Study 2 with the sample of motorcycle drivers.3. H4. Independent sample t-tests on data from Studies 1A.05.2.2.079. 1B and 1C found no significant differences in mean scores of hopelessness (BHS) between male and female automobile drivers. H4. based on the results of t-tests and ANOVA.Therefore. externality-chance and externality-powerful-others. ANOVA results found no significant differences in mean BHS scores between ethnic groups or different age groups among automobile drivers in Studies 1A. it was found that the gender and ethnicity of motorcycle drivers did have a significant direct effect on hopelessness. In Study 1.3 were supported. However. t(120) = 2.1.6.01).3.1.3 were not supported.
290.4.341.01 and (B = .6.6. In Study 1C. internality (I) had a significant negative effect on hopelessness (BHS) (B = -. p<.01 and B = . p<. p<. H6.239. but C and P had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = . H6. p<.342. Therefore. was not supported.01. I was found to have a significant negative effect on BHS scores (B = -.01) but C and P had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = . H6.7 Hypothesis 7: Hopelessness Influences Behaviour in Traffic In studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers. 143 . I had a significant negative effect on BHS scores (B = -. p<. results of linear regression analyses indicated that hopelessness had a significant positive effect on total BIT scores and on scores for each of the four BIT component factors (see table 4. Hypothesis 6 was partially supported in Study 2. respectively).01) but externality-chance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P) had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = . 4. p<.01 and B = . it is concluded that Hypothesis 6 was supported in studies of automobile drivers. In Study 2. p<. that the three locus of control dimensions influence hopelessness.306. respectively).6 Hypothesis 6: Locus of Control Influences Hopelessness In Study 1A.01.312.01 respectively). were supported.3.28).354. p<. p<.2 and H6.01) but C and P had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = . H6.371.3.254. were supported.01. p<. In Study 1B. with the sample of motorcycle drivers.2 and H6.186.254. p<. that internality would influence hopelessness.1. with higher levels of internality related to lower levels of hopelessness and higher levels of both externality dimensions associated with higher hopelessness. no significant effects were observed between I and BHS scores in the sample of motorcycle drivers.1.01 and B = . respectively). that externality-chance and externality-powerful-others would influence hopelessness.
H7.280.Table 4. p<. p<.05 B=. was supported in Studies 1A.151. H7.287.01).05 In Study 1A. the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = . the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = . p<.349.280.418.01 B=. externally-focused frustration (B = . N. externally-focused frustration (B = .05 B=. the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = . p<. p<.01 Study 1B B=. it is concluded that Hypothesis 7. p<. Therefore. that hopelessness would have a significant positive influence on total BIT scores.05) but not for freeway urgency.05 Study 2 B=.153. p<. externally-focused frustration (B = .3 and H7.415. 144 . that hopelessness would have a significant positive direct effect on usurpation of right-of-way.4.232. p<.278. 1C and 2. freeway urgency (B = .01). externally-focused frustration (B = . freeway urgency (B = .1.01) and destination-activity orientation (B = .232.200. p<.01 B=.254.247.153. the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = .288. p<.2.141.28: Direct effects of hopelessness on BIT scores Total BIT score Usurpation of Right-of-way Freeway Urgency Externally-Focused Frustration Destination-Activity Orientation Study 1A B=. p<. that hopelessness would have a significant positive effect on freeway urgency was not supported in Study 1B. p<. p<.01 B=.099. p<.05). p<. p<. p<. p<.05) and destinationactivity orientation (B = .415.01) and destination-activity orientation (B = .01 B=. p<.05).141.317.151.151. p<.2126.96.36.1995.191.01 B=.01). p<.01 B=.05). p<.01 B=.01 B=.287.01 B=.349. p<.247. In Study 1B. p<.01).191. freeway urgency (B =. the higher the hopelessness scores.S. the higher the hopelessness scores. externallyfocused frustration and destination-activity were supported in both Studies 1 and 2. p<.151. In Study 2. it was observed that the higher the hopelessness (BHS) scores. In Study 1C. B=. p<. p<. p<.254.317.01 B=.01). p<.01 B=. p<.01 B=. H7. p<. meaning that H7 was only partially supported for that study. p<.01 B=.05) and destination-activity orientation (B = . p<. it was observed that the higher the hopelessness scores.05 Study 1C B=.01). p<. with both automobile and motorcycle drivers.01).
01 B=.01 B=.01 B=.006.05 B=. Results of multiple regression analyses (in studies of car.625.168. p<. where only H8.208. Table 4. B=. B=.2. with internality observed to exert a positive effect on BIT and the two externality dimensions to exert negative effects.315.4. results indicated that the higher were subscale scores for C.1. p<.1.3 that externality-powerful-others would influence total BIT scores.178. p<. p<. p<.01 B=-.3. the higher were mean total BIT scores of automobile and motorcycle drivers in Studies 1 and 2. With regard to H8.8 Hypothesis 8: Locus of Control Influences Behaviour in Traffic It was hypothesised that internality (I) would have a negative influence on total BIT scores while both externality-chance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P) would have a positive influence on total BIT scores.29).S. N.S.1 and H8.01 B=-. the higher were mean total BIT scores automobile drivers in Study 1. p<.1. the lower were mean total BIT scores.01 B=. p<. p<. provided support for hypothesis H8.01 B=-. motorcycle and taxicab drivers). that internality would negatively influence total BIT scores was supported. With regard to H8. p<. H8. p<. but not of the motorcycle and taxicab drivers in Studies 2 and 3 (See Table 4. it is concluded that Hypothesis 8 was supported for automobile drivers in Study 1. N. Hypothesis 8 was partially supported for taxicab drivers in Study 3. p<.044.336. N. but not H8.753. that the higher the subscale score for I.01 B=.01 B=-. 145 .297.01 B=.29: Direct Effects of Locus of Control on Total BIT Scores Study 1A I C P Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 Study 3 B=-. that internality and externality-chance would influence total BIT scores were supported.01 B=.229. p<.2 and H8. Hypothesis 8 was partially supported for motorcycle drivers in Study 2.077.3. but not of the sample of taxicab drivers in Study 3. H8.2.339. that locus of control would influence total BIT scores were supported in Study 1.S. H8.6. Therefore.239. results indicated that the higher were subscale scores for P.388.
freeway urgency and externally-focused frustration than did Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers with high internal control. 146 . =8.01 respectively (see Figure 4.01 (see Figure 4.1: Interaction Effects between Ethnicity and Internality on BIT In Study 1C. p<. Further. p<.2). F=4. externality -chance and externality-powerful-others – were split at the median to form high and low groups so that the interaction effect of ethnicity and locus of control could be tested on total BIT scores and subscale scores for the four component factors.272.01 (see Figure 4. In Study 1C. Mean Score on Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) 175 Ethnicty Malay MalaysianChinese 170 MalaysianIndian 165 160 155 150 low high Internality Figure 4. it was found that Malay automobile drivers with high externalitychance scores had significantly higher BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of way than did Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers with low externality-chance scores. p<.581. results revealed that Malay automobile drivers with high internal control had significantly lower scores on BIT subscales measuring usurpation of right-of-way.710. p<.01 and F=8. F=7. p<. it was found that Malay automobile drivers with high internal locus of control scored significantly lower in total BIT than did Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers with high internal control Malaysian-Indian student car drivers.909.Additional analysis: Interaction of ethnicity and locus of control on BIT.704.1).1). Scores for the three locus of control dimensions – internality.05. F=4.
multiple regression showed mixed results. p<.034. First. This means that motorcycle drivers with high internality scores and high hopelessness scores tended to have higher total BIT scores when compared to motorcycle drivers with high internality scores but low hopelessness scores (see Figure 4.00 MalaysianIndian 70. Kurtosis=-. Hopelessness moderated the relationship between internality and the total BIT score and between externality-chance and to total BIT score.2: Interaction Effect between Ethnicity and Externality-Chance on Usurpation of Right-of Way 4.05.00 low high Externality (Chance) Figure 4.00 64. However. Residuals Normality: Skewness=.033. hopelessness did not moderate the relationship between locus of control and BIT. in Study 2.3).537) and the moderator (hopelessness) showed a significant result.00 62.05.9 Hypothesis 9: Hopelessness Moderates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Behaviour in Traffic For Studies 1A.00 Malay MalaysianChinese 72.282.00 66.Mean Score on Usurpation of Right-of Way Ethnicty 74. p<.444. 147 . B = . the results of hierarchical regression indicated that the R2 value changed after the internality x hopelessness interaction was added in the regression model (R2=. 1B and 1C. R2=.6. F=4.327.00 68.
R2=.167.4).371).3: Moderating Effect of BHS on the Internality-BIT Relationship The R2 value also changed after the externality-chance x hopelessness interaction was added in the regression model (R2=. Residuals Normality: Skewness=. and the moderator (hopelessness) showed a significant result. p<.01. Kurtosis=-. F=18. This means that motorcycle drivers with high externality-chance scores and high hopelessness scores tended to have higher total BIT scores when compared to motorcycle drivers with high externality-chance scores but low hopelessness scores (see figure 4. B = .070.463.01.459.4: Moderating Effect of BHS on the Externality (Chance) -BIT Relationship 148 .BIT Level Effect for drivers with high hopelessness score Effect for drivers with low hopelessness score Internality Figure 4. Effect for drivers with high hopelessness score BIT Level Effect for drivers with low hopelessness score Externality (Chance) Figure 4.608. p<.
p<.298.Therefore.01 t=4. N.521. N.30).S.187.603. t(300) = 2. Mean total AQ scores differed significantly between male and female participants in Studies 1B and 1C.1.31). p<.603. With motorcycle drivers.05 t=4. p<. However. N.S t=2. Post hoc analysis showed that Malaysian-Chinese 149 .01.01 t=-.032. p<.05 Study 1C t=2.480.05 t=.690. that hopelessness would moderate the relationship between internality and total BIT scores. 249) = 5.30: Direct Effects of Gender on AQ Total and Subscale Scores Total Aggression (AQ) score Physical Aggression (PHY) Verbal Aggression (VER) Anger (ANG) Hostility (HOS) Indirect Aggression (IND) Study 1B t=2. and H9. p<. results indicated that male automobile drivers scored significantly higher than female drivers on measures of physical aggression. verbal aggression and indirect aggression (see Table 4. mean total AQ scores differed significantly between ethnic groups.6. In Study 1B and Study 3. F(2. When mean subscale scores for the five AQ component factors were tested. p<. were supported. p<.164.467.05 respectively. Hopelessness did not moderate the locus of control-BIT relation for automobile drivers.01 t=2.01 The relationship between ethnic background and aggression was tested for automobile drivers in Studies 1B.677. t= . In Study 1C. p<. and t(250) = 2. the H9.S t=2.210.S t=1. 4. ethnicity and age exerted direct effects on drivers’ Aggression Questionnaire (AQ) scores. ANOVA revealed no significant differences between ethnic groups in mean total AQ scores.780. it is concluded that Hypothesis 9 was not supported in Study 1. that hopelessness would moderate the relationship between externalitychance and total BIT scores. p<. p<. Table 4.2. p<.10 Hypothesis 10: Demographic Factors Influence Aggression Analyses tested whether gender.820. In both studies. N. male automobile drivers had significantly higher total AQ scores than did female automobile drivers.690.01 (see table 4. however. Hypothesis 9 was partially supported in Study 2. 1C and 3.01 t=2.
p<. N. N. F(2.077.021.564.S.S.01).763.S. N.526. p<. the mean verbal aggression (VER) scores of Malay. N. F=4. p<. p<.629. N.804. N.01. p<. Mean total AQ scores and mean scores on the five AQ subscales did not differ significantly between age groups either for automobile drivers in Studies 1B and 1C or for taxicab drivers in Study 3.632. When AQ subscale scores were tested for Study 1B and Study 1C.05 Study 1C F=5. F(2.041. F=1.041. 249) = 10.01).01). Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers had significantly lower IND scores than drivers from other ethnic groups (p<.automobile drivers in Study 1C had significantly lower total AQ scores than did Malay or Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers (p<.01 F=2.432. 150 .57. N.S. ANOVA revealed no significant differences between ethnic groups in mean scores in any of the AQ subscale scores. 299) = 5. F(2. In Study 3. Similar to the findings in Study 1B.S. F=1.398. p<. Malay automobile drivers scored significantly higher VER scores than drivers from other ethnic groups (p<.S.S. Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers had significantly lower IND scores than drivers from other ethnic groups (p<.567. F=2. Malaysian-Chinese and Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers were significantly different. Malaysian-Chinese and Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers were also significantly different.155.422. N. F=2.182. 299) = 4. F=1. F=2. N. In Study 1B. N.904.S.01 Study 3 F=1. mixed results were found. mean IND scores of Malay.S. N.S.S.01.05. In Study 1C.01 F=. F=1. F=. p<. N. Malaysian-Chinese and Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers were significantly different.561.31: Direct Effects of Ethnicity on AQ Total and Subscale Factors Total Aggression score Physical Aggression (PHY) Verbal Aggression (VER) Anger (ANG) Hostility (HOS) Indirect Aggression (IND) Study 1B F=2. N. Table 4. F=2.432. N. The mean indirect aggression (IND) scores of Malay. F=5.01).521. F=1.S.S.S F=10.
This means that when taxicab drivers’ aggression scores were higher.2. were all supported. that aggression would have a positive influence on total BIT scores. VER and IND) of five component factors among automobile drivers sampled in both Studies 1B and 1C.Therefore.2 (that ethnicity would influence aggression level) was supported only in Study 1C and only with respect to total AQ. In Study 3.3 and H11. however.1. 4. with regard to the taxicab drivers sampled in Study 3. Therefore. that aggression would have a direct positive effect on externally-focused frustration and on destination-activity orientation.29).3 and H11. VER and IND subscale scores.4. total BIT scores and scores on usurpation of right-of way and freeway urgency subscales were higher. respectively. were supported. However. in studies of both automobile drivers and taxicab drivers. H11. 151 . that aggression would have a direct positive effect on the usurpation of right-of way.11 Hypothesis 11: Aggression Influences Behaviour in Traffic In Study 1B and Study 1C.6. was supported. H10. only H11. H11.4. linear regression analyses indicated that total AQ scores predicted the total BIT score and the scores measuring only two of the four BIT component factors: externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation (See Table 4. it is concluded that Hypothesis 10 was partially supported. it is concluded that Hypothesis 11. In Studies 1B and 1C. The higher the total aggression scores. H10. externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation. externally-focused frustration. H10. linear regression analyses indicated that total AQ scores predicted total BIT scores and also scores measuring the four BIT component factors: usurpation of right-of-way. freeway urgency. and destination-activity orientation (see Table 4. H11.3 (that age would negatively influence aggression) was not supported. the higher were automobile drivers’ total BIT scores and scores on the four components.32). freeway urgency.1 (that gender would influence aggression) was supported with respect to measures of total aggression and to the same three (PHY.
01 B=.01. This implies that when automobile drivers have higher levels of ANG and IND. When the interaction effect of ethnicity and hopelessness was tested on the BIT and its four component factors. but not in Study 3.5). Linear regression analyses indicated that physical aggression (PHY) had a significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1B.01 Study 3 B=. p<. B = . p<. B = . the higher the levels of PHY and HOS.491. N.01 B=.01 B=. With both automobile and taxicab drivers.048.01.05 (see Figure 4.05 B=.S. p<. no interaction effects were found in all studies – Study 1A. respectively.4188.8.131.520.428.05 B=.387.01 B=. B = .324.370. p<.Table 4. the higher were total BIT scores.01 B=.565.385. p<. p<. p<.01.881. their total BIT scores tend to be higher. Study 1C and Study 3. p<.S. p<. B = .545.01 B=. p<.01.505.01 and B = .01 respectively. it was found that there was an interaction effect between ethnicity and verbal aggression (VER) on freeway urgency.229. p<. B=.01.01.263. and B = . Study 2 and Study 3. Study 1C and Study 3. p<.204. p<.01 B=. Results of regression analyses also showed that anger (ANG) had a significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1B and Study 1C. Similarly. p<. Total BIT Score Usurpation of Right-of-way Freeway Urgency Externally-Focused Frustration Destination-Activity Orientation The effects of AQ subscale factors on the total BIT score were also tested. Additional analysis: Interaction effects of ethnicity and aggression on BIT. B = . N.263. p<. Also. p<.01 respectively. p<. hostility (HOS) was found to have a significant positive influence on BIT in Study 1B. p<.438. but that this does not apply to taxi drivers. p<. p<. 1B. B = .01 and B = . p<. Verbal aggression (VER) was found to have no significant influence on total BIT scores. respectively.216.540. and B = . However. p<.01 Study 1C B=.483. Malay automobile drivers with high VER scores tended to score 152 . F=3. indirect aggression (IND) was also found to have significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1B and Study 1C.01 B=. but not in Study 3.01 B=.32: Effect of Aggression on Total BIT Scores and on BIT Component Factors Study 1B B=.183.520. 1C.380. p<. p<.
Residuals Normality: Skewness=-. p<. Residuals Normality: Skewness=.6. p<. and R2 values changed after the I x AQ interaction was added in the regression models (R2=. The moderating effect of I was significant.01. F=100.12 Hypothesis 12: Locus of Control Moderates the Relationship between Aggression and Behaviour in Traffic 4. p<.929. B=-.131.00 46.1 Internality as a Moderator Hierarchical regression analyses revealed that internality (I) moderated the relationship between aggression and total BIT score.05.00 Low High Verbal Aggression Figure 4.076. and B=-. R2=.316.297. p<.271.12.01. Study 1C and Study 3. Kurtosis=-.01. B=-. respectively. Mean Score on Freeway Urgency Ethnicty 52.00 Malay ChineseMalaysian 50.5: Interaction of Ethnicity and Verbal Aggression on Freeway Urgency 4.100. F=81.003. p<.00 42. R2=. aggressive drivers with low internal locus of control would 153 .00 44.362.961. In other words.significantly higher on freeway urgency than did Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers with high VER scores.172.516.645. Kurtosis=-.01. for Study 1B. R2=.00 IndianMalaysian 48.6. respectively) This means that the relationship between aggression and BIT would be stronger among drivers with low scores on the I subscale than it would be among drivers with high scores on the I subscale.
431.015.015.6. p<. Residuals Normality: Skewness= -.897. F=91. R2=.12.704. B = . p<. R2=. p<. Effect for aggressive drivers with low internality score BIT Level Effect for aggressive drivers with high internality score Aggression Level Figure 4. respectively).2 Externality-chance and Externality-powerful-others as Moderators In Study 1B and Study 1C.271. This applied to both automobile drivers and taxicab drivers. R2=. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-. In Study 1B.117. and the moderating effects of C and P were 154 . R2 values changed after both the C x AQ and P x AQ interactions were added in the respective regression models (R2=.694.794. F=71. Kurtosis=.297. and the moderating effects of C and P were significant.01.507.387.01 respectively. p<. p<.01. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-463.297. R2=. Kurtosis=-.have higher BIT scores compared to drivers with high internal locus of control (see figure 4.606. R2 values in Study 1C changed after both the C x AQ and P x AQ interactions were added in the respective regression models (R2=.6: Moderating Effect of Internality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship 4.01. Kurtosis=.6).109. F=78.757.088. the hierarchical regression revealed that externalitychance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P) moderated the relationship between aggression and total BIT score.360. F=94.271.069. p<.369. Consistent with the findings from Study 1B. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-.01 and B = . respectively). Kurtosis=-. R2=.01. R2=.
R2 values did not change after either the C x AQ or P x AQ interactions were added in the regression models.1. This means that aggressive taxicab drivers with high scores on either the C or P locus of control dimensions did not differ greatly in total BIT scores from taxicab drivers with low scores on the C or P dimensions. that the internality.7). with the samples of automobile drivers study for student car drivers. H12. p<. p<. Effect for aggressive drivers with high externality scores BIT Level Effect for aggressive drivers with low externality scores Aggression Level Figure 4.01 and B = .302. and H12. and the moderation effect was not significant. externality-chance and externality-powerful-others 155 . B = .3.significant.7: Moderating Effects of Externality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship However.01 respectively. hierarchical regression results showed that neither C nor P moderated the relationship between aggression and total BIT scores for taxicab drivers in Study 3. H12. Therefore.2.332. This means that aggressive automobile drivers scoring high on either the C or P locus of control dimensions had higher total BIT scores than automobile drivers scoring low on either the C or P dimensions (see Figure 4. it is concluded that the Hypothesis 12 was supported in Studies 1B and 1C.
Hypothesis 12 was only partially supported in Study 3. There were no significant differences between ethnic groups with respect to hostile statements about the derogation of others.01.3. 249) = 4. Post hoc analysis indicated that Chinese-Malaysian automobile drivers had significantly lower total HAT scores than either Malay or Indian-Malaysian automobile drivers (p<. p<. Post hoc analysis indicated that Chinese-Malaysian automobile drivers had significantly lower scores on the subscale measuring statements about physical aggression than did either Malay automobile drivers (p<. p<. p<. t(249)=2. 156 . However.05).05. that internality moderates the relationship between aggression and total BIT scores was supported. and about revenge F(2.01 but not on about the derogation of others.343. There were also significant differences between ethnic groups on subscale scores measuring statements about physical aggression F(2.314. ANOVA results showed that ethnic groups differed significantly with respect to mean total HAT scores. H122 and H12. F(2. Chinese-Malaysian automobile drivers had significantly lower scores than IndianMalaysian automobile drivers (p<.885.05). male automobile drivers scored significantly higher on HAT subscales measuring statements about physical aggression.6.05) or Indian-Malaysian automobile drivers (p<. p<.279. 4. with the sample of taxicab drivers. Only H12. p<. No significant differences were observed between age groups with respect to total HAT scores or to scores on any of the three HAT subscales. On the subscale measuring statements about revenge. p<.05. 249) = 5.737.01.263.1.13 Hypothesis 13: Demographic Factors Influence Hostile Automatic Thoughts Male automobile drivers in Study 1C scored significantly higher total HAT scores than did female automobile drivers.dimensions of locus of control moderate the relationship between aggression and total BIT scores were supported. t(250) = 3.01). Also. that externality-chance and externality-powerful-others moderates the relationship between aggression and BIT scores were not supported. 248) = 3.01 and revenge: t(249) = 3.
and also scores measuring the four BIT component factors: usurpation of right-of-way.01 and destination-activity orientation. was supported. This means that.Therefore. the higher the total HAT scores. Therefore. p<.2. H14.364. it is concluded that the Hypothesis 14. 4. that gender and ethnicity respectively would have significant direct effects on hostile automatic thoughts. derogation of others and revenge had a significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1C B =. The effects of HAT subscales measuring the three classes of hostile automatic thoughts.01.14 Hypothesis 14: Hostile Automatic Thoughts Influence Behaviour in Traffic In Study 1C. p<. that hostile automatic thoughts would influence behaviour in traffic.413. was not supported.01. p<. were supported.01. H13. B = . Linear regression analyses indicated that subscales measuring thoughts about physical aggression.379. B = .01.307.1. 157 . linear regression analyses indicated that total HAT scores predicted total BIT scores. p<. was partially supported. it is concluded that the Hypothesis 13. H14. B = .3. p<. derogation of others and revenge) positively influence total BIT scores.01.277.01 and B = . that demographic variables would influence hostile automatic thoughts. the higher the scores on the three classes of hostile automatic thought.6. (that thoughts about physical aggression.192. p<. externally-focused frustration. B = . the higher were total BIT scores. B = . p<.394. on total BIT score were also tested. p<.224. were supported.3. with the sample of automobile drivers studied. B = . that age would influence hostile automatic thoughts.2 and H14.01.1 and H13. H13. the higher were automobile drivers’ total BIT scores and scores on the four components. This means that. respectively. freeway urgency.
B = .072).013.-554. R2 values changed after the HAT x AQ interaction was added in the regression model (R2=.01. Effect for aggressive drivers with high HAT score BIT Level Effect for aggressive drivers with low HAT score Aggression Level Figure 4. R2=.8).15 Hypothesis 15: Hostile Automatic Thoughts Moderate the Aggression-BIT Relationship Hierarchical regression analysis indicated that HAT scores moderated the relationship between aggression and BIT.05.809. R2=. This means that the relationship between aggression and BIT would be stronger among automobile drivers with high total HAT scores than it would be among drivers with low total HAT scores. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-. The R2 value changed after the HAT-Physical Aggression x AQ interaction was added in the regression model (R2=.565.085).8: Moderating Effect of Externality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship It was observed that two of the HAT subscales.4.188. p<.002. F=55.911. In other words.297. Normality Residuals: Skewness=. Kurtosis=. p<.6. also moderated the relationship between aggression and BIT. Kurtosis=. F=57. Physical Aggression and Revenge.01. aggressive drivers who frequently entertained hostile automatic thoughts about others would have higher total BIT scores compared to drivers who seldom entertained hostile automatic thoughts about others (see Figure 4. p<. and the moderating effect of HAT was significant.297. and the moderating effect of HAT-Physical 158 .
was supported. B = .092). The HAT subscale measuring thoughts about the derogation of others did not moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic. was not supported.207.Aggression was significant.2. that total HAT score would moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic.294. Normality Residuals: Skewness=. The R2 value also changed after the HATRevenge x AQ interaction was added in the regression model (R2=.475. p<. that hostile statements about the derogation of others moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic. p<.33). p<. Therefore. H15.1 and H15.01.16 Summary of Hypothesis Testing The following table provides summarised results for the hypotheses and subhypotheses in this study (see Table 4.026. 4. 159 . were supported.297. Kurtosis=. R2=.01.6. it is concluded that Hypothesis 15. F=59. However. and the moderating effect of HAT-Revenge was significant. B = .246.01.3. that hostile statements about physical aggression and revenge respectively moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic. H15.
1.2: Taxicab experience will have a negative influence on total BIT score H3: Demographic variables will influence behaviour in traffic H3.S S N.S N.S S S N.2.3:Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.S S N.S N.S N.1.S N.4:Destination-activity orientation will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.3.S N.S S P.S 1B S S S S S S S S S S S S S S P.S N.2: Ethnicity will influence total BIT score H3.3: Age will have a negative influence on total BIT score H4: Demographic variables will influence the Locus of Control H4.2.S S S S P.S S N.S S S S S N.1.4: Destination-activity orientation will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H2: Driver characteristics will influence behaviour in traffic H2.S S S N.S N.S N.S N.1.S S S N.S N.1.S N.S S S N.1: Ethnicity will influence the Locus of Control: Internality H4.2: Ethnicity will influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.2: Traveling frequency will have a negative influence on total BIT score H2.33: Summarised Results of the Hypotheses and Sub-hypotheses STUDY 1A H1: BIT will have a positive influence on motor vehicle crash outcomes H1.S S S N.1: Gender will influence total BIT score H3.S 3 P.2.S N.S N.2: Freeway urgency will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.3: Ethnicity influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H4.S S S S S N.S P.1.S.Table 4.S S S S S N.S N.2: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.S N.S 1C P.S P.3: Gender will influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H4.S S S S S S N.S 2 S S S S S S S S S S S P.1: Driver experience will have a negative influence on total BIT score H2.S S N.2.1: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.S N.1: Age will influence the Locus of Control: Internality S S S S S S S S S S S S S S P. S N.1: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Internality H4.S 160 .S N.S P.2.1.2: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.S N.S P.S N.2.2 :Freeway urgency will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.2.S S S N.1: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.1: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.S P.S N.3: Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.S N.S P.
S S S S S S S S S S S S S S N.S S S N.S 1B N.1: Internality will have a negative influence on Hopelessness H6.S P. P.S N.1: Hopelessness will moderate the Internality-BIT relation H9.S P.S 161 .S N.S S N.S N.2: Age will influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.S N.S N.3: Age will influence Hopelessness H6: Locus of Control will influence Hopelessness H6.2: Externality-Chance will have a positive influence on total BIT H8.S N. blank=Not Applicable N.S P.S N.S N.S STUDY 1C N.S N.2: Externality-Chance will have a positive influence on Hopelessness H6.S N.S N.1: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Usurpation of right-of way H7.S 2 N.2: Ethnic background will influence of Hopelessness H5.S N.S P. N.3: Externality-Powerful-Others will have a positive influence on Hopelessness H7: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on behaviour in traffic H7.33 (Continued) 1A H4.S N.S S S N.S N.3: Hopelessness will moderate the Externality-Powerful-Others--BIT relationship H10: Demographic variables will influence aggression H10.S P.S N.Table 4.S S S S S S S S P.S N.S S S N.4: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Destination-activity Orientation H8: Locus of Control will influence behaviour in traffic H8.3: Age will have a negative influence on Aggression S=Supported.S S S S S S S N.2: Hopelessness will moderate the Externality-Chance--BIT relationship H9.S P.S N.S N.3: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Externally-focused frustration H7.S S S S S S S S S S S S S S N.S N.S N.2: Ethnic background will influence Aggression H10.S= Partially Supported.S S S S S P.S N.3: Externality-Powerful-Others will have a positive influence on total BIT score H9: Hopelessness will moderate the Locus of Control-BIT relationship H9.S N.S S N.S N.1: Internality will have a negative influence on total BIT score H8.S S N.2: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Freeway urgency H7.S N.3.3: Age will influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H5: Demographic variables will influence Hopelessness H5.S N.S N.S S S N.S N.S N.S= Not Supported.3.S N.S 3 N.1: Gender will influence Aggression H10.S N.S N.1: Gender will influence Hopelessness H5.S N.
S= Partially Supported. N.S N.3: Aggression will have a positive influence on Externally-focused frustration H11.S S S N.S S S N.2: Externality-Chance will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12.2: Aggression will have a positive influence on Freeway urgency H11.2: Thoughts about the Derogation of Others will have a positive influence on total BIT score H14.S S N.S= Not Supported.3: Externality-Powerful-Others will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H13: Demographic variables will influence Hostile Automatic Thought s H13.33 (Continued) 1A H11: Aggression will have a positive influence on behaviour in traffic H11.1: Thoughts about Physical Aggression will have a positive influence on total BIT score H14.Table 4.2: Ethnic background will influence hostile automatic thoughts H13.S 162 .1: Gender will have a positive influence on hostile automatic thoughts H13.S S 2 3 P.S P. P.2: Thoughts about the Derogation-of-Others will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H15.1: Thoughts about Physical Aggression will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H15.3: Thoughts about Revenge will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship S=Supported.S N.4: Aggression will have a positive influence on Destination-activity orientation H12: Locus of Control will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12.1: Aggression will have a positive influence on usurpation of right-of way H11.S S N.3: Age will have a negative influence on hostile automatic thoughts H14: Hostile Automatic Thoughts will have a positive influence on behaviour in traffic H14.1: Internality will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12.S S S S S P.3: Thoughts about Revenge will have a positive influence on total BIT score H15: Hostile Automatic Thoughts will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H15. blank=Not Applicable 1B S S S S S S S S S STUDY 1C S S S S S S S S S P.
These models were re-specified by adding different proximal context factors. AQ and Hostile Automatic Thought (HAT). C. HAT Proximal Factors F1.7 Testing the Contextual Mediated Model Using Structural Equation Modelling (LISREL Analysis) The contextual mediated model was tested using Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) – path analysis through LISREL 8. 4.1 Study 1C The contextual mediated model in this study was tested with four distal factors – Locus of Control. P.93 .34.g. F2. P. 2002).93 .96 . 163 . BHS.00000 . BHS.f.068 . F3. Aggression (AQ). F3. P I.087 .97 63.00000 . F2. F4 F1. Externality Powerful-Other (P). 23 28 33 38 24 33 p-value GFI . externally-focused frustration (F3) and destination-activity orientation (F4) Of the six models tested.80 104. two were worthy of further examination. F3. e. Model 1C5 had better fit but necessitated dropping one of the component factors. AQ. freeway urgency.4. and (3) crash occurrence and injury occurrence as outcome.045 .7.96 RMSEA . All proposed models measured: (1) internality.93 . P. externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation as proximal context factors. Hostile Automatic Thought (HAT). Usurpation of right-of-way (F1).00111 . F4 F1.58 35. C. BHS I. AQ.90 110. C. Externality Chance (C).102 .00126 . freeway urgency (F2). F2. Study 2: motorcycle driver.38 100. F2. F2. F4 F1. P. F3 F1.97 . externality (Chance) and externality (Powerful-Other) as distal context factors.060 Note: Internality (I). C. Three studies (Study 1C: automobile driver. hopelessness or subtracting the latent variables in order to obtain the optimal goodness-of-fit index.05522 . F2.093 .00000 . P. HAT I. F3. This contextual mediated model was tested six times and the goodness-of-fit indices for these models are indicated in Table 4. Hopelessness (BHS).52 (Jöreskog and Sörbom. AQ. F4 χ2 49.02 d. (2) usurpation of right-of-way. F3. and Study 3: professional taxicab driver) with different sample data were used to determine whether proximal context factors mediated the relationship between distal context factors and the outcome. C. HAT I. Hopelessness. AQ I. F4 F1. C. Table 4.34: SEM Comparison (Study 1C) Distal Factors 1C1 1C2 1C3 1C4 1C5 1C6 I.
Externality (Chance). For Model C5.98).92) on accident involvement. The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=. CFI=. . GFI=.f.96. .13. values for these additional indices were: NFI=. 5.32.3. For Model C5. Externality (Powerful-Other). with path coefficients = -.91. subsequent additional analysis was carried out to calculate a range of comparative fit indices.48. Externality (Chance).97. but not as good as for C5.92) on accident involvement. goodness-of-fit was characterised as excellent (χ2=35.23 respectively (see Figure 4. To aid this discussion.29 and .045.=33. RMR=. AGFI=. d.94. d.10). ECVI=.043. Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thought had effects on BIT. AGFI=. .26. .42.22 respectively (see Figure 4.060.28 and . C6. RMR=. . and PGFI=. GFI=. retained all four of the BIT component factors and fit indices were acceptable.99) and constituted the best fit of all six of the tested models.10). The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that all possible paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant: Internality.5.42.destination-activity orientation (F4).35. The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=.97. CFI=.14. ECVI=. . 164 .=24.02. RMSEA=. goodness-of-fit was characterised as very good (χ2=63.f. of the BIT score. RMSEA=. values were: NFI=. Externality (Powerful-Other).97. Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thought had effects on BIT. The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that all possible paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant: Internality. An alternate model.96.26. Making a decision to select one of these models over the other raised a number of interesting points. with path coefficients = -. For Model C6.51 and PGFI=. For Model C6. which are detailed in sect. The five distal variables accounted for 70% of the variance in BIT scores.043. The five distal variables accounted for 67% of the variance in BIT scores.
13* Externality (Powerful Other) BIT1 BIT2 BIT3 .22* Hostile Automatic Thought Model Statistics χ2=35. BITF2=Freeway Urgency.043 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.26* Crash Occurrence Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) .99 P-value = .92* Accident Involvement .05 BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way.32* Externality (Chance) .97 d.9: Contextual Mediated Model 1C5 (Three BIT Factors) 165 .51* .57* Injury Occurrence . *p<.79* . BITF4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4.f =24 CFI=.045 RMR=.58* .005522 N=252 RMSEA=.29* Aggression (AQ) .97 GFI=.Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome Internality -. BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration.63* .
BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration.060 RMR=.00126 N=252 RMSEA=.02 GFI=.29* Aggression (AQ) .98 P-value = . *p<.13* Externality (Powerful Other) BIT1 BIT2 BIT3 BIT4 .31* Externality (Chance) .96 d. BITF4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4. BITF2=Freeway Urgency.f =33 CFI=.63* .50* .043 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.10: Contextual Mediated Model 1C6 (Four BIT Factors) 166 .Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome Internality -.92* Accident Involvement .22* Hostile Automatic Thought Model Statistics χ2=63.26* Crash Occurrence Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) .56* .58* Injury Occurrence .05 BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way.39* .77* .
HAT-D. CFI=. HOS. ANG. HOS. F2.91.95).66). F3.10. HAT-R PHY. RMSEA=. F3.081 . GFI=.f. Hostile Automatic Thought-Physical aggression (HAT-P). HAT-R PHY. HAT-R PHY. The results for the goodness-offit indexes are shown as follows: Table 4. the contextual mediated model was tested using Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thoughts and their latent variables (component factors) as distal context factors. The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=. HAT-P.92 .084 . HOS. VER. Aggression (AQ). IND.66 131.66 153. ANG. HOS.078 Note: Physical aggression (PHY).00000 .41. F3 F1. HAT-R Proximal Factors F1.91 . Indirect aggression (IND). ANG.00000 .In addition. ANG.35).93 . Verbal aggression (VER). F3.=61. 167 .13 respectively. F2.080 . IND PHY. path coefficients = . VER. Hostile Automatic Thought-Derogation of others (HAT-D). VER. HAT-P. F3 F1. HAT-D. Usurpation of right-of-way (F1). F2.65 and . Hostile Automatic Thought was found to have a direct effect on the AQ (path coefficient=. IND.00000 . HAT-D.73 169. F4 F1. Angry (ANG).00111 .f. Hostility (HOS).00000 GFI RMSEA . The proposed contextual mediated model was tested five times (see Table 4. using automobile drivers sampled in Study 1C.94 169.084 . HAT-P. F4 χ2 108. Hostile Automatic Thought-Revenge(HAT-R). HAT-D.35: Different Contextual Models (Study 1C) Distal Factors PHY.91 . HAT-P.80) on the accident involvement.078. the final model has provided a reasonable fit to the data (χ2=153. freeway urgency (F2). HOS. ANG.41 d. F2.91 . F4 F1. IND. 42 61 50 61 61 p-value . externally-focused frustration (F3) and destination-activity orientation (F4) As depicted in Figure 4. d. It was found that both structural paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant: Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thought have effects on the Behaviour of Traffic (BIT). F2. IND.
078 RMR=. BIT2=Freeway Urgency.82* Revenge BIT1=Usurpation of Right-of way.29* Hostility .11: Contextual Mediated Model Study 1C (Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thoughts) 168 .62* .65* Crash Occurrence Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) .13* Model Statistics χ2=153.41 GFI=.Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome Physical Aggression . BIT4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4.000 N=252 RMSEA=. BIT3=Externally-Focused Frustration.058 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.f =61 CFI=.95 P-value = .91 d.61* .66* . *p<.63* Indirect Aggression .68* Aggression (AQ) BIT1 BIT2 BIT3 BIT4 .83* .65* .72* .60* Injury Occurrence Physical Aggression .58* .90* Derogation of Other Hostile Automatic Thought .69* Anger .80* Accident Involvement .05 .
047. The four distal variables accounted for 49% of the variance in BIT. C. freeway urgency (F2). BHS I. 169 . P.94 . The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that three paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant.98). F2.86 23 28 23 . F2.f. the participants were motorcycle drivers.=28.36: Different Contextual Models (Study 2) Distal Factors Proximal Factors χ2 29.36).f.7. The goodness-of-fit indexes for these models are shown as follow: Table 4.65 and . P I. GFI=.17631 .047 .33 33. C. path coefficients = -. CFI=.80 respectively (see Figure 4. d. F4 39.2 Study 2 In Study 2. The contextual mediated model was tested using locus of control and hopelessness as distal context factors. F2. F3. P. The proposed contextual mediated model was tested three times (see Table 4.07580 . F3 F1. Hopelessness (BHS).06722 . BHS F1. C.94 . F3.062 Note: Internality (I). Externality Powerful-Other (P). the final model for the student motorcycle drivers did not include hopelessness. Internality and Externality (Chance) the Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) but not Externality (PowerfulOther). p-value GFI RMSEA I.12. Usurpation of right-of-way (F1). The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=.12 d. Externality Chance (C). F4 F1.4.94.058 . externally-focused frustration (F3) and destination-activity orientation (F4) The model including Locus of Control has provided the best goodness-of-fit to the data (χ2=29.95 .66) on the accident involvement.12). RMSEA=. Compared to the Study 1 for student car drivers.
66* Accident Involvement Externality (Powerful Other) .17631 N=122 RMSEA=.83* BIT3 . *p<.70* BIT4 .80* Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) .12: Contextual Mediated Model Study 2 170 . BIT3=Externally-Focused Frustration.65* Externality (Chance) .88* Crash Occurrence .05 BIT1=Usurpation of Right-of way.046 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.78* .05 Injury Occurrence Model Statistics χ2=29.89* .57* Internality -. BIT4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4.99 P-value = .f =23 CFI=.95 d.12 GFI=. BIT2=Freeway Urgency.047 RMR=.Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome BIT1 BIT2 .
4. F3. C.7.06743 . I.95.079 Injury Occurrence I.=21. the participants were taxi drivers.20 and .20 respectively (see Figure 4.061.027 I. F3. This contextual mediated model was tested four times (see Table 4.95 . Internality and AQ. F2. C. freeway urgency (F2). F2. C. d.061 Note: Internality (I).35265 . P Proximal Factors F1.82 28 .39 21 .97 .068 Injury Occurrence Crash Occurrence. F2. Hopelessness (H). 37.93 .37).f. F4 Outcomes χ2 d.37: Different Contextual Models (Study 3) Distal Factors I. The goodness-of-fit indexes for these models are shown as follow: Table 4. GFI=. F4 50.94 . Externality Chance (ExC). Usurpation of right-of-way (F1).03084 . have effects on the Behaviour in Traffic (BIT). The contextual mediated model was tested using locus of control and hopelessness as distal context factors. CFI=.13). F2.39. The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=. C.00524 . P. F3. RMSEA=. The four distal variables accounted for 12% of the variance in BIT. P. Externality Powerful-Other (ExPo).3 Study 3 In Study 3.22 23 . F4 Crash Occurrence 31. The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that two out of four possible paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant.95). p-value GFI RMSEA Crash Occurrence. path coefficients = -. F4 Crash Occurrence 18. but not Externality.59 17 . AQ F1. externally-focused frustration (F3) and destination-activity orientation (F4) Model included locus of control. AQ F1. AQ F1. 171 . AQ and only crash occurrence as outcome has provided the best goodness-of-fit to the data (χ2=31. F3.40) on the accident involvement.f.
061 RMR=.13: Contextual Mediated Model Study 3 172 . BIT4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4.40* Crash Occurrence Externality (Powerful Other) .06743 N=133 RMSEA=.95 P-value = .20* Aggression (AQ) Model Statistics χ2=31.f =21 CFI=.63* BIT3 .13 .39 GFI=.61* BIT4 . BIT2=Freeway Urgency.053 Note: Values showed are path coefficients. BIT3=Externally-Focused Frustration.39* Internality -.20* Externality (Chance) .95 d.05 BIT1=Usurpation of Right-of way.Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome BIT1 BIT2 .03 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) .74* -. *p<.
Not applicable = mediating effect could only be tested when conditions in Step1. 4.38: BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hopelessness and Crash Outcomes BIT mediates HopelessnessCrash Occurrence Study 1A Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 BIT mediates the HopelessnessInjury Occurrence Relation Study 1A Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 Step 1 Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 1 Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 2 Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Step 2 Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 4 Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Step 4 Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Notes: Step 1=independent variable has a significant effect on the mediator. (3) the relationship between aggression and accident involvement.39). (2) the relationship between locus of control and accident involvement.8. Therefore. 4.38). and. Table 4. hopelessness did not significantly influence the crash outcomes (see Table 4.2 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Aggression and Crash Outcomes The four-step regression analysis showed that BIT strongly mediated the relationship between aggression and crash outcomes (see table 4. the mediating effect of BIT on hopelessness and crash outcomes relationship could not be estimated. 2 and 3 are satisfied. BIT was a complete mediator for the relationship between AQ total score and crash occurrence.8 Testing Mediational Relationships Using SPSS The mediating effects of BIT on: (1) the relationship between hopelessness and accident involvement. Step 3=mediator has a significant effect on the dependent variable.8. 173 . (4) the relationship between hostile automatic thoughts and accident involvement were tested using the four-step procedure proposed by Baron and Kenny (1986). Step4=Significance level of the relationship between independent variable and dependent variable is reduced indicating a partial mediating effect – or – independent variable does have a significant effect on the dependent variable indicating a complete mediating effect.1 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hopelessness and Crash Outcomes In all studies.4. consistent with path analysis results. Step2=independent variable has a significant effect on the dependent variable.
40: BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hostile Automatic Thought and Crash Outcomes BIT mediates Hostile Automatic Thought-Crash Occurrence Relation Study 1C BIT mediates Hostile Automatic Thought-Injury Occurrence Relation Study 1C Step 1 Significant Step 1 Significant Step 2 Significant Step 2 Significant Step 3 Significant Step 3 Significant Step 4 Partial Mediator Step 4 Partial Mediator 4.40). where the 174 . behaviour in traffic (BIT) had complete or partial mediating effects on the relationship between the three locus of control dimensions – Internality (I).39: BIT Mediates the Relationship between Aggression and Crash Outcomes BIT mediates Aggression-Crash Occurrence Relation Study 1B Study 1C BIT mediates AggressionInjury Occurrence Relation Study 1B Study 1C Step 1 Significant Significant Step 1 Significant Significant Step 2 Significant Significant Step 2 Significant Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Step 4 Complete Mediator Complete Mediator Step 4 Partial Mediator Complete Mediator 4. Externality-Chance (C) and Externality-PowerfulOthers – and crash outcomes (See Table 4. 1B and 1C. Table 4.41).BIT was a partial mediator for the relationship between aggression and injury occurrence.4 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Crash Outcomes For automobile drivers. Exceptions to this were found only with respect to the relationship between P and both crash outcomes in Study 1A.3 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hostile Automatic Thought and Crash Outcome The regression results showed that the BIT partially mediated the relationship between hostile automatic thought and crash outcomes (see Table 4. in Studies 1A. Table 4.8.8.
For taxicab drivers in Study 3. no mediating effect of BIT could be estimated since requisite conditions in the second step of the analysis were not satisfied. BIT had no mediating effects on the relationship between I.41: BIT Mediates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Crash Outcomes BIT mediates I-Crash Occurrence Relation Study 1A Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 Study 3 BIT mediates I-Injury Occurrence Relation Study 1A Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 Study 3 BIT mediates C-Crash Occurrence Relation Study 1A Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 Study 3 BIT mediates C-Injury Occurrence Relation Study 1A Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 Study 3 Step 1 Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 1 Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 1 Significant Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Step 1 Significant Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Step 2 Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Not Significant Step 2 Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Not Significant Step 2 Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 2 Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Step 4 Complete Mediator Partial Mediator Partial Mediator Not Applicable Not Applicable Step 4 Complete Mediator Partial Mediator Partial Mediator Not Applicable Not Applicable Step 4 Partial Mediator Complete Mediator Partial Mediator Complete Mediator Not Applicable Step 4 Partial Mediator Complete Mediator Partial Mediator Complete Mediator Not Applicable 175 .mediating effect of BIT total scores could not be estimated because requisite conditions in the second step of the analysis were not satisfied. BIT had a complete mediating effect on the relationship between C and both crash outcomes. C or P and the two crash outcomes. For motorcycle drivers in Study 2. With respect to the relationship between I and the crash outcomes and the relationship between P and the crash outcomes. Table 4.
p <. proximal variables (behaviour in traffic) and crash outcomes (crash occurrence and injury occurrence) were compared between automobile drivers from Study 1 and motorcycle drivers from Study 2. Motorcycle Drivers and Taxicab Drivers 4.837. p <. scores for distal variables (locus of control and hopelessness).05. There was no significant difference in scores on the P dimension between automobile drivers and motorcycle drivers. Study 2: t(421)= -3. Study 2: t(372)= -3.Table 4. p <.426.01.9 Comparison of Automobile Drivers. p <. p <.41: BIT Mediates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Crash Outcomes (Continued) BIT mediates P-Crash Occurrence Relation Study 1A Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 Study 3 BIT mediates P-Injury Occurrence Relation Study 1A Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 Study 3 Step 1 Significant Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Step 1 Significant Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Step 2 Not Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Significant Step 2 Not Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Step 4 Not Applicable Partial Mediator Partial Mediator Not Applicable Not Applicable Step 4 Not Applicable Partial Mediator Partial Mediator Not Applicable Not Applicable 4.9.01. Study 1A vs. With respect to the three dimensions of locus of control.663. Automobile drivers also scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers on C. p <. Study 2: t(421)= 7. p <.01.1 Differences between Automobile Drivers and Motorcycle Drivers In a subsequent analysis.01.01.993. automobile drivers scored higher than motorcycle drivers on I. Automobile drivers in Studies 1A. 176 . Study 1B vs.442. Study 1B vs. It was found that there were significant differences in scores for hopelessness. Study 1A vs.01. Study 2: t(421)= -4. Study 2: t(372)= 8.162. 1B and 1C scored significantly lower on hopelessness than did motorcycle drivers.665. Study 1A vs. Study 2: t(422)= 8. Study 2: t(422)= -2. Study 1C vs. Study 1C vs.
801.01. t(253)= 8. Study 2: t(372)= -6. p <. p <. p <.01. p <.926. p <.Automobile drivers scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers with respect to the total BIT score. automobile drivers scored higher than taxicab drivers with respect to crash occurrence.433. t(986)= 6. Automobile drivers scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers in crash occurrence. t(986)= 34.01.687.211. t(253) = 2.484.01.402.01. 177 . t(986)= 3. respectively. p <. p <. p <. p <.01.577. Motorcycle drivers scored higher than taxicab drivers on C. and on all four BIT subscales: “usurpation of right-of way”. Study 2: t(421)= -8. Study 1C vs. Automobile drivers scored higher that taxicab drivers on total BIT scores. Study 2: t(421)= -7. p <. Study 2: t(372)= -7. t(986)= 37. “externally-focused frustration” and “destination-activity orientation”.704. Study 1C vs. Study 2: t(422)= -4. p <.01.3 Differences between Motorcycle Drivers and Taxicab Drivers Taxicab drivers scored higher than motorcycle drivers on the I locus of control dimension. p <.977.01.614.01.775. p <. p <. Also.9. t(986)= 30. t(986)= 7.01.01. taxicab drivers scored higher than automobile drivers on the I dimension. Study 2: t(421)= -3.861. p <. Study 1A vs. There were no significant differences scores on either C or P between the automobile drivers and taxicab drivers. Study 2: t(372)= -5. t(986)= 5. and t(986)= 35. Study 1B vs. Study 1A vs. p <. 4. There were no differences between motorcycle drivers and taxicab drivers on the P dimension.01. Study 1C vs. Study 2: t(422)= -6. and to injury occurrence.9. “freeway urgency”.01.261.747.01.01.837.200.01.01. Study 1B vs.01. Automobile drivers scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers in injury occurrence. Study 1A vs.186.2 Differences between Automobile Drivers and Taxicab Drivers With respect to locus of control. 4. p <. p <.
t(253)= 8. p <. 178 . t(253)= 31. p <.01and to injury occurrence.567.982.01.016. respectively. t(253)= 11.881. p <.01. and t(253)= 37. t(253)= 8. p <.977. p <. and all four BIT subscales: “usurpation of right-of way”.01.01. t(253)= 39.01. p <. t(253)= 35.737.Motorcycle drivers had higher total BIT scores than taxicab drivers. “freeway urgency”.01. drivers scored higher with respect to crash occurrence.946. “externally-focused frustration” and “destination-activity orientation”. Also. p <.
multi-factorial perspective. including gender. in which the roles played by variables in mediating and moderating effects of personality factors are more closely examined than in the past.4. 2002b). freeway urgency. age and personality may be the most important factors in crash causation (Bridger. In an earlier study.CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION 5. (1993). upon examination. Often. ethnic and driver experience differences with respect to 179 . Composite BIT scores were comprised of measures of usurpation of right-ofway.2.1). Elander et. researchers have been frequently frustrated when attempting to quantify the effects of psycho-social variables on either driving behaviour or crash outcomes.. The present research applied Sümer’s concept of a contextual mediated model. They found gender. Parker (2004) and others have stressed the importance of examining crash causation from a broader. 1993. 2. road engineers and ergonomists interested in motor vehicle safety have tried for a long time to understand the role played by human factors in determining traffic safety outcomes. externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation. human factors that conceptually might be expected to have a strong influence over driving behaviour and crash occurrence end up. 1991). Papacostas and Synodinos (1988) investigated four dimensions of driving behaviour conceptually related to the Type A behaviour pattern (TABP). 1995. While it has been generally assumed and frequently stated that driver characteristics. Elander et al. Evans. exerting weaker influence or more equivocal results than anticipated (Dewar. in which a set of personality and demographic factors are thought to exert effects.1 A Contextual Mediated Model for Understanding Factors Influencing Unsafe Driving Traffic psychologists. not directly on driving behaviour and crash outcomes but rather on some intervening variable located more proximally to the event (see sect. al.
aggression and hostile automatic thoughts on crash and injury occurrence. the term “cause” conveys the notion of a single causative element. for automobile drivers and motorcyclists. 180 . significantly predicted selfreported crash occurrence in all replications and with all classes of drivers studied. BIT scores are considered proximal to the crash event. except with taxicab drivers.total BIT score and component scores. BIT composite scores are also expected to mediate the effects of locus of control. which somewhat complicates our attempt to stay true to our title: “Cause and Prevention of Roadway Crashes”. the proximal variable. In the present research. A rich variety of individual factors exists which. The matrix proposed by Haddon (1972) is one example. All too often. Every aspect of the traffic system is in some way connected to every other aspect. alter the outcome or probability of occurrence of crashes and these have been classified into broad categories using different schemes (Evans. but did not examine the effects of BIT scores on crash outcomes. and did so in all cases but hopelessness. In the contextual mediated model. One recurrent complexity that arises when trying to understand traffic safety. BIT. hopelessness. particularly between psychological variables and crash outcomes. were significantly more likely to have been injured while driving. Further. is that factors interact with each other. Results reported here suggest an elaborate relationship. it predicted self-reported injury occurrence in all cases. Type A individuals were significantly more likely to have found themselves involved in traffic crashes and. 1991). As a result. in the deterministic sense in which it is used in the physical sciences or engineering. This was true with respect to both the composite BIT score and individual scores of each of the four component factors. if different. Since high BIT scores indicated driving behaviour consistent with TABP. though. In other words. But findings were more complex than that.
… the word cause has largely disappeared from the technical literature on safety, and for good reasons. Suppose that on a dark rainy morning a young man argues with his wife about the purchase of a sofa, leaves the house late for work in a rage, drives his poorly-maintained car too fast on a badly-designed, poorly-lit curve. Suppose further that he skids, and is killed in a crash with a truck driven by an older driver. It is of little value to say that the death was caused by the car driver’s youth or maleness, the truck driver’s old age, the car’s bald tires, the high cost of sofas, emotional stress, the non-use of a safety belt, inadequate police enforcement, rain or any other of the many factors which, if different on this particular occasion, would have prevented the death (Evans, 1991; p. 60)
Causative factors, then, are difficult to partial out and, it might be argued, cannot really be studied in isolation. For this reason, the use of a model based on interactive relationships between personality or demographic characteristics of drivers and the components making up a particular pattern of driving behaviour, in this case a Type A behaviour pattern, makes good sense. The model proved useful in describing and
explaining the relationship between distal and proximal variables involved in crash and injury occurrence. Personality and demographic variables had significant effects on a measure of behaviour in traffic which, in turn, had a robust association with selfreported crash and injury occurrence. What may have resulted here is less an identification of causes and their prevention and more a framework in which to consider the complex interactions of several factors that contribute to motor vehicle crashes.
Within the contextual mediated model used here, a significant relationship was observed between the BIT construct and outcome measures, suggesting that the contention of Papacostas and Synodinos (1988), that it may be preferable to existing measures of TABP, is supported. As has been already noted, a range of personality and
demographic variables were observed to interact with BIT scores and the remainder of this discussion is devoted to a consideration of these findings.
Hopelessness It has been noted by several authors that little attention has been paid to affective
characteristics of drivers (Rothengatter, 1998; 2002; Elander et al., 1993). It is widely accepted that emotions alter attention, thought patterns, decision making and memory (Groeger, 1997). Hopelessness is a personality trait with strong affective and cognitive components, characterised by a sense of despair, pessimism about the future, chronic exhaustion and a deep personal orientation that nothing one can do to bring meaning, zest or enthusiasm to life (Farran et al., 1995). Hopeless individuals tend to believe that nothing will turn out right for them, that they will never succeed at what they attempt to do, that their important goals can never be attained, and that their worst problems will never be solved (Beck & Steer, 1993). They score high on scales measuring
neuroticism and low on extraversion, feel as though they lack physical fitness and selfconfidence and are often dissatisfied with their accommodation, marital state and workplace (Tanaka, Sakamoto, Ono, Fujihara & Kitamura, 1996; 1998). Often people with a high degree of hopelessness feel compelled to do more and more as a way of compensating, feeling as though “they must climb a mountain that has no top and that there is no way to end the necessity of climbing” (LeShan, 1989; p.108). Often these efforts are seen as impulsive, irrational and generally without an apparent goal, and are just as frequently prone to premature termination.
Certainly, it is not difficult to see that internal states arising from this interplay of despondency, perceived fatigue and sense of slowing down while feeling compelled to do more, have a strong potential to influence driving behaviour negatively. In the present research, hopelessness was associated with less cautious self-reported behaviour in traffic. The higher were participants’ scores on a measure of hopelessness, the more they indicated they would be likely to engage in BIT that was unsafe. Specifically, persons reporting a high degree of hopelessness had a tendency to disrespect others’
right-of-way, to engage in risky lane deviations and to commit lapses or violations at intersections or stoplights. Generally, very little is known about demographic and
personality characteristics of drivers who fail to halt at stop signs or pedestrian crossings, commit red light violations or make risky lane deviation manoeuvres (Brodsky, 2001; Romano et al., 2005a; 2005b). The finding that hopelessness is
associated with risky right-of-way behaviour may be consistent with the attention deficiencies, impulsivity and lack of caring thought to characterise persons with this trait (Farran et al., 1995).
When it comes to the relationship between hopelessness and driving behaviour, motorcyclists present some unique differences. Motorcycle drivers had higher
hopelessness scores than either automobile or taxicab drivers. Among motorcyclists, males were significantly higher than females in hopelessness and Malay motorcycle drivers had higher hopelessness levels than their Chinese-Malaysian or IndianMalaysian counterparts. Motorcyclists generally have a high frequency of right-of-way crashes at three-legged junctions, crossroads and roundabouts where the driving manoeuvres tend to be fairly complex, requiring vehicle control skills and focused attention to avoid conflicting movements with other road users (Pai & Saleh, 2008). Clarke, Ward, Bartle and Truman (2007) have also noted that, because of their configuration, motorcycles are particularly prone to ‘right of way crashes’ and those involving loss of control on curves or bends. With the likelihood of this type of crash already fairly high for motorcyclists, the finding in the present study that hopelessness was strongly associated with driver behaviour involving the usurpation of right of way may signal an exacerbated level of danger that needs to be explored in future research.
For motorcyclists, also, hopelessness moderates the relationship between both I and C locus of control dimensions, such that motorcyclists with a strong internal locus of control who score high on the hopelessness trait tend to report that they engage in less safe behaviour in traffic than do motorcycling internals who score low on the hopelessness trait. On the other hand, motorcyclists with a strong belief that their life is
determined by chance or fate and that their future is coloured by feelings of hopelessness tend to report more dangerous driving than do fatalistically-directed externals who are not feeling hopeless.
The relationship between hopelessness and locus of control is complex, in that logically either a high or a low sense of internal control can be a component of hopelessness. Often persons who feel hopeless have a low sense of personal control. They have lost faith in their own ability to achieve some goal and therefore have an image of themselves that they feel has been devalued both by themselves and by other people (Engel, 1968; Isani, 1963; Prociuk et al., 1976). In other cases, however, persons have a high but unrealistic sense of internality. They may feel very responsible for their own fate and may feel that no other help is available to them (Engel, 1971). “In this situation, even though individuals are making some attempt at maintaining control, their goals may be inappropriate or their resources may not be adequate to meet the desired outcome” (Farran et al, 1995; p. 33).
Similarly, either a high or a low sense of external control can also be a component of hopelessness. A person with a high external locus of control may
unrealistically anticipate that help from others or from the external environment will resolve the dilemma (Engel, 1968), thus assuming little or no personal control. However, persons who are feeling hopeless may also have a low sense of external control simply because they believe that others have so frequently failed or frustrated them (Engel, 1971). Farran et al. (1995) called for further studies to explore the nature of hopelessness and other moderating variables like self-esteem, locus of control and self-efficacy. Future research investigating the process through which locus of control interacts with hopelessness in influencing driver behaviour are needed in particular.
Locus of Control Internal and External Locus of Control as Determinants of Driving Behaviour Previous studies investigating the effects of locus of control on driving behaviour
arrived at inconsistent results. For example, Guastello and Guastello (1986) found that internals had been involved in fewer crashes than externals on their transitional scale but that there was no such relation between crashes and scores on the Rotter (1996) I-E scale. Özkan and Lajunen (2005) found that internals reported a higher number of total crashes, ordinary traffic violations and driving errors, although scores on externality dimensions had no effect. In the present study, locus of control was found to play a significant role in influencing driving behaviour. Drivers who had a strong internal locus of control regardless of automobile, motorcycle or taxicab drivers, reported engaging in behaviour in traffic that was relatively safe. This observation was true for all three groups studied: automobile drivers, motorcyclists and taxicab drivers. On the other hand, those who believed life events to be determined by chance or fate reported engaging in behaviour that was far more consistent with a less safe TAPB pattern. This was true for the samples of automobile and motorcycle drivers, all of whom were university students, but not for professional taxicab drivers.
In short, all participants in this study who were internals reported driving more safely than those who were not; and university students who were strongly externally controlled reported driving less safely than those who were not. This finding is exactly what the general body of thought about locus of control and driving would predict it to be. It has been generally assumed that, because externals believe that they have little personal control over what happens to them, they tend to consciously focus less on the driving task (Elander et al., 1993). In cognitive ergonomic terms, it is as if they are willing to cede responsibility for shouldering the mental workload (de Waard, 2002) associated with the driving task because they consider it to be under the control of external forces.
It might be expected, though, that this effect would be become less pronounced as drivers become more experienced. Groeger (2002) has pointed out that, with more
experienced drivers, more of what they do becomes routine and, as a result, not under direct conscious control. With increasing automatisation of the driving process, the influence of externality over specific decisions and actions that the driver must make would be diminished. Shiffrin and Schneider (1977) described how automaticity
develops as a function of consistent reactions to a particular stimulus, even to the point where there is little recollection of specific elements of the task (Underwood & Everatt, 1996). Of course, there will always be “black events”, or risk-predisposing circumstances, in which the driver switches from automatic to personally controlled processes but, even at those times, drivers with more experience will have better knowledge and quicker reactions due to their broader exposure to prior stimuli (Brown, 1982).
Because more of the driving task is performed automatically by experienced drivers, cognitive attributions about an internal or external locus of control become less important, unless one makes a basically untestable assumption about sub-conscious factors operating on what is generally described as an open-loop control system (Groeger & Clegg, 1997). Given that this sort of system involves sequences of actions which do not rely on feedback from the results of preceding actions before subsequent actions are performed (Bridger, 1995), even if attributional cognitions could theoretically operate at the sub-conscious level, it is hard to envision the sort of mechanism through which they could influence automaticized driving behaviour.
Further, Laapotti et al. (2001) have argued that novice drivers make errors in applying knowledge models at both the lower (vehicle manoeuvring) and upper dimensions (incorporating lifestyle goals and skills) within the driving process (see Figure 2.8; sect. 184.108.40.206). While it might be assumed that errors at the lower level are caused by skill deficits, abrogation of control over the vehicle due to a belief in externality would be a mental process that occurs at the upper end of the cognitive
although driving frequency was not measured for taxicab drivers. internals reported that they engaged in safer behaviour in traffic.53. traffic exposure and other variables on the effects that internality and externality exert on driving behaviour.1. the extent to which an individual is connected to others through interpersonal networks. SD=22.01years.66) than the automobile drivers and motorcyclists (20.6 months as licensed drivers. the continued operation of their vehicle is fundamental to their livelihood so motivational factors may take precedence over attributions of external control. Because of occupational demands. SD=1. SD=131. They were also more experienced (266. 20. It appears that belief in chance or fate outcomes may be a more important factor in shaping the driving behaviour of novice or inexperienced drivers than it is for more experienced ones.hierarchy. For taxicab drivers.3. In the present study. 5.25 years. This would be an error more likely to be made by younger novice or less experienced drivers. it might be assumed that taxicab drivers could well have a broader social network. SD=11.1 months. but the externality-chance dimension had no significant effect. as well.16. SD=1. and 36.2 years. Malaysian-Indian automobile 187 . respectively). Of course.5. taxicab drivers were considerably older (43. respectively). Further research is needed to examine the influence of driving experience.10) than the automobile drivers and motorcyclists (28.7 months. By virtue of their age and occupation.63. For taxicab drivers. there are other possible influences. social trust and norms that promote coordination and cooperation.2 Locus of Control and Ethnicity: Indian-Malaysian Drivers The present research also compared differences in locus of control among three ethnic groups in the culturally diverse Malaysian society. it might also be assumed that their traffic exposure was greater than that of the students. SD=. Hijar and Tovar (2005) have noted that social capital. Inclán. affected driving behaviour and decisions about the use of public roads. as it did with the less experienced university students in the other groups.
it is easy to see how expectancies for the external control of life outcomes can develop. were necessary to succeed. in terms of political ideology and interaction with the social system. Carment (1974) also found. The finding that Indian- 188 . when compared to Canadian students.drivers were significantly less internally controlled than Malay and Malaysian-Chinese drivers but scored higher than the other groups on both externality dimensions (chance and powerful others). Since perceived success under such circumstances might be expected to be largely due to personal proficiency in such areas. Participants scored high in terms of attributions about the controlling nature of fate and powerful others. With the Indian-Malaysian sample studied in the present research. rife with bureaucracy. or at least strongly influenced by outside forces. individuals would be more likely to develop attributions of internal control. perhaps due as argued earlier. He attributed this to the socio-political environment of the time. for support in effecting the life outcomes that are important to them. to cultural values of intra-family dependency and parental influence that have persisted within the Tamil and other Indian communities in Malaysia (Abdullah & Peterson. Research completed some thirty years earlier by Carment (1974) found that university students in India were strongly internally-controlled. spousal selection. There were no significant differences between Malay and Malaysian-Chinese participants on any of the three locus of control dimensions. Devashayam. 2003. however. in which members look to each other and especially to maternal figures within the home. findings with regard to locus of control differed from Carment’s (1974) earlier results. In an environment where career choice. financial matters and social affiliations are made. that the Indian students were strongly external with respect to matters in their personal life. 2005). influence peddling and status-related privileges. corrupt practices. which would have led young Indians to perceive that skills in overcoming systemic barriers. He explained this by pointing to the close and interdependent Indian family structure. along with selfpromotion skills.
Again. Nandy. as a group. although they were consistent with more recent research by Sinha & Watson (2007). by extension.5 million in 1991 to 11.7 in 1996. Gomez. including locus of control. In reference to Carment’s explanation of the earlier results. 1999). Indeed. 1999. 5. 1966. as a result.Malaysian participants scored lower in internality was contrary to Carment’s earlier conclusions with individuals from India. than between Singaporean-Chinese and Chinese participants from China. This is consistent with recent findings among Malay and Chinese ethnic groups in Singapore. It is also consistent with the results of a study by Fontaine and Richardson (2003) which found differences in cultural values within the workplace were not significant among the three Malaysian ethnic groups. Sendut. where Cheung et al. Armstrong (1987) argued that urbanisation has affected 189 .3. The first of these is the steady rate of urbanisation which began in the early-1960s and has continued through the last three decades (Gomez. 1998. the reasons for this commonality in outlook are probably multi-factorial. 2002. Closer proximity of cultural groups can be assumed to increase contact and transmission of knowledge and awareness of value systems (Hofstede. 1981). 1999) where one’s skills at manipulating the system may have fostered a need for greater internal control. and. have been largely limited from participation in social and political processes that would necessitate that sort of social skill development and. but two possible influences stand out. The size of the urban population in Malaysia increased by 4. Willford (2003) concluded that Indian-Malaysians.8 million in 1996. Salih &Young.3 Locus of Control and Ethnicity: Malay and Chinese-Malaysian Drivers The present research found no significant difference between Malay and Chinese participants in any of the three dimensions of locus of control.5% annually from 9. an internal locus of control. the proportion of the population residing in urban areas increased from 51% in 1991 to 55. 1999. (2006) found greater commonalities in personality traits. there is considerable evidence that the socio-political environment in current-day Malaysia is different from that of India in the mid-1970s (Corbridge & Kumar.
Huff. by the enraged driver. The second factor toward reducing differences between ethnic groups may be related to government efforts promoting a multi-cultural scripting of the national identity (Bunnell. Miller & Rodgers. Miles & Johnson. in which members of ethnic groups are encouraged to adopt a ‘Malaysian outlook’ on life. Government initiatives have aimed at re-positioning Malaysia as a highly networked information economy and society. 318). more recently. 2002).women’s friendship patterns. with the resulting “emergence of ‘ethnic citizens’ who have been encouraged to participate in the Malaysian nation uncritically through the virtual worship of development symbols and unquestioning deference to political leadership” and national value systems (p. 2008. Consistently. 2002. Dukes. Brown (2007) has examined educational practices in Malaysia within the context of ethnicity and nation-building. Oetting & Salvatore. King & Parker. 2001. Hewstone and Ward (1985) showed that participants of Chinese descent in Singapore and Malaysia made about the same attributions about behaviour of Malay subjects as they did with regard to same-ethnicity subjects. Lawton & Nutter. participants scoring higher on a measure of total trait aggression reported driving patterns that involved right-ofway violations. aggression had a strong influence on behaviour in traffic. Clayton. including perhaps attributions about the control of events. 2001) In the present research. 2003. bringing them closer together in outlook. 2000. Parkinson. Lynch.4 Aggression Haight (2004) has suggested that the concept of the accident-prone driver may have been replaced in the 1990s by that of the alcohol-impaired driver and. feeling more frustrated at external sources. Jenkins. 5. there is a large body of evidence that aggression plays a significant role in unsafe driving behaviour and in crash outcomes (Deffenbacher. driving in a more urgent fashion and concentrating more on destination activities than on road and traffic 190 . Nonetheless. among automobile drivers and motorcyclists.
Finland and the Netherlands. (1999) found that near accidents provoked feelings of anger. Their findings were replicated in the present research where it was shown that the higher the total frequency of hostile automatic thoughts reported by drivers. Oetting et al. either verbally or as unspoken thoughts (“self-talk”). These effects were observed most strongly when drivers had cognitions involving physical violence toward other drivers (“I’d like to knock his/her teeth out”). Underwood et al.conditions. Male drivers tended to score higher than female drivers with respect to total aggression. particularly where drivers felt that they were not at fault in the incident. the more dangerously they behaved in traffic. but there were no gender differences with respect to anger or hostility. but had no significant effect on externally-focused frustration or destination oriented activity. verbal aggression and indirect aggression. there are only a few that have attempted to explore the mechanism through which external or cognitive contexts trigger the effect. Further. Deffenbacher. While there are plenty of studies establishing the link between aggression and driving behaviour. Angry and aggressive driving episodes have been related to hostile cognitive statements that drivers make. Petrilli et al. (2003) found that drivers engaging in hostile automatic thoughts tended to report more aggressive and riskier driving. during such incidents. but that there was no evidence that the drivers who generally experienced higher level of congestion also experienced more anger. found that drivers were more likely to report anger when congestion was present. on a journey by journey basis. With taxicab drivers. Underwood et al. Parker. higher aggression levels related to a strong tendency to commit right-of-way violations and to drive more urgently. (1996) and Deffenbacher. physical aggression. Lajunen & Summala (2002) similarly found that traffic density may play a role in triggering anger and aggression among drivers sampled in three countries: Great Britain. a little less strongly when they thought about taking revenge (“I want to get back at this person”) and least 191 .
but they were found to moderate the effects of aggression on behaviour in traffic. as well. Beck (1987b) hypothesised that three cognitive factors play an integral role in the way emotion affects behaviour: (a) the native triad (a negative view of self. Such responses. Each class of hostile automatic thought can be thought to represent a reaction to these three factors (Snyder et al. when entertaining cognitive statements that made derogatory comments (“What an idiot!”) about other drivers. the world and others). would be most likely to involve the usurpation of right-of-way or more urgent speeding behaviour. in the samples studied here. 2006). a cognitive distortion which stimulates a cognitive response related to physical aggression or revenge. (b) schemas (underlying general assumptions about life)..strongly. These moderating effects were significant when the content of the cognitions involved physical aggression or revenge motives. were also modified by the drivers’ locus of control. Aggressive automobile drivers with a tendency to believe that outcomes are determined by chance or fate were significantly more likely to report riskier driving patterns than were aggressive drivers who did not believe that outcomes 192 .. Not only did drivers’ angry cognitions have a direct effect on their behaviour in traffic. That is. and (c) cognitive distortions (ways in which people misinterpret their environment). perceiving another person’s slow driving as purposeful may lead to the emotional experience of anger. and that cognitive event in turn triggers an aggressive or punitive type of traffic behaviour. The effects of aggression on behaviour. In essence. Drivers who scored high in aggression and who entertained more frequent hostile automatic thoughts about others tended to report driving patterns in traffic that were less safe than drivers who scored high in aggression but who entertained less frequent hostile automatic thoughts. although still significantly. one’s interpretations of the environment lead one to react emotionally toward features within the environment (Galovski et al. but not when they involved the derogation of others. however. 1997).
A driver’s mental workload is increased by the number of task demands with which one must contend in performing a function and. has been shown to be difficult to process (Dodge & Coie. or self-talk. this process may be instrumental in the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic (“I’d like to knock his/her teeth out. 2004.. Certainly. and particularly with negative emotion. who found that the association between road-hostility and drivers’ speed choices and deviant behaviour (passing through a red light and overtaking from the inside) was larger among participants with low rather than with high internality scores. language comprehension can be regarded as a mental task which. Meichenbaum. Finally. receive positive reinforcement – when I see the shocked look on his/her face!”). (2003). and also by attributions regarding locus of control. 1994. but there may be more to it than that.e. It is moderated by cognitive processes. so I’ll overtake him/her at high speed on the inside and feel great – i. This last finding replicated and extended earlier research by Gidron et al. The relationship between aggression and driving behaviour is both important and complex. 1987. Novaco. Generally. 1979. 1977). evoked specific behavioural responses that then became subject to contingent reinforcement (Kanfer & Goldstein. true to operant learning principles. were unlikely to believe that outcomes are determined by one’s own actions) were significantly more likely to report riskier driving patterns in traffic than were aggressive drivers with high internality scores. 193 . aggressive automobile drivers who believed that outcomes are determined by powerful others were also significantly more likely to report riskier driving patters than were aggressive drivers who did not believe that outcomes are determined by powerful others.are determined by chance or fate. aggressive drivers of both automobiles and of taxicabs who had low levels of internality (i. 401). Downe & Loke. p. Hochschild. 1990.e. 1995. has a workload associated with it” (Bridger. the original cognitive behaviourists tended to regard cognitive statements as internal mental stimuli that. like any other mental task. Similarly. Language loaded with emotional content. in the form of hostile automatic thoughts.. “in ergonomics.
5. 2000. as well as other task demands of driving in traffic.1) defined multivariate thinking as “a body of thought processes that illuminate interrelatedness between and within sets of variables” and proposed that 194 . This can happen both in conditions of very high task demand and in conditions where the driver’s state is affected (p. Tomkins. Taylor & Fragopanagos. 1999. hostile automatic thoughts. 1993). Additional studies are needed to investigate whether this relationship is best explained through an internal stimulus-response process. subject to ambiguous interpretation (Chan. an overburdening of cognitive workload capacity or both. Stein. Lambie & Marcel. 2002. 2004. aggressive emotionality. so too does the mental effort required (de Waard & Brookhuis. MartinLoeches. 1997). Dien. 1979) and disruptive to attentional processing of external stimuli (Adolphs. 2000. In fact. As drivers contend with heightened feelings of aggression and increased internal chatter. As the costs of achieving or maintaining a certain target level of performance increase. Hinojosa. p.. 2002. 162).Robbins. Carretie.g. 2005).5. they may well reach a “red line” at which more mental effort is required than is available. lane control in driving) will drop if effort investment is insufficient or ceases. Making sense of. Mercado & Tapia. 1996.1 Advantages of Using SEM Harlow (2005.5 Testing the Contextual Mediated Model Using Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) 5. Performance (e. Martin. As de Waard (2002) has argued: There are limits to the investment of effort. and attempting to exercise control over. and at the same time processing feelings of responsibility arising from one’s internal locus of control requires the investment of mental effort. Watson & Wan. Tavris (1989) referred to anger as the “misunderstood emotion”. The present research has demonstrated linkages between hostile automatic thoughts. internal locus of control and tendencies toward more dangerous behaviour in traffic. Trabasso & Liwag.
advanced the idea of combining features of econometrics and psychometrics into a single model (Klem. including dependent and independent variables. researchers are attracted to the benefits that SEM can offer. similar to the variables representing factors in a factor analysis. or dependent. Hair et al. 2006). According to Williams. explain criterion. SEM appears to be the only technique capable of examining a set of relationships simultaneously when the phenomena of interest are complex and multidimensional (Hardy and Bryman. 1998). involved in the analysis. using SEM to examine relationships among factors allows the relationships to be free from measurement errors “because the error has been estimated and removed. leaving only common variance” (Hardy and Bryman. 2004. factors represented by multiple variables. or independent variables. p. Second. Karl Jöreskog. allows the simultaneous estimation of multiple equations (Hair et al. In addition. 2006). Gavin and Hartman (2004).434). the reliability of measurement can thus be accounted for explicitly within the analysis. SEM can not only tell how well the predictors. 2004. the SEM depicts all of the relationships among constructs. the growth in application of SEM techniques has paralleled researchers’ access to computer based data analysis software programs such as LISREL. 195 ... The constructs may be comprised of unobservable. By estimating and removing measurement error. 2006). SEM is deemed to be a unique combination of factor analysis and multiple regression analysis (Hair et al.. Structural equation modelling (SEM). variables but also determine which specific predictors are most important in predicting dependent variable outcomes (Maruyama. Finally. The earliest use of SEM has been attributed to Swedish Statistician. Having the characteristics of multiple regression analysis. or latent. When composing a model. who in 1970. and perhaps most important. First.multivariate methods provide a richer and more comprehensive examination on the variables. 2000). a multivariate technique. EQS and AMOS.
SRMR. Shook. (2006). CFI. as suggested by Hair et al. etc) 196 . CFI or TLI) One goodness-of-fit index (GFI.e. Therefore. fit indices such as chi-square statistics. despite the prominence of SEM as a statistical tool. Although many researchers have used SEM to examine a theoretically proposed model. Hair et al. Williams et al.5. model re-specification by citing theoretical support for the changes made is desired. etc) One badness-of-fit index (RMSEA. RMSEA or SMRM) One incremental fit index (i. (2004) noted that. Shook et al. In the present research. and the root mean square residual were included. (2004) commented on inconsistencies in the way SEM results have been reported in the literature.2 Goodness of Fit SEM is considered a confirmatory analysis for testing and potentially confirming theory. (2004) has been critical of most studies. It is therefore not practical to apply a single set of cutoff rules to the measurement models. (2006) have argued that no single ‘magic value’ for the fit indices has been found to differentiate good from poor models. Sümer (2003) added that. Hult & Kacmar (2004) and Williams et al. but that very few studies have used multiple fit indices. several alternative models were tested against different propositions in order to arrive at a model with the best possible fit. when assessing the fits of measurement models. the goodness of fit index (GFI). Ketchen.e. there is a lack of consensus on how best to evaluate the extent to which a proposed model fits the data.5. Hair et al added that the assessment of a model’s goodness-of-fit should include the following: The χ2 value and the associated df One absolute fit index (i. in that they have failed to compare or re-specify the proposed model with an alternative model to test a variety of different theoretical propositions. TLI. GFI. the comparative fit index (CFI).
5. 2006). RMSEA and the χ2 /degrees of freedom ratio. the fit indices for assessing the model included χ2 value and the associated df. 2006. Md-Sidin. so that stronger evidence supporting the correct specification of a model can be adduced (Thompson. GFI. both dealing with traffic psychology (Sümer. CFI and CFI) greater than .In the present research. 2009) that have tended to select the model that has the best fit indices. significant p-values can be expected. provided competing models both present a pre-determined standard for goodness-of-fit. 2000).3 Best Fit or Best Model It is important to test multiple plausible rival models. 2000) and there are many examples of research studies.g. It is widely agreed that selection of the model should be a very good or an excellent fit.. it should not be used as the sole indicator of SEM fit because it is affected by sample size (Hair et al. It is argued here that. 5. 2003) and other disciplines (Elangovan.08 and a χ2 /degrees of freedom ratio less than 3.. 2001. but there is little guidance in the literature as to what course of action should be taken when two models each meet standards for goodness-of-fit. Although chi-square is the most fundamental absolute fit index. 2001. Sümer (2003) reported that some researchers have used critical χ2 /degrees of freedom ratios from 2 to 5 to indicate an acceptable fit. As a general rule. Fit index values (e. Maruyama. CFI. it may be advisable to select one that offers the most useful information even if indices are slightly lower than its alternative. 1998. be a process that balances utility with statistical 197 . 2006) such that for analyses of sample sizes more than 250. Structural equation modelling should. 1998)..90. At the same time. the model with the best goodness-of-fit indices is selected over alternate models. it has been stressed repeatedly by several authors no definitive set of rules has been established for model selection (Byrne. Hair et al.00 have been recommended to indicate good model fit (Hair et al. RMSEA lower than . This has become such a widely accepted principle that decisions over model selection have become almost automatic (Klem. Sambasivan & Ismail. we would argue.
If selection criteria were to be based solely on goodness-of-fit parameters.9) included all four components of the BIT scale. as suggested by Byrne (2001). it makes sense to choose a model with a slightly poorer fit but more useful information over the best-fitting model. However. In the case at hand. Both models were judged to have an excellent or very good fit. In some cases. 1C5 and 1C6. There is some support for this position in the literature. this judgment rests squarely on the shoulders of the research. of intervariable relationships for high-risk undergraduate automobile drivers were compared using an initial set of goodness-of-fit indices (see sect. 4.7. statistical. 158). Model 1C5 (see Figure 4. assessment of model adequacy must be based on multiple criteria that take into account theoretical. provided the chosen one meets pre-determined standards for goodness-of-fit. and practical considerations (p. stating that.3). destination-activity orientation.1. two structural equation models. a finding that was further supported by additional subsequent analyses using a further series of goodness-of-fit indices. Index coefficients from the original and subsequent analysis are shown in Table 5. Sobel and Bohrnstedt (1985) pointed out that exclusive reliance on goodness-of-fit indices is unacceptable.soundness.10) excluded the fourth factor. while Model 1C6 (see Figure 4. it is concluded that the selection of Model 1C5 would be preferable 198 . More importantly. Thus. the choice between the two would be Model 1C6 given its superior index coefficients. 88). “Scientific progress could be impeded if fit coefficients (even appropriate ones) are used as the primary criterion for judging the adequacy of the model” (p. Byrne (2001) argued that: Fit indexes yield information bearing only on the model’s lack of fit. they can in no way reflect the extent to which the model is plausible. when taking into consideration “practical considerations”.
499 0.51 Very Good Model 1C6 Distal Context: I. HAT Proximal Context: BITF1. F3 BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way.97 0. Injury Occurrence 35. it is apparent that this factor may be important to consider in future research and crash prevention programmes and should not be excluded from models on which they are based. BITF4=DestinationActivity Orientation Outcomes: Crash Occurrence.97 0. BITF2=Freeway Urgency. Injury Occurrence Degrees of Freedom RMSEA GFI Chi-sq/Df RMR AIC NFI CFI AGFI PGFI NCP ECVI Overall model fit 63.034 97.1: Goodness of Fit Statistics for Model 1C5 and 1C6 (Initial and Subsequent Analyses) Model 1C5 Distal Context: I. AQ.96 1.98 0. F3 & F4 BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way. HAT Proximal Context: BITF1.Table 5.99 0.96 0. C. BITF2=Freeway Urgency. F2. BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration.97 0.043 129.02 0.94 0.02 0.91 0. C.060 0.909 0. F2.02 0.48 30.42 11. P.045 0. P.97 0. Given that multivariate analysis revealed a significant association between this BIT component and crash outcomes. AQ. 199 .39 Best because it includes important information about destination-activity orientation behaviour that would be lost if Model 1C6 were chosen. BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration.97 1. Fit Statistics (Threshold values) Outcomes: Crash Occurrence.
1990. the decision was made to select Model 1C5 over Model 1C6. Based on the practical advantages of including the destination-activity orientation variable within the contextual mediated model and findings of the subsequent comparative results of PGFI coefficients. in particular. Results of this and other research have demonstrated that. Parker. in this analysis. 200 . farther along. but still acceptable. one that favours the maximum use of information in the cause of saving lives. goodness-of-fit. they should be dropped. based on the notion that each variable included may.It can be argued here that safety research demands a somewhat different standard in terms of model construction and selection.1). when drivers do let their attention wander from current road and traffic conditions they are at increased risk of experiencing a crash outome (Moller.48. 2006. the PGFI coefficient for Model 1C5 is 0. Further discussion in this section refers only to Model 1C5.. while for Model 1C6. When dealing with systems that are safetycritical. Hair et al. Sambasivan (2008) stated that. Schwebel. Nahn & Shapiro. Kayumov. Some justification for the selection of Model 1C5 over 1C6 is also found in the analysis of the parsimony fit (PGFI) statistic (see Table 5. Reason. 1996).42. a central psychological feature of the TABP in driving is not overlooked and the BIT framework is kept intact. when variables do not improve the AGFI and PGFI. Storey. provide the key to reducing injuries and saving lives (Reason. 1995. (2006) have noted that models with a higher PGFI are preferable over competing models because they have a better fit relative to their complexity. By selecting Model 1C5. Manstead & Stradling. For practical reasons. the standard should be to include as much relevant information as possible. it is 0. However. 2006). this is an important component to retain in a contextual mediated model of behaviour in traffic even if it does render a lower. et al.
Rothengatter. The results suggested that the alternative model.14. Findings in this study underscored the strong role of BIT in predicting accidents.28 and . freeway urgency.28 respectively). Examination of the predictive relationship between distal and proximal variables yielded support for the contextual model and were consistent with previous findings (e. via BIT. Sümer.66). externality-powerful other. .21). with five distal factors (internality.4.5.45).34) and injury occurrence (r = . internality and aggression had direct effects on BIT and indirect effects.1 Study 1C: Automobile Drivers Sümer (2003) pointed out that comparing the goodness of fit indices of several alternative models can help to clearly identify where lack of fit arises within a model.6.29).23 respectively) and the BIT displayed a significant effect on crash outcomes (path coefficient = . In Study 1C.18) and injury occurrence (r = -. Evans. 2003). externality-powerful other. on crash outcomes. four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way.35. indicating the importance of this factor in crash outcomes.1).35 and . externalitychance. aggression. the base model (with only locus of control variables) was compared against five alternative models (see section 4.5. Total scores of BIT were significantly correlated with crash occurrence (r = . externally-focused frustration. .g. They appeared to be the strongest predictors among the five distal factors (path coefficients = -. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) had significant effects on BIT scores (path coefficients = . and destination-activity orientation) for the proximal factor-BIT and two latent construct (crash and injury occurrence) for outcomes ws preferable to alternative models that included the hopelessness variable. and hostile automatic thoughts). 2001. Distal factors (locus of control: internality. externality-chance. . This suggested that automobile drivers with high levels of 201 . Internality was significantly but negatively correlated with BIT (r = -. crash occurrence (r = -. indicating that driving behaviour is closely related to involvement in motor vehicle crashes.5. 1991. As observed from the investigation of structural paths.4 Testing the Contextual Mediated Models Using SEM 5.26. for automobile drivers sampled.
This suggests that motorcyclists who believed that outcomes were determined by fate or chance tended to report engaging in riskier behaviour in traffic and had greater crash accident involvement. had a better fit than other alternative models. Investigation of the path parameters revealed that only two of the distal factors. freeway urgency. on the other hand. as well as low probability of crash and injury occurrence.65 and . and destination-activity orientation) comprising the proximal factor and two latent constructs (crash and injury occurrence) comprising the crash outcome variable. was significantly and positively correlated with BIT (r = .66) directly predicted crash outcomes.4. and destination-activity orientation) as proximal factors.20) and injury occurrence (r = . One of the most compelling findings in Study 2 was that externalitychance scores had the highest correlations with BIT (r = . 202 .5. crash occurrence (r = . Aggression. with hopelessness removed as a distal factor but four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way. and high probabilities of crash and injury occurrence.80) indirectly and the proximal factor-BIT (path coefficient = . freeway urgency and externally-focused frustration) for the proximal factor. The first alternative model had four distal factors (locus of control: internality.55). externality-chance. freeway urgency.2 Study 2: Motorcyclists In Study 2. externally-focused frustration.25). Aggressive automobile drivers tended to have high level of BIT scores.24). internality and externality-chance (path coefficients = -.41). 5. and four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way. externality-powerful other and hopelessness). The second alternative model also had four distal factors but only three latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way.23) and injury occurrence (r = . which sampled motorcyclists.internality were more likely to have low total BIT scores. externally-focused frustration. crash occurrence (r = . Results indicated that the first alternative model. the base model (with only the locus of control variable) was compared against two alternative models.
externality-chance. Results indicated that the third alternative model. the results of measurement model analysis showed that one of the distal factors. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts. Investigation of the path parameters revealed that there were only two of the four distal factors. Finally. 203 . had significant direct effects on the four latent constructs that comprised the proximal variable (BIT) and.3). crash occurrence. in turn and indirectly. externally-focused frustration. For motorcyclists. externality-chance. the bestfitting model used only a single latent construct. the result was slightly different as a belief in chance as an outcome determinant had a significant effect on BIT scores.5. the base model (with only the locus of control variable) was compared against three alternative models (see sect. However. with the sample of taxicab drivers. internality and aggression (path coefficients = -. This suggested that internality and aggression play important roles in affecting the behaviour in traffic of taxicab drivers and.5 What Can be Learned from Testing Contextual Models with SEM? The use of SEM provided support for the contextual mediated model. freeway urgency. four latent constructs (usurpation of right-ofway. to measure outcome.3 Study 3: Taxicab Drivers In Study 3. crash occurrence. with four distal factors (internality.5. via BIT.24 respectively) that had direct effects on the proximal factor and a simultaneous indirect effect on crash occurrence. on the two latent variables comprising crash outcomes. and destination-activity orientation) comprising the proximal factor and one latent construct (crash occurrence) comprising the outcome variable. externally-focused frustration. All models included four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way. externality-powerful other and aggression). and destination-activity orientation) as proximal factors. as a result. 4.20 and . for crash outcomes. hopelessness. freeway urgency. Both dimensions of external locus of control had insignificant results. their crash occurrence.5. aggression). The second and third alternative models only had one latent construct. for the sample of taxicab drivers. had no significant effect on BIT scores. Distal factors.6.4. The first alternative included four distal factors (internality. externality-powerful other. had a better fit than alternative models. such as internality. 5.
an argument used by Montag & Comrey (1978) and others who have studied young drivers. the fact remains that participants constituting the four student samples were. The fifth sample was comprised of professional taxicab drivers.5. 2004).6 5. that convenience sampling is indeed the least reliable of all sampling designs in terms of generalisability. An important question then becomes: Were the participants in Studies 1 and 2 representative of a high-risk population of young Malaysian drivers? This can be answered in terms of age and the geographic location from where participants received their driving licenses. Huguenin. “but sometimes it may be the only viable alternative when quick and timely information is needed” (pp. With very few studies having been completed on Malaysian drivers to date. four of which were comprised of students from a single university.6. Some authors have commented on the lack of generalisability of findings in traffic psychology research (Dunbar. the present research was intended as an initial attempt to examine the influence of psycho-social variables on driving behaviour and crash outcomes among a given high risk sample. 278279). chosen at random from taxi stands. Sekaran (2003) points out. however. a total of five samples were taken. To a large extent. Further. both and particularly the student samples constituted a convenience sample that may have curtailed the generalisability of findings. In the present research. 2005).1 Limitations of the Study and Methodological Considerations Generalisabilty of Findings A key feature of all research is the capacity for results obtained from a sample to be applied to a larger population with proportionately the same degree of diversity (Langdridge. by virtue of their age and driving experience within the highest risk group. 2005. 204 .
13 years (SD = 1.2% and Study 2: 99.2 compares the percentage of the national population located in each state and the percentage of the participants in the total sample coming from each state. Study 1B: 100%. Approximately one-third of all automobile crashes. in Malaysia. while Malacca and Negeri Sembilan were overrepresented. the sample does not appear to be very repreresentative of the Malaysian population.6% (Study 1A: 99. With regard to whether the sample was representative of peoples of the various states and regions of Malaysia. contributed the largest proportion of the sample. Ages of participants in this research ranged from 18 to 29 years.2).to 25-year old high-risk group was 99.In Malaysia. individuals usually obtain their license in the state in which they are registered as resident. Since. Selangor. involved drivers aged 16 to 25 years. Sabah. with a mean age of 20. The Spearman rank correlation coefficient for these two sets of scores is rs=. these data may provide an indication of the extent to which the samples studied here are representative of the fourteen states and districts of Malaysia.31. Study 1C: 99. as elsewhere.55). Table 5. young drivers are among the most likely to experience a motor vehicle crash. during the interval from 2000 to 2003. it is helpful to examine the distribution by state in which research participants obtained their driving licenses. The proportion of the total sample for Studies 1 and 2 falling within the 16. making it the single highest risk age group (see Table 2. Sarawak and Kelantan were under-represented in the sample. The most populous state.2%).6%. Based alone on the number of residents living in each state. 205 .
For that reason.300. In both cases. high-risk drivers in Malaysia.2 (13) 11.0 4.818.6 (10) 7.7 (2) 2.000 1.6 6.2 (1) 3.3 (12) 11.0 12.6 0. Not all states have the same number of drivers. attempting to determine sample representativeness based on only state population would be flawed.503.880 3.4 5.100.4 provides similar comparisons for the state of origin of the sample of motorcyclists.500 1.674 1.6 2.9 (9) 7.6 5.2 (11) 12.000 3.286 1. a better assessment of sample representativeness by state would be to compare the proporation of participants with numbers of registered private vehicles and with the numbers of crashes in each state of origin. Table 5.5 (8) 3.3 compares the state of origin of participants in Study 1 with the more relevant measures of vehicle registrations and crash occurrence.0 8.2 3.500.19 Per cent (rank) of participants sampled 17. It is important to remember that the purpose of this research was to study the population of young.000 1.200.396. and there are different crash frequencies in each one.887.000 Per cent of national population 26.000 2.576 2. in this case.188 1.004. 206 .1 (7) 8.387.9 (3) 2.2 (5) 0. Table 5.150.8 (6) 6.7 (14) But.000 215.260.807 733.2 7.Table 5.2: Distribution of National Population and Sampled Participants by State State 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Selangor Sabah Johor Sarawak Perak Kelantan Kuala Lumpur Kedah Penang Pahang Terengganu Negeri Sembilan Malacca Perlis State Population (approx) 7.8 6. the state of origin is defined as the state in which the participants’ driving licenses were issued.000 2.9 9.2 11.5 (4) 4.
93 0.768 6.92 25.561 1.13 6.20 12.34 3.88 2.98 0.16 2.029 273.96 3.606 24.91 2.43 2.93 9.19 7.35 4.064 9.212 39.496 187.600 135.093 5.163 10.Table 5.89 3.467 25.70 3.24 2.88 3.428.75 4.34 11.19 3.63 207 .774 Participants’ State of Origin (by license 109 42 20 98 70 61 56 67 102 6 27 19 147 31 855 % % % Johor Kedah Kelantan Kuala Lumpur Melaka Negeri Sembilan Pahang Penang Perak Perlis Sabah Sarawak Selangor Terengganu 12.24 0.198 156.55 7.4 4.76 3.617 10.97 12.50 29.137 698.19 4.90 5.588.144 12.785 393.496 Private Automobile Registrations (until 2003) 703.490 525.28 3.68 7.05 2.170 13.37 3.735 165.003 10.84 11.85 1.36 8.70 12.920 181.251 324.725 70.45 9.46 8.635 1.27 14.3: State of Origin Compared with Crash Frequency and Vehicle Registrations (Study 1) Average Motor Vehicle Crash Frequency (2000-2003) 34.230 266.041 92.104 6.026 10.22 17.
112 347.615.76 3.38 0.46 5.28 3.64 1.722 255.958 % Participants’ State of Origin (by license 17 9 1 11 9 5 11 13 14 2 2 3 18 7 122 % Johor Kedah Kelantan Kuala Lumpur Melaka Negeri Sembilan Pahang Penang Perak Perlis Sabah Sarawak Selangor Terengganu 12.026 10.63 11.Table 5.93 9.59 12.49 12.49 0.212 39.88 2.35 4.20 15.48 1.59 1.63 13.989 6.14 7.305 276.656 821.144 12.38 4.288 444.66 11.561 1.03 4.43 2.02 10.221 36.37 3.4 4.79 13.4: State of Origin Compared with Crash Frequency and Vehicle Registrations (Study 2) Average Motor Vehicle Crash Frequency (2000-2003) 34.725 70.74 208 .104 6.768 6.88 3.33 4.283 770.679 90.02 7.003 10.27 14.064 9.617 10.727 161.496 % Private Vehicle Registrations (until 2003) 933.995 233.133 705.22 3.98 0.606 24.10 9.45 2.92 25.75 5.15 5.856 310.170 13.029 273.64 2.82 9.467 25.992 776.36 8.46 14.93 7.
Future studies of Malaysian driving behaviour will need to expand the range participant 209 . there are many other dimensions on which members of a sample can or cannot be representative of the population from which they have been drawn.5: Spearman rank correlations for States of Origin for Participants in Study 1 and Study 2 1 2 3 Study 1: Automobile Drivers 1 Automobile crash frequency (by state) 1 2 Vehicle registrations (by state) .908** 1 3 Participants’ state of origin . Even though data collection was carried out at a single university location.814** 1 . At least on these dimensions. it can be argued that they were. was representative of a high risk driver population. Table 5.903** . participants came from – or. were licensed as drivers in – the states with the most registered vehicles and the highest numbers of crashes.4.5 shows the The Spearman rank correlation coefficient (rs) for the variables in Tables 5. Of course.Table 5.824** . both for the studies of automobile drivers and for the study of motorcyclists. This sample was comprised of individuals within the age group that has the most motor vehicle crashes. at least.3 and 5. it is possible to say that sampling.796** 1 Were the participants studied in this research representative of high-risk Malaysian drivers? In terms of their age and their regional origin. There is a high correlation between ranks of the states from which participants in Studies 1 and 2 received their licenses and the ranks of states with regard to crash occurrence and to private vehicle registrations.701** 1 Study 2: Motorcyclists Motorcycle crash frequency (by state) Vehicle registrations (by state) Participants’ state of origin 1 2 3 1 .
We can also get rough data of exposure by age. 1979). Hatakka. Additional studies should be carried out in order to validate findings within the broader population. the data has to be disaggregated. The problem. Keskinen. It would be impossible to find an answer to the question “is the elderly group with low mileage at a higher risk than younger drivers with high mileage?” In order to explain the differences between different road-user roups in accient risk.characteristics used as a basis for sample-to-population comparisons. The issue becomes even harder to resolve when dealing with cognitive variables that cannot be observed directly (Groeger & Rothengatter. Self-report data are prone to inaccuracy due to participant memory lapses. e. violations and accidents should be linked together. accidents.. None of these variables can be substituted by group means. 5.g. as in other psychological research. Elander et al. 296). social desirability response sets and fakeability (Aiken. demographic factors.6. Rothengatter. Much important data is available in official statistics. unless the variation within the group is very small. Again. Exposure. the use of questionnaire data provides the only practical possibility for gathering data at a low cost. Katila and Laapotti (1997) have argued that. in studying driving behaviour. 1998. is that this kind of data is usually aggregated … From aggregated data we cannot study the connections between accidents and age and exposure. 2001). attitudinal factors. accident distributions by age. However. however.2 Use of self-report methods The use of self-report methods in traffic psychology has been strongly criticised by af Wählberg (2002). the easiest way to get data on several factors from the same subjects is by simply asking the subjects (p. 1998. (1993) have similarly argued that other methods for studying the 210 .
6. the longer the time period for data collection. self-reported crash and injury histories and self-reported driving patterns measured by the Behaviour in Traffic scale could be prone to inaccuracy. Yet. inadequate data are collected when the research is conducted over short periods of time. Miles and Johnson (2003) have noted that. for instance. subjects would tend to under-report dangerous or illegal activities and that this tendency might usually be expected to be consistent across compared groups.3 Timeframe for Data Collection Elander et al. blood pressure. therefore. perhaps drawing from drivers’ insurance records or. heart-rate acceleration and electrodermal activity) and to overt driving behaviours (e.g. In future studies. muscle tension. all data may be subject to the shortcomings of self-report methods. combined interview and observational methods. 211 . The assumption.effects of personality on driving have drawbacks that cannot be overlooked.. subjective accounts of crash or injury history should be validated against objective measures. Visser and Denis (2004). A further methodological problem occurs when one tries to measure states or traits with psychological tests and associate them retrospectively with crash situations that occurred some time ago. the more information is lost through memory lapses. steering wheel reversals and speed change frequencies)” (p. Papacostas and Synodinos (1988) also stressed the need to undertake studies investigating the correlation of BIT factors to “the usually measured physiological responses of drivers (e. (1993) and af Wählberg (2003) have commented on the problem of data collection timeframes in studies of motor vehicle crashes.. Particularly.g. errors of recall or contamination by post-event information (Belli & Loftus. questionnaires were administered to measure all variables and. 5. though. as well. Since generally motor vehicle crashes are fairly rare events. 13). as in a study reported by Chalmé. 1996). In the present research. in studies of driving behaviour. that the score that one receives on a measure of personality or behavioural orientation today was the same some time ago when a crash occurred is often tenuous.
Some authors have asked participants to estimate the distrance travelled during a particular period (Lajunen & Summala. and that one participant’s perception of frequent automobile or motorcycle use may seem infrequent to another’s. as well. First. 5. Mercer. The problem with this approach is that it is every bit as subjective as the categorical judgements of 212 . 1999). there is a certain imprecision to the measure. It must be noted here that there are certain problems with measuring driving frequency in this manner and that there were other alternative methods that could have been built into the research design instead. This method has been used in previous studies by other authors (Pelz & Schuman. Unfortunately. participants were asked to recall if a crash or resulting injury had occurred within the past twelve months. 2002).6. in that the measure tells us little about the circumstances under which participants drove other than their perceived use against some unstated. Results were used as a measure of driving frequency for Studies 1 and 2.2) that higher levels would result in less risky behaviour in traffic was supported. other measures of driving frequency present as many or more problems. Second. Traits included in the contextual mediated model as distal variables have been found to be relatively consistent and resistant to change over this interval. Participants indicated on a 6-point Likert type scale how often they travelled as a driver and as a passenger both in automobiles and on motorcycles. 1997.In the present research.4 Measurement of Driving Frequency One of the self-report measures used in this research requires particular discussion. individual standard. The driving frequency measure was alaso used a co-variate in analyses of relationships between other distal variables and proximal variables. and the hypothesis (H2. it has to be acknowledged that the measure is subjective. 1971). a timeframe that is consistent with reasonably accurate recall (Haber & Haber.
the problem in relying on the ease with which event can be retrieved from memory for determining their likelihood is that our perceptions cannot necessarily be counted on as an accurate reflection of reality. Wood & Boyd. although this has not been firmly established. their chances of winning a lottery (Griffiths. Some of the inaccuracy in the use of distance travelled as a driving frequency measure can be simply attributed to random or systematic errors in prediction (Elander et al. p. but because they are inherently easier to think about. This is why individuals tend to irrationally overestimate the number of murders per year (Jaffe. 2003). the accuracy of individuals’ self-report of the average kilometres travelled would be influenced by their recollection of the length of drives that were particularly arduous. 2004). frequency or distribution in the world (p. 2003. 2008). and that people are consistently poor at making these sorts of estimates accurately (Saad. 2002). eventful or recent. experiences that are more common than others tend to be the ones that are most available. There is some evidence that the availability heuristic exerts a greater impact when specific quantitative amounts or percentages have to be estimated. “Some events are more available than others not because they tend to occur frewquently or with high probability. and the likelihood of encountering a traffic jam (Wood. 213 . 181). in other words. as opposed to reporting perceptions in categorical form (Tversky & Kahneman. 1974). In much the same way. because they have taken place recently. 121).. 1973. 1993. but not always. Levy (1997) argues that: Unfortuantely. Slovic & Tversky. 1993). it is argued here that such inaccuracy is also likely due to a cognitive phenomenon known as the availability heuristic. Kahneman. 1982). in which the perceived probability of an event corresponds to the ease with thich the event comes to mind or. But.frequency that were used in this research. this strategy leads us to overestimate their actual occurrence. Specifically. Often. on how available it is in our memories (Kahneman. because they are highly emotional and so forth” (Plous.
. road conditions.In the Malaysian environment. in the form of more vividly remembered trips to family reunions during festive seasons. with adequate street lighting and hevily-enforced speed limits is not the same as driving the same 30 kilometres at night on a remote expressway at higher speeds. traffic volume and so on in logbooks as a means of controlling for differing driving circumstances. on one hand. Deffenbacher et al. (2003). Similarly. which is the lack of information about the circumstances under which road use occurred (Odero et al. Morf and Panter (2004) argue that psycho-social research generally involves a balancing act between idealised research questions. 1991). during periods of low traffic volume. Of course. it was felt that the collection of logbook data would have overextended time and financial resources at hand for the five 214 . where driving histories generally include lengthy. the use of distance travelled doesn’t really solve the main problem in travel frequency measurement. Given that sample sizes for this research had to be large enough to apply structural equation modelling procedures. emotionally-laden seasonal and holiday travel (Richardson & Downe. asked participants to record the time of day. auditing the accuracy of drivermaintained records and scoring reams of data were all tasks that were judged to be beyond the capability and scope of the present research. 2000). poorer pavement and more surrounding vehicles (Åkerstedt & Kecklund. and the availability of the resources necessary to operationalise them. 2001) . A logbook approach was considered during the design of the present research. Driving 30 kilometres daily on quiet city thoroughfares. it might be expected that participants’ driving estimates would be particularly prone to influence by the availability heuristic. but training participants in standardised record-keeping. in their studies of roadway aggression. for example. many of the inaccuracies involved with the use of self-reported frequency data could have been solved by taking direct odometer readings. Sansone. Finally.
Ranney. during the study design process. 2004). have high information content. collected logbook data would have been largely qualitative in nature. Good theories are simple. over-arching theory (Rothengatter. the decision was made to use participants’ subjective.g. drawn from empirical studies and demonstrating inter-variable relationships (Chaloupka-Risser. using other procedures for measuring driving frequency – particularly in the form of estimated distance travelled and verified logbook recordings of trip distances and conditions – in order to validate the categorical. categorical perceptions of driving frequency.7. selfreported measure used here. To summarise. Further research is required. While some authors have considered the terms “theory” and “model” as synonymous (e. Michon. 1991). that associated methodological disadvantages were fewer than those of the competing approaches. In the present research. 1997). but that considerable effort has gone into the development of descriptive models. 2005). In addition. It was felt. 1985. are of nomological character and can be applied irrespective of time and space (Langdridge. the difference is that models are generally seen as “more modest affairs that aim to illustrate 215 . 2005). 2004). Models in Traffic Psychology It has been noted earlier that the emerging field of traffic psychology has yet to arrive at a unified. are testable and contain no contradictions. 1994). 5.studies undertaken. creating new difficulties in their quantification (King. Rothengatter (2001) has argued that better measures of risk exposure are needed in traffic psychology. Summala..1 Implications and Areas for Further Study Theory vs. The function of useful scientific theory is to provide an explanatory summary of facts pertaining to related phenomena and to predict events that are associated with them (Huguenin. 2002. there is little disagreement on the importance of travelling frequency as a variable in driving safety but little consensus on the best way to deal with methodological problems associated with its measurement (Evans.7 5. but this was done with an awareness of the shortcomings of this measure.
32). check facts. 94). The answer to this question is possibly yes. The first question is whether we need traffic psychology theories. p. 294). The second question is whether we need traffic psychology models. Grayson (1997) agreed. stating that. if they aim to illuminate and encourage research on specific topics rather than the 216 . Huguenin (1997) has similarly argued that theories are necessary to treat a subject scientifically. Hauer (1987). Attempts to develop ‘traffic- specific’ theories have proved far less fruitful than has the importation of established theories from other areas of psychology. took the position that it is the scarcity of quantitative knowledge about safety that has brought about a “reign of ignorance” in studies of driving behaviour and motor vehicle safety (p. create links to other fields of knowledge or to explain or predict circumstances. Throughout the development of traffic psychology. or represent processes. at times. on the other hand. if they are modest in ambition. Although one might agree with the statement (ascribed at different times to Helmholtz and to Lewin) that “there is nothing so practical as a good theory”. debate as to whether the greater need exists for more theory or for more data.patterns of relationships. there has beeen an ongoing discussion and. in particular to structure data. the fact remains that we have enough guidance already from mainstream psychology. often in graphical form (Grayson. The answer is probably not. Wilde (1982) has expressed concern that the study of traffic safety “is characterised by a sparsity of comprehensive and articulate conceptions” (p. 1997. and while any data collection procedure must have some element of theory if it is to have real purpose.
For a model to be elegant and have derivable quantitative values of parameters it must be simple … The quest for simplicity leads to monist models which focus on one aspect of driving. 1985) – that could hinder scientific progress. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts. Greenwald and Pratkanis (1988). In the present research. The present research probably more represents the sort of model building favoured by Evans (1991) and Grayson (1997) than it does an attempt to test a broad theory such as those described earlier (see sect.3). but the framework constructed here can easily accommodate a potentially endless range of both distal and proximal variables. hopelessness. In 217 . and if they are resultscentred (pp. 2. for instance. While many models offer insight into specific aspects of driver behaviour. This dichotomy of perspectives is not unique to traffic studies and driving behaviour but seems to permeate all areas of applied psychology. it seems unlikely that general theories offering much more can be formulated. those variables included a diverse set of human traits including locus of control. The debate often seems to revolve around the comparative merits of result-centred versus theory-centred methods in research. This latter point was also stressed by Evans (1991). Yet.entire spectrum of traffic behaviour. 304). argued that with theory-centred methods there was an inherent danger of confirmation bias – a tendency to evaluate ideas in a manner the meets existing expectancies (Chaplin. 95-96). while ignoring other factors which are much too important to be ignored (p. In this case. it has proved capable of linking psychological and demographic variables with a pattern of driving behaviour to illustrate influences on crash outcomes and injuries. who argued that. The problem arises from an intrinsic dilemma. the contextual mediated model developed here may also go some distance toward breaking out of the narrow monist frame of reference eschewed by Evans.
provides breadth of focus and a more holistic perspective than many other attempts at modelling driving behaviour. sensation seeking (Sümer. According to Ranney (1994). 2. The general lack of success in identifying predictors of safe driving. has focused primarily on accident-causing behaviour. The contextual mediated framework.7. Kerlinger (2000) and others. much current research.. Future research should attempt to expand the contextual mediated approach beyond studies of crash histories. 2003). psychoticism. openness.3. agreeableness and neuroticism (Sümer et al. the process through which drivers make adjustments based on their perceptions of risk. while still very much a model and not a theory. crash-free driving.4). depression. and has relied heavily on post-hoc explanations. competence or hierarchical level of information processing (see sect. extraversion. for instance. anxiety. not on everyday driving. lead to the conclusion that we should abandon the differential accident paradigm and define alternative measures of safe driving. as defined by Grayson (1997). … has used performance-based measures to predict individual accident histories.2 Factors in Behavioural Adaptation (BA) The major theories of driving behaviour and accident causation which do exist are largely premised on the concept of behavioural adaptation (BA). With several exceptions. 2005) were included as distal variables. conscientiousness.other studies. While the present research 218 . it may be even more fruitful to focus the model on the interaction of variables that contribute to safe. it has been conducted without the benefit of a process model of driving. 5. Rather than describing and predicting the interaction of factors involved in causing crashes. together with methodological difficulties associated with the use of accident measures.
Within their proposed conceptual framework. It is possible that drivers with an internal locus of control will rely more on their own skills and abilities while they are driving and. 219 . They argued that locus of control.did not test any of those theories specifically. no matter how reliable a safety device. those who see themselves playing little or no part in the unfolding of events will act in a less cautious manner. is a concept that should be incorporated as an element in theories seeking to explain BA and its role in driving. Conversely. relying on it to competently perform the task it was designed for. individuals viewing themselves as being responsible for both positive and negative driving outcomes will be more likely to take precautionary measures such as wearing seat belts and being vigilant to roadway cures. should the device fail to perform the task for which it was designed. along with trust in automation and sensation seeking. some of the variables considered are conceptually tied to them. or at least to react more slowly. those with an external locus of control may be more likely to give up control to an external device. On the other hand. Following this reasoning. they will become less involved with the driving task and be less likely to react. believing that fate will achieve its predetermined goals no matter what the individual does. Such individuals would be more likely than internals to over-rely on a device to keep them oriented and alert. will always maintain more direct involvement with the driving task than those scoring high on externality dimensions. while intuitively appealing and providing some useful insight. fail by not considering individual driver characteristics or the range of motivations that determine driving behaviour. BA to in-vehicle safety measures may also be under the influence of drivers’ locus of control. Brown and Noy (2004) stressed that theories of BA and driving behaviour in general. As a result.
consistent with the earlier findings of Gidron et al. Summala. could be screened out. Findings from the present research can guide planners of remedial courses and counsellors to teach methods for increasing internal attributions. 2006) or cognitive processing (Keskinen. scarce resources for screening drivers. The treatment or rehabilitation of dangerous drivers has relied heavily on cognitive behaviour modification applications (Deffenbacher et.In the present research. Programmes with content focused on building internal attributions and a sense of personal responsibility would enhance training outcomes. Training and Rehabilitation The results of the present research have important implications for the improvement of driving behaviour.. an area of increasing importance in fleet management (Barjonet & Tortosa. external locus of control and hostile attributions. Drivers may need to undergo cognitive restructuring about their beliefs about their own responsibility over road safety in order to increase levels of internality. Specifically. 2004). changes in driver behaviour might be better targeted. Christ et al. once identified. Luckner (1989) and others have successfully developed training curricula that encourage internality. al.3 Driver Selection. though. Further research is required to investigate implications for improving driving performance. locus of control was found to exert effects on Type A driving patterns and. Gidron & Davidson. Drivers with combinations of TABP and aggression. Typically. task capability (Fuller.7. 220 . can be focused specifically on combinations of risk factors at both the distal and proximal levels. 1997. whether that adaptation is the result of perceived risk (Wilde. (2003) to moderate the effects of aggression on driving outcomes. these approaches require special therapeutic training and large efforts on behalf of drivers. 2005. 2002. Coupled with simulated or actual driving experience and methods to modify patterns of hostile selftalk. 5. 1996). Further research should focus on the role played by locus of control in influencing patterns of BA. 1982). 1996). which may mitigate the negative effects of roadway hostility.
Cooke and Durso (2008) have noted that: Most industrial tasks require human operators to interact with various technologies. and machines are highly intricate (p. From this has emerged the growing 221 . World Health Organisation. the technologies sophisticated and the interactions among humans. 1961. in the the traffic engineer’s role has increasingly become one of improving the efficiency of an existing roadway system rather than building new higher capacity roads. At the same time. Slinn.1 Generating and classifying crash prevention interventions Ergonomists and safety scientists have. 1957).4. or legal intervention.4 Preventive Measures: “The Three E’s” 5. 1). and the effective enforcement of regulatory legislation (Wheatley.2 Engineering Interventions Engineering applications in transportation have become increasingly cogniscent of human thinking processes. This framework can be integrated with the “Three E’s” to identify specific crash prevention measures arising from the findings of the present research. 5.4). education. teams of humans. Matthews and Guest (1999) have argued that traffic engineering has also undergone a transition in emphasis over the last decade.7.5. These have been euphemistically termed the “three E’s”. 1970) provides another system for classifying highway events for the purposes of research or accident prevention (see Figure 2. the tasks we ask operators to perform today are highly cognitie.7. 1957. the Haddon Matrix (Haddon.4. recognised that the cardinal bases of accident prevention fall into three categories: engineering. educational programming (including public awareness and driver training).7. for the last fifty years. Specific measures aimed at reducing accident occurrence or injury can be classed according to whether they are predominantly based on engineering principles. Unlike 100 years ago.
Stough. 2001). Sadano. or the adaptive automation concept. (Bishop. 2003). The amount of toque needed to adjust vehicle direction at highway speeds is quite small. Other authors have cautioned against engineering so many devices and signals that driver attention becomes diverted from vehicle control tasks. roadway and environmental settings (see Table 5. These have been applied to in-car. is strongly associated with crash outcomes would support the importance of further development of LKA systems. 2001). as well as other in-vehicle technologies now being tested for future implementation in automobiles and other vehicles (see Table 5. reduce risks of extreme lane deviations by using a motor to increase steering torque in a manner that creates a “driving in a bathtub” sensation for the driver who nears a lane edge. Several intelligent in-car systems have been developed to assist lane manoeuvring and to control lateral deviation in the forward motion track. 2005). Such systems are based on a shared control paradigm. Lane-keeping Assist Systems (LKA). Bishop (2005) has noted that there is still a lack of knowledge about the threshold levels at which to set in-vehicle modifications. there may be limits to the number and level of sophistication of devices installed in motor vehicles. in which in which the control of functions shifts between machines and human beings dynamically. for instance. The aim should be to assist drivers by making routine actions simpler. At the same time. so the systems are easily overridden by even the weakest drivers when needed (Kawazoe. with the resulting transport systems generally referred to as Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS. Murazami.6).6). The findings of the present research that usurpation of right-of-way. Maggio & Jin. there is an adaptive and cooperative relationship between the driver and the vehicle in ensuring that lane deviation and roadway departure are controlled. depending on environmental factors. Suda & Ono. Holzmann (2008) argues that there is considerable potential for crash reduction in this sort of technology. not to overwhelm them with complicated or difficult override processes. operator workload and performance (Inagaki. In the case of LKA. 222 .application of computer and information technology to transportation infrastructure and vehicles.
Traffic management may also be carried out for easons other than safety. such as Automated Speed Enforcement (ASE). Brown & Noy. and management of parking and loading arrangements that influence the speed of traffic. Black. Herzog. 2003.with a resulting increase in crash risk (Noy. Hebl & Grossman-Alexander. Parsons. 1997). Fountaine and Knotts. Recovery from lapses in attention has been faster in “restorative environments” enhanced with horticultural and aesthetic features (Heerwagen & Oriens. in the form of driving above the speed limit and driving consistently in the fast lane. was associated crash outcomes. in particular to pursue environmental. Richardson & Downe. Intelligent Speed Adaptation (ISA) and Adaptive Cruise Control (ACC) systems (see Table 5. initiatives aimed at improving environmental aesthetics may have a positive impact on roadway safety. A number of studies have reported that roadside vegetation and predominantly natural environments elicit lower levels of driver frustration and stress (Cackowsky & Nasar. Safety benefits from traffic management can result from changes in the patterns of trffic flow. The present research also found that freeway urgency. 2000). 1998). Tassinary. Given that the present research found that driver frustration and attentional lapses in the form of destination-activity orientation were associated with risk of crash outcome. 1993. 1999. Ulrich. but also encourages at a more basic level the concept of traffic management as a policy prescription: Traffic management refers to the adaptation of the use of the existing road network. This finding would lend support to the myriad of speed control devices now under development. changes in traffic speed. 2004. traffic 223 . Engineering solutions have also been suggested with respect to the design of roadways and the general driving environment.6).
ostensibly satisfying wandering attentional needs and allowing vehicle operators to concentrate on tasks at hand. have pointed out that many problems still exist in the implementation of such technological solutions and that some of these – including the creation of higher mental workloads and overestimation tendencies in the use of information – may be particularly salient for young. Lippold and Mayser (2003) have noted that new driver assistance systems offer some promise for safety improvements by providing additional information to drivers. and substantial lifestyle changes aimed at achieving an environmentally sustainable future (Ogden. but extends into city-wide suppression of traffic. This view embraces a philosophy and a set of goals that go far beyone mere physical control and management of traffic. and now encompass the principle of “traffic calming” (Brindle. and whether this information varies according to the situation. however.efficiency (capacity) or access objectives (Ogden. This refers to driving while thinking about things unrelated to the driving task. questions of alternative urban structure. Engineering interventions capable of assisting in the focusing of attention to the driving task have been largely understudied and considerable research will need to be carried out before practical applications can be implemented effectively and dependably. inexperienced drivers. Maakip (2003) has also added that there is little understanding of exactly what specific pieces of information drivers require or prefer to have. Dietze. engineering solutions have the least to offer in terms of behaviour in traffic that involves risky levels of destination activity orientation. Current discussions of speed management go even beyond traditional traffic management approaches. journey purpose or other human factors. 1996. 309). Gregersen and Falkmer (2003). 224 . 1992). Probably. Proctor. 1991). p. 1996. however.
Reducing conjunction with high lane keeping assist systems congestion and increasing intensity reflective devices (LKA) – these reduce the smooth traffic flow through driver’s need to make wider right-of-way – wider driver information. infrastructure. transitions for. traffic and systems (RDWS) – curve different materials to increase weather sesors. Integrated with combination of radar and roadside sensors. Examples are the signals and ramp meters to too high for an upcoming use of “Bot’s dots” or monitor traffic on streets and curve. 225 . variable speed warning systems advise lane conspicuity and message signs (VMS). and likelihood of. thermoplastic management systems – Many ability to detect lane and epoxy materials to metropolitan areas have departures and to alert drivers designate lane configurations. created intelligent traffic of impending hazards. departure warning.1 Vehicle Road Environment lane departure warning lane marker improvements – integrated traffic systems (LDWS) – have the using plastic. management centers (TMCs) integrated lane marker with closed-circuit television road departure warning applications – these combine (CCTV) camersas. lane road conditions. keeping.1. traffic drivers when their speed is definition.Table 5. reversible corrections through a motorlanes. Hi H 1. – Doppler radar based cooperative vehicle highway systems operating at 24 GHz systems (CVHS) – wireless to detect vehicles within 2 to communication systems 10 feet of the right-side blind embedded in the roadway spot.6: Engineering Applications for Crash Prevention Finding Drivers who usurp the right-ofway and commit lane violations are more likely to experience crash outcomes. etc. blind spot sensing and lange change assist. generally comprehensive lateral control controlled from a central assistance (LCA) – a point. “rumble strips” in expressways. the systems vision sensing technology to transmit information to combine lane and road drivers about traffic flow. unsafe blind spot monitoring systems lane deviation. to allow easier lanes and synchronised actuated increase in steering overtaking and lane signals decreases the need as the vehicle nears a lane.
adjusting transmit information to Intersection devices (yield speed as needed to maintaina drivers about the speed at and stop signs. 226 . point. generally pilot”.1.1. t-junctions or or (at maximum) to limit the warning signs for vehicles pedestrian crossings. communication systems (ACC) – acting as a Driving speed can be reduced embedded in the roadway “longitudinal control cothrough infrastructure infrastructure. the systems intersection modification. H 1. traffic lights) safe. a particular high-risk part of the thoroughfare. to in-vehicle display terminals. Radar. vehicle’s speed to comply travelling at speeds higher cooperative vehicle highway with the speed limit.and millimetre-wave (MMW)-based inter-vehicle communications – systems that send data about the proximity of approaching or following vehicles.. are travelling.2 lane deviation feedback systems – systems calculate the number of lane changes as a function of speed and cue the driver with performance data. systems (CVHS) – wireless adaptive cruise control road network modifications.(continued) H 1.1 Drivers scoring high on a measure of freeway urgency are more likely to experience crash outcomes. including controlled from a central cruise control but also track street and link closures. including those in adjoining lanes. intelligent speed adaptation infrastructure-based Cooperative Intersection (ISA) – automated systems Intersection Collision Collision Avoidance (C-ICA) enabling vehicles to be Avoidance (I-ICA) systems – systems – involving similar “aware” of the preailing involving the installation of sensor arrays as in I-ICA speed limit on rads and (at sensors at “intelligent communicating with inminimum) to provide intersections”. the host vehicle. t-junctions and vehicle displays to warn the feedback to the driver when pedestrian crossings that will speeding driver of impending that speed is being exceeded trigger high-illumination intersections. than the safety standard. ACC systems provide modifications. deriver-selectable interwhich surrounding vehicles provide speed modification at vehicle gap. Integrated with vehicles in the lane ahead of roadside sensors.
(continued) Externally-frustrated drivers are more likely to experience crash outcomes. at which the whole road space at an intersection is raised. “Speed tables”. coupled with stress vegetation to reduce traffic signals. 227 . measures that can reduce by driver interactions with congestion and other contrary messages – roadroad. automated speed enforcement – the use of high-volume speed cameras to regulate the speed of motor vehicles on roadways. traffic flow management training to better frustration and effect a moderation and other cope with frustration caused calming influence on drivers. signs with calming or vehicles. The use of properly designed humps are effective in causing vehicles to reduce speed in their vicinity. pinchpoints and gateways or arches. Such devices include chicanes. environment and other frustrating stimuli. has an advantage over intersection redesign by saving space. humorous content to evoke a contradictory affective response to frustration. horizontal displacement – these design features cause the driver to change direction quite sharply and change the visual cues presented by the roadway.3 vertical displacement. H 1. in-vehicle biofeedback aesthetic applications – integrated traffic control devices – systems to measure beautification of median and centres – Systems that allow and feedback levels of driver roadside areas with for synchronised timing of arousal.1.
at least. Destination-activity orientation is associated with a higher risk of crash outcomes. prepare for stress-provoking conditions and external frustration. safety messages. to reduce wandering thoughts and focus attention on driving tasks at hand. notification of construction ahead. dedicated broadcast of safety messages – radio or broadband messages with reminder to focus attention on driving tasks at hand. H 1. driver assistance systems – capable of providing information about destination conditions or journey progress. weather-related road conditions.4 in-vehicle biofeedback devices – systems that measure driver arousal and eye focal points and cue the driver when measures do not calibrate with attention to road conditions. notice of future road construction and notice of public events.(continued) electronic variable message signs (VMSs) – roadside signboards which change messages to provide updated information about traffic congestion. 228 .1. This information allows drivers to avoid or.
It suggests that. Professional driving instruction tends to be inadequate because (a) driving instructors are not properly tested or monitored. in addition to teaching the practical manoeuvres and driving techniques associated with managing a vehicle. The present research suggests that. 73). to inadequacies in driver training and testing. and (c) driving test standards and requirements are inadequate” (p. given ethnic differences observed with respect to drivers’ behaviour in traffic.4. to some extent. Training skills for anger management and frustration tolerance. however.5. teachers or the police. and must include broader awareness about the dangers of roads and traffic. it may be effective to conduct such awareness bulding within cultural centres. publicity campaigns and incentive schemes to be offered as part of the activities within mosques (Che Ali Bin Che Hitam. Downing and Sager (1982) reported that children were significantly less likely to recive advice than in the United Kingdom from members of thir family. like community centres or places of worship.3 Education According to Jacobs and Baguley (2004). This is consistent with previous calls in Malaysia for safety awareness education. They concluded that there is clarealy a need to improve road safety education. (b) there are no driving or instruction manuals. In a study of traffic awareness in developing countries. Effective road safety education goes beyond driver training programmes. 2001). it is also important for them to devote some time to the affective and cognitive components of the driving task.7. the probems of poor driver behaviour and knowledge in developing and emerging countries “are likely to be due. 229 . imparting a sense of personal responsibility consistent with a higher internal locus of control and reducing freeway urgency through effective time management skills and greater risk awareness would be important cognitive components to the training syllabus. The present research provides some useful additions to the knowledge base to be imparted to professional driving instructors in Malaysia.
The results of the present research would suggest that messages about the link between personal responsibility for one’s action. that “Of these three approaches. however. one practical and the other touching on the development of theory. road safety campaigns and media coverage” (Cheah.4 Enforcement Howarth and Gunn (1982) noted that attempts to improve road safety are generally of three types: (1) ergonomic and engineering measures to improve the physical environment. evoke the least expectation and are least often evaluated in terms of their effect on accidents” (p. p. They also stated. and driving within safe legal limits could be included within future public information campaigns.5. 1030). N6). 265). 1978. Success of the yearly Ops Sitak safety campaign by the Royal Malaysian Police and other regulatory bodies has been attributed to several “cumulative factors. Siegrist and Roskova (2001) have called for an integration of social science views arising from traffic psychology with legislation and enforcement pertaining to traffic.7.4. and penalties for infringement to ensure that the rules are obeyed. First. The Belief in a Just World bias is the tendency “to belive that they live in a world where people generally get what they deserve” (Lerner and Miller. Second. 2007. or an internal locus of control. from the findings of the present research. was studied in a 230 . legal measures change least often. (2) exhortatory and educational measures to encourage the development of appropriate skills and attitudes. and (3) legal measures providing rules governing the interaction of pedestrians and traffic. The bias of false consensus. Yergil (2005) has discussed a number of cognitive biases that tend to enhance a false sense of safety among drivers. such as visibility of enforcement. This twinning of psychological and legal perspectives derives two implications. or the tendency to attribute one’s own attitudes and behaviour to others. p. Jacobs and Baguley (2004) have stressed that changes in road laws and police operations need to be well advertised in order to be effective.
1991. They showed that the frequency of violations was related to the evaluated percentage of other drivers who commit the same violations.” One possible way to minimize this contradiction and the resulting dissonance is to attribute the same behaviour regarding violating the law to other drivers (the bias of the false consensus). The theory of planned behaviour (TPB.sample of drivers by Manstead. opinions about what significant others would think of the behaviour (subjective norms) and perceived behaviour control (PCB). drivers create a sense of belionging to a majority group and therefore negate the possibility that they are behaving in a socially deviant manner (p. 1992). Yergil (2005) notes that: In order to maintain the self-concept of a law-abiding citizen. Another possible way to minimise the same contradiction is to diminish the significance of the violation by labelling it as an action that. Parker. Stradling. 2001) provides an interesting theoretical framework for considering the influences of these cognitions and their interplay with regulatory controls. Both biases seem rooted in an external locus of control. on the other. Future research is needed to determine the extent to which beliefs in a Just World and the false consensus bias influence both subjective norms and attitudes underlying 231 . Reason & Baxter. is allowed to occur in a Just World. on one hand attributing outcomes to a fatalistic notion of Just World and. to consensual beliefs of powerful others. By doing so. Ajzen. Azjen & Fishbein. 2001. 498). The TPB posits that a given behaviour is determined by individuals’ intentions which in turn are influenced by the individuals’ positive or negative evaluation of the behaviour (attitudes). after all. drivers need to resolve the contradiction between cognitions: “traffic laws are laws” and “I violate traffic laws.
or not adhere.drivers’ decisions to adhere. it may be possible to come closer to the integration of legal and psychological perspectives advocated by Siegrist and Roskova (2001). Similarly. an orientation toward an external locus of control may influence PCB factors underlying the decision to comply with legal requirements or not. By examining drivers’ response to traffic laws in the context of the theory of planned behaviour. to traffic regulations. 232 .
ethnicity. Wállen Warner & Åberg. 2002... gender. as proximal to the crash outcomes. 233 . aggression and tendency to entertain hostile automatic thoughts all act upon driving behaviour patterns which. it was concluded that driver experience. Studies using structural equation modelling to interpret complex inter-variable relationships have become increasingly prevalent within the traffic psychology literature (e. hopelessness. as expected. Sümer. Sümer et al. contribute to the occurrence of crashes and injuries. when risky. In doing so. 2003. In the present research. Iverson & Rundmo. A contextual mediated model. structural equation modelling (SEM) was found to be a valuable technique for articulating interactive relationships in a holistic manner. derived from the earlier work of Sümer (2003). was used to frame the relationship between these human factors. 2005. with demographic and personality variables posited as distal and patterns of behaviour in traffic consistent with the Type A behaviour pattern.CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION The present research was an attempt to investigate interaction effects of experiential. It is concluded here that the contextual mediated model is useful in conceptualising and testing driving behaviour and its outcomes and that further research incorporating other variables at both the distal and proximal level should be carried out. 2006) and it is anticipated that there will be many more. age. demographic and psychological characteristics of drivers on the occurrence of self-reported motor vehicle crashes and crash-related injuries. Results have indicated that.g. such human factors are important contributors to crash outcomes. locus of control.
that when faced with competing models in safety studies. the selection of one SEM over competing models has been generally based on which has the better goodness-of-fit. However. Montag & Comrey. like Brown and Noy (2004). measures of aggression had direct effects on all components of self-reported behaviour in traffic. as well as statistical grounds. while internal locus of control has been frequently associated with safer work and lifestyle practices (Guastello & Guastello. 2000) and hierarchical motivation theories (Näätänen and Summala. 2003).. it has been argued here that it may be an important factor in behavioural adaptation processes underlying risk homeostasis (Wilde.In the current literature. task capability (Fuller. Further. Hoyt. although it is widely acknowledged that this is not a hard and fast rule. it is argued here. Harrell. In most cases. 1974). one conclusion is that the locus of control construct plays an important role in safety behaviour. Some previous studies have shown a link between ‘fatalism’. the best fit usually implies the best model. In the present research. This is Of the variables studied. 1986. Of particular interest was the fact that the effects of aggression on TABP were moderated by cognitive self-talk containing two content types: physical aggression and revenge.g. or external locus of control. 1973). the locus of control variable has been long recognised as a moderator variable in a range of psychological processes involving stress (Lefcourt. 1987). It is further concluded that aggression also plays a significant role in behaviour leading to crash outcomes. and accident risk (e. consistent with the position taken by Byrne (2001) and other authors. The present research replicated earlier findings about the important influences of internal and external locus of control over behaviour leading to safety problems and. leading to the tentative conclusion that it is the aggressive aspects of Type A behaviour that are instrumental in relationships between TABP and safety outcomes. 1982). traffic psychologists and other researchers are advised to make the choice based on theoretical and practical. 1995. 1983) and was earlier found to moderate the effects of aggression on driving behaviour (Gidron et al. Some inter-ethnic differences in 234 ..
It is argued that this is a In interpreting these effects. and a psychologist who studies cognition and driving while turning away from laws and government.. Each system has its own experts whose lenses are focused almost exclusively on their own subject matter.g. In examining inter-relationships among and between these variables. promising approach to future studies of crasch occurrence. As Rothe (2002) has pointed out: Traffic-safety systems are composed of complex behaviours that imply complex causes and entangled factors. However. they 235 . road engineering and ergonomics. a civil engineer who uses laboratories to measure asphalt wearing under different conditions. as well. in combination. Huguenin. Groeger & Rothengatter. bird’s eye view of the factors contributing a given outcome. 2005. 1998. For example.aggression were observed. an economist who researches economic factors of transportation without much concern for geography. including psychology (especially cognitive and information processing). 2002) have noted that this is a hallmark of the traffic psychology field and it is concluded here that studies of the manner in which human factors influence safety behaviour require a range of constructs pulled from various disciplines. Additional studies of the role played by hostile automatic thoughts and cultural influences in moderating the effects of aggression on safety-related behaviour will provide a better understanding of psychological processes and may offer new insights into the treatment of dysfunctional driving behaviour. a multi-disciplinary approach was used. it became apparent that motor vehicle crashes are indeed multi-factorial phenomena and that prior assumptions of causality should always be subject to review. Rothengatter. One of the benefits of using structural equation modelling in such research is that it allows for a holistic. all are professionals who know their area of expertise has collegially or self-imposed limitations. cultural anthropology. Several authors (e.
Indeed. injuries and death. 236 . management. Continued sharing between professional associations and between design. Additional studies should aim toward a conceptual common ground and further examination of models and theories from which broader understanding can be derived. a multi-disciplinary approach leads not only to the greater level of understanding described by Rothe (2002). Through a multi-disciplinary approach. but it also opens the door for a wider range of preventive measures. findings with regard to four components of behaviour in traffic gave rise to a number of interventions in the engineering. 313). A uni-disciplinary approach is not sufficient to generate or integrate the range of actions that must be undertaken to effectively bring about improvements to the roadway safety problem in Malaysia and elsewhere.form a complex traffic-safety reality in which systems form a web of interdependent fields (p. educational and enforcement spheres. It is to be hoped that future preventive measures and research will continue along the multi-disciplinary path that has characterised both traffic psychology and road engineering as emerging areas of specialisation. regulatory and social science specialists should be encouraged. In the present research. significant impacts can be made in reducing motor vehicle crashes.
Car occupants accidents and injuries among adolescents in a state in Malaysia. 5. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Drinking and driving: intention.  Abdul Kareem. Some methodological deficiencies in studies on traffic accident predictors. (2003). 38(5). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. and Anurag. (2005).R. Crash data analysis: collective vs. S. L. (1999).E.  af Wählberg. Accident Analysis and Prevention. (2002). Mohd Nasir.H. (2003). Neural systems for recognizing emotion.. 1867-1874. and Pederson.  Åberg. P. A.  Ahmad Hariza. 169-177. and Kulanthayan.S. Musa.  Abdul Rahman. M. (1979).. A. 12. Mohd Zulkifli. H. Understanding Multicultural Malaysia: Delights.. H. P. On the validity of self-reported traffic accident data. individual crash level approach.B. Petaling Jaya. (1993).H.. Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies. 25. M. (2003). A. N. A. and Law..  Abdullah. 581-587. attitudes and social norms of Swedish male drivers. 289-296.A. 473-486. K. Bahrain.REFERENCES  Abdel-Aty.T. The effectiveness of motorcycle safety campaigns on motorcyclists. E140 Proceedings of the Safety on Roads International Conference (SORIC). L. Psychological Testing and Assessment. Malaysian Journal of Medical Sciences. Current Opinion in Neurobiology.  Adolphs. R. (Research Report 1/99) Kuala Lumpur: Malaysia Road Safety Council. Radin Umar. 10(2).  Aiken.  af Wählberg. MY: Pearson. Third edition. Review of global menace of road accidents with special reference to Malaysia – a social perspective. R. Subramaniam. 35. 31-39. Journal of Safety Research.E. Puzzles & Irritations. 237 . T. (2002). (2007).
T. 50(2). 52.. Personality. (2001). (2001). 7. 291-307. The theory of planned behaviour.  Amin. In Stroebe. 10(6). J. 404-415. 23. I. 187-195. From attitudes to behaviour: basic and applied research on the theory of planned behaviour. S. J. (2005). (1997). M. (1987). Nature and operation of attitudes. A. W. and Fishbein. 33(3). 10. 27-58.J. 238 .E.  Ajzen. Tubré. W. (1952).D. and Kerrich. London: John Wiley & Sons.A.  Archer. Ethnic differences and married women’s employment in Malaysia: do government policies matter? Journal of Socio-Economics. Women’s friendships under urbanization: A Malaysian study. Current Psychology: Developmental. Human Factors.) Action-Control: From Cognition to Behavior.  Armitage.  Arthur. J.. J. Aggressive Behavior. 47. Biometrics.G.C. Beliefs about aggression among male and female prisoners. Annual Review of Psychology. (2003). C. M.  Armstrong. (Eds. 623-633. B. I. Women’s Studies International Forum.) European Review of Social Psychology. and Tubré. (Eds. gender and early morning accidents. Attitudes and the attitude behavior relation: reasoned and automatic processes.T. From intentions to actions: a theory of planned behavior. Day. Journal of Sleep Research. E. In Kuhl. and Kecklund (2001). and Hewston. Bell. Convergence of self-report and archival crash involvement data: a two-year longitudinal followup. Accident statistics and the concept of accident proneness.  Åkerstedt. 22(3). A. Edwards.  Ajzen. 340-342. Heidleberg: Springer-Verlag. Learning.. J.H. 179-211. Social. I. 303-313. I. (2004). and Beckmann. Ajzen.  Arbous. S. and Haigh. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. (1991).105-110.  Ajzen. T. A. (1985). M. and Christian.J. Age.
and Kenny. R. Characteristics of traffic crashes in Maryland (1996-1998): differences among the youngest drivers. (2005.  Ballesteros. and Dischinger. Manila: Philippines.  Bakri Musa. (1991). P. strategic and statistical considerations. and Alexander. (1998). 21-30).  Barjonet.S. 279-284.31-42. 51(6).-E. Arthur. (Eds. M. 231-234.M. Amsterdam: Elsevier. 34.M. (2002). 2(4). Wilde. Continuing carnage on our carriageways. 34. Barrett. Prediction of vehicular accident involvement: a meta-analysis. and Biehl. K. F. (Ed.  Aschenbrenner. 4(2). S.  Aylott. (2001). In Trimpop.com/archives/continuing-carnage-on-our-carriageways.-E.A. Retrieved April 4. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. R. 2007 from http://www.bakrimusa. R.  Barjonet. When hope becomes hopelessness. (Eds. (1986).. T.M. 14-29). In Rothengatter. Human Performance. October 18). (2002).C. 239 . 1173-1182. (1994). G.. GJ. In Barjonet.L. P. D..) Challenges to Accident Preventions: The Issue of Risk Compensation Behaviour.V. Asian Development Bank – Association of Southeast Asian Nations regional road safety program (accident costing report AC5: Malaysia).) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. and Tortosa. M. 89-105. and Carson.A.  Austin. Transport psychology and transport in Europe: a general overview.D. Groningen.) Traffic Psychology Today (pp. J. Boston: Kluwer. F. NL: Styx. Transport psychology in Europe: a historical approach. (1997). P-E. European Journal of Oncology Nursing.  Asian Development Bank (2005). R.  Baron. An alternative accident prediction model for highway-rail interfaces. and Tortosa. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Accident Analysis and Prevention. B. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual. Improved safety through improved technical measures? Empirical studies regarding risk compensation in relation to antilock braking systems. and Carbonell Vaya E. P.F. W.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 73-84. hopelessness and fatigue in patients and family members in palliative care. A.  Beck. 149-178).  Benzein. The level of and relation between hope. In Zeig..  Beck. A.T. R.G. 234(11).  Beck. In Rubin. Journal of the American Medical Association. New York: Meridian.F. (Eds. D.M.C. D. (1987b). Palliative Medicine. New York: Perennial Harper Collins. (2005). and Loftus. A.) The Evolution of Psychotherapy (pp. 29(1). (Ed. Theory: the necessary evil. A. (pp. 157-179). 5-37. and Bonnett. 588-606. and Trexler. Teen driving risk: the promise of parental influence and public policy. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy: An International Quarterly. Cognitive models of depression. M. A. 88.T. New York: Brunner/Mazel. Psychological Bulletin. R. A.T. Cognitive therapy. and Berg. Lester. D. (1999). In (Flinders.  Beck. New York: Teachers College Press.  Belli. Kovacs. (1987a).G.J. and Mills. 218-229). A. (1993).) Remembering Our Past: Studies in Autobiographical Memory (pp. (1980).  Bentler. and Simons-Morton (2002). D. The pliability of autobiographical memory: Misinformation and the false memory problem. A. E. (1975).. L. Hopelessness and suicidal behavior.H. (1976). Weissman. New York: Cambridge University Press.A. Hostility and Violence. and Steer. 1146-1149.K. The measurement of pessimism: the Hopelessness scale..) Theory and Concepts in Qualitative Research: Perspectives from the Field.T. (1974). 1(1). (1996). and Weissman. 240 .E. H.S. 42  Becker.T. San Antonio TX: Psychological Corporation. Manual for Beck Hopelessness Scale.. Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. J. Health Education and Behavior. (Ed.. K. J. A. Cognitive Therapy and the Emotional Disorders. Hartos.  Beck.C. (1993). Prisoners of Hate: The Cognitive Basis of Anger. G. E.F. P. 234-240.T. Beck.  Beck.  Beck. A. 19.T.
Retrieved March 30. J.D. A.  Bettencourt. New York: Routledge.  Blasco. 2007 from http://www. 751-777. March 12). (1994). B.. Journal of Personality Assessment. Applied Ergonomics. Applying Psychology in Organizations. T. J. R. 43. 45(1). (2001). (2006). and Geller. 53.C.B. 34(1). Introduction to Ergonomics. (1981). Applied Psychology: An International Review.J.. and Shimmin. New York: McGraw Hill. F. and Valentine. 37-40.  Bernama. Hopelessness and locus of control in patients with motor conversion disorder. 44-51. R. 313-322. Personality and aggressive behavior under provoking and neutral conditions: a meta-analytic review.S. S. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. and Bonino. (1995). H. E. (2006. and Haney. 38(3). S. 37.  Bridger. 15(1). Malaysian National News Agency. M. Benjamin. 39-55. D. Talley. Associations of Type A behavior with the emotional traits of anger and curiosity. A technology to measure multiple driving behaviors without self-report or participant reactivity.my/bernama/v3/printable.S. K.com. 472-481  Binzer. Ben-Zur. (2002).bernama. 241 . Anxiety. (2006) Risky driving and lifestyles in adolescence.  Boff. Revolutions and shifting paradigms in human factors & ergonomics. McKee. 391-399. R. Graziano. (1984)...A. 95-104.  Boyce. F. Williams.php?id=185148.. Psychological Bulletin. Managing the high costs of road deaths. 132(5).A. A. Assessment of conceptual tempo in the Type A (coronary prone) behavior pattern. Accident analysis and Prevention.  Blumenthal. M. Nordic Journal of Psychiatry. Psychology and road safety. T. Stress and Coping.  Blacker. (2006).  Bina.E.
W. and Wilde. E. 105-124. W. 242 . Ergonomics. 14.  Brown. (2002).E. and Warren. (2005). (Eds. and Ghiselli. 37(4). (1948).  Brindle. Amsterdam: Pergamon. (Eds.D. Behavioural adaptation to in-vehicle safety measures: past ideas and future directions. Personality and Individual Differences. 267-278.  Brown.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application. 641-649. 4(4). 27(3). 29-38  Brodsky. 32(1).M. 24. P. (1982). Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. G. (2000). Single sample cross-validation indices for covariance structures. Making ethnic citizens: the politics and practice of education in Malaysia. The effects of music tempo on simulated driving performance and vehicular control. N. T. observational data and driver records. R. T.D. (1989). R. 219-241..C. In Rothengatter. D.S.. I. Accident Analysis and Prevention. C.W. and Noy. R. 18(2).  Burns. Schlundt. 345-352. Goldzweig..S. I. (1997). M. I. W. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Accident proneness among street car motormen and motor coach operators.G.C. The Fatality Analysis Reporting System as a tool for investigating racial and ethnic determinants of motor vehicle crash fatalities. 21. Political Geography. (1995). 318-330.K.  Bunnell. Local street management in Australia: is it ‘traffic calming’. 9-19). and Cudeck. Amsterdam: Elsevier.C. 445-455. Multivariate Behavioral Research. 24(1). R. R.P. (1992). 20-23.J. Levine. How traffic and transport systems can benefit from psychology (pp.. (2007). Haliburton.E.  Brown. Risk taking in male taxi drivers: relationships among personality. Exposure and experience are a confounded nuisance in research on driver behaviour. Journal of Applied Psychology. and Huguenin. T. In Rothengatter. (2004). C. G.D. E.  Brown.  Brown. and Carbonell Vaya. I.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application. Briggs. (Re) positioning Malaysia: high-tech networks and the multicultural rescripting of national identity.  Browne. International Journal of Educational Development.
E. and Nasar. Applications and Programming. (Eds.. M.J. Martin-Loeches. 22. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. L. R. (2001). 45-50. F. Journal of Consulting Psychology. 343-349. International Journal of Psychology.W. The restorative effects of roadside vegetation. (2000).  Buss. M. and Durkee. Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Conccepts. Multiple perspectives. Structural Equation Modeling with LISREL. D. and Warren. J. Manual for Aggression Questionnaire. and Borgatta. Internal versus external control in India and Canada. L. & Santos. Applications and Programming. (1957).W. and McIver. 47(15). (1998). The relationship between organizational and individual variables to on-the-job driver accidents and accident-free kilometers. (2004).  Byrd.H. 35(6). Automatic attention to emotional stimuli: neural correlates.  Carmines. A. O.  Carment.  Carretie. (Eds). Seatbelt use and belief in destiny among Hispanic and non-Hispanic drivers. G. Gonzalez. An inventory for assessing different kinds of hostility..L. PRELIS and SIMPLIS: Basic Conccepts. (1999).) Social Measurement: Current Issues (pp.A. and Tapia. Ergonomics. 63-65.  Caird. 65-115).M. 243 .. and Cortes.D. J. E. A. Hinojosa. 9. 31. B. (1981).. In Bohrnstedt. Accident Analysis and Prevention.  Carsten. Human Brain Mapping. A. 21. Analyzing models with unobserved variables: analysis of covariance structures.H. 290-299.. E. Human Factors for Highway Engineers. Beverly Hislls CA: Sage. (2002). J. M.G. J. 15981613. In Fuller.F.  Byrne. J.  Cackowski..  Byrne. M. B. Los Angeles CA: Western Psychological Services.P. Mercado. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Environment and Behaviour. (1974).A. and Kline. T. T. (2004). Oxford: Elsevier Science.K. Parada. Cohn.L.. J. Buss. 736-751. (2003). W.
H. (2007. and Lim. and Nash. Personality and Individual Difference.  Cheah. (2000). Kuala Lumpur. Monash University.D. Malaysia. D. 10(2). 2008 from http://www. (2007). Dictionary of Psychology. New York: Dell.ictct. (Eds. and Yeh. Retrieved October 15. (2006).  Chalmé. H. Taiwan. what can we know – traffic psychological analysis of Driver Behaviour. Self-consciousness in Chinese college students in Hong Kong. M. S. S. What are we allowed to ask. J. gender and risky behaviors in Taipei. Traffic management and road safety along federal roads in Malaysia.  Cheung. Doing data analysis with SPSS 10.. Brazil. T. November). 467-477. Paper presented at the Traffic Engineering and Management in Malaysia workshop. W. Motorcyclist accident involvement by age. Driving: through the eyes of teens. Personality across the ethnic divide in Singapore: are “Chinese traits” uniquely Chinese? Personality and Individual Differences.ghipr.  Che Ali bin Che Hitam (2001. Pacific Grove CA: Duxbury. R.0. 109-122..  Chang. 41.  Chaloupka-Risser (2005).-L. Visser. In Rothengatter.F. Carver. (2004). Proceedings of the International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT) Extra Workshop.-H. Retrieved March 31. 21(4). Campo Grande. 2007 from http:www. (1985). 61-71)..) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. J. and Denis.P. P. (1996).M. Motorists more careful because of Ops Sitak. Y.-H.  Chaplin.W. Amsterdam: Elsevier.com/statefarm/chop/youngdriversurvey/PDF/NYD_Survey_FIN. R. Matto Grosso do Sul. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. March 20-22. The Star.pdf 244 . R. T. N6.G. Cognitive effects of environmental knowledge on urban route planning strategies. Sunway Campus. November 12).  Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and State Farm Insurance (2007). F. Howard. 557-562.org/workshops/05CampoGrande  Chan. and Huguenin. R. Cheung.
... Smiley.  Chipman. Accident Analysis and Prevention. G. 196-203.G.. V. Kasniyah. N. Ward.  Clarke. Cairns.L. Bradshaw. and Huguenin. and Truman. Chioqueta. and Bukasa. Demakakos. 13(2). S. London: Wiley-Blackwell. (2005). T. P. Cancer Nursing. R. 431-443.  Christ. (2007).E. (Eds. (1999). (2002). A. Personality traits and the development of depression. (Ed. N. 245 . (2000)..C. and Lee-Gosselin.pdf  Conrad. (1992). Lamsudin.. R. Amsterdam: Elsevier. W.. Personality and Individual Differences. 377-390). hopelessness and suicide ideation.. How exposure information can enhance our understanding of child traffic ‘death leagues. A. C. Tzamalouka. June). Make Roads Safe: A New Priority for Sustainable Development.) An Introduction to Work and Organizational Psychology: A European Perspective (pp. 125-129. Bakou. Accident Analysis & Prevention. and Stiles. (1996). 24(2). injuries and cultural definitions: motorcycle injury in urban Indonesia.T.K. Retrieved December 7. D. C. P. M..P. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Patient-related barriers to cancer pain management in a palliative care setting in Hong Kong.S. Towner. M. Aggressive behavior while driving as predictor of self-reported car crashes.  Chmiel.org/documents/make_roads_safe_low_res. 974-981. 679-684. 193-200. and Costello. Panosch. Driver selection and improvement in Austria. Koumaki. In Chmiel. and Chan. The role fo motorcyclist and other driver behaviour in two types of serious accident in the UK.. Journal of Safety Research. 2007 from http://www. In Rothengatter. P.  Commission for Global Road Safety (2006. 22(3)..  Christie. J. S. C.’ Injury Prevention. R. T.. MacGregor. distance as measures of exposure in driving surveys.  Chung.D. 1283-1289. 33.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. Time vs. )2007). Helmets. and Ward. H. M.makeroadssafe. E.  Chliaoutaks. E. 28(2). 38(6). 39. C. Safety at work. (2004). French. N. and Darviri. P. B. 255-274). Y.. Bartle..D. N.M..
98-117.D.  Cowardly Malaysian drivers. Asian self-effacement or feminine modesty? Gender and Society. Applied Cognitive Psychology. p. The influence of car and driver stereotypes on attributions of vehicle speed. (1961). (2005). (2002). and Ponjaert-Kristofferson (2004). [Letter to the Editor] The Star Online. 16(5). 10. Editorial: Get out of my @%^$! way: there are a few things we should remember about this whole rudeness-on-the-road thing. F.thestar. and van Koppen. K. Stories of Modern Technology Failures and Cognitive Engineering Successes.A. 20(5).M. Domains and facets: hierarchical personality assessment using the Revised NEO Personality Inventory.S. (1991).  Crittendon. J. H. (1995). D. R. Cooke. 21-50. 246 .  de Waard. (Eds.  Cozan. and Patel. Cognitive/neuropsychological functioning and compensation related to car driving performance in older adults. Crashing memories and the problem of ‘source monitoring’. 64.  Costa. L. position on the road and culpability in a road accident scenario. W. N48  de Raedt.A.  Cresswell. N.W. and Huguenin. G.asp?id-7003.J. P. Accident proneness. Retrieved April 5. (1996). or variable accident tendency? Journal of the Statistical and Social Inquiry Society of Ireland. October 18).F. Amsterdam: Elsevier. R. 95-104. American Psychologist. and Durso..L. Journal of Personality Assessment.  Davin Arul (2005. and McRae.T. R.R. (1962). In Rothengatter. and Froggatt.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application. and Santos. 10. W. P.com. Mental workload. R.  Davies. (2006.M. 161-175). Wagenaar. 5(1). 152-171. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Legal and Criminological Psychology.  Crombag. 263.J. 45-62. February 8). 2007 from http://blog. T. Boca Raton Fl: CRC / Taylor & Francis. P.my/permalink. Human Factors for Engineers (pp. In Fuller. Engineering psychology and the highway transportation system. The Star. D.
..T. (1999). and Oetting. (2000). (1996). R. and Carbonell Vaya. (2002a). J. Journal of Counseling Psychology.  Delhomme.L. 729-730. 209-233). 247 .L. Ergonomics. and Salvatore. P. 28. On the measurement of driver mental workload. E. E. 41. T.. E.S.S. Huff. (Eds.R. 373-393. Characteristics of two groups of angry drivers.B. 34. Richards. Lynch.  Deffenbacher..) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. (Eds.. and Morris. E. Women’s Studies International Forum. In Rothengatter. In Dewar.E. Oetting. T.L. Filetti. Lynch. Lynch. (1998).R. Journal of Physicians and Surgeons Pakistan. J.E.R. K. Tucson. Age differences – drivers old and young. J. T. 575-590. de Waard.A. Power and pleasure around the stove: the construction of gendered identity in middle-class south Indian Hindu households in urban Malaysia. R. Amsterdam: Pergamon. 161-171). 123132.E. Personality and Individual Differences. R.S. and Olson.S.. S. R. Characteristics and treatment of high anger drivers.R. (Eds. AZ: Lawyers & Judges.) Human Factors in Traffic Safety (pp.. (2003).  Dewar. The expression of anger and its consequences. Tucson.  Dewar.D. 5-17. E. R.  Deffenbacher. S. 47. M. Individual differences. C. Journal of Counseling Psychology.L. E. P. Behaviour Research and Therapy. E. AZ: Lawyers & Judges. N. The Driver’s Angry Thoughts Questionnaire: a measure of angry cognitions when driving.  Dharmaratne.D. J..L. 1-20. and Meyer. Differential lateralization of trait anxiety and trait fearfulness: evoked potential correlates.W. L.) Human Factors in Traffic Safety (pp. 383-402. 333-356. J. Oetting. 26(1).  Dien.. and Olson. Petrilli.L. and Swaim. (1997). Cognitive Therapy and Research. and Brookhuis.C.  Deffenbacher. (2005). 111-142). (2002b). In Dewar.N. Oetting. and Ameratunga. (2004). 27(4). R. R. Road traffic injuries in Sri Lanka: a call to action. D. R.  Devashayam. 14(12).  Deffenbacher. R. (2003). 50(2). T.F.L. Control motivation and young drivers’ decision making. Lynch. P. R.
D. Brown. S. and Carbonell Vaya. Women drivers’ behaviour. Knowledge transfer. and Ballard. (2003). and Loke. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 14(2). December). C.. Effects of aggressive driving and river characteristics on road rage. T. Social Science Journal 38. Aldershot UK: Ashgate. 1146-1158. M.. J.. Nigeria.) Proceedings of Agriculture Ergonomics Development Conference (pp. Development and evaluation of a measure of dangerous aggressive. E.E. (Eds. 278-285).. In Rothengatter. Clayton. Aggression and ethnicity in Malaysia: a preliminary investigation. K. T..R. Jenkins.a. L. locus of control and worker safety in three Malaysian plantations: moving toward a contextual-mediate research model.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp.M.. 31. Bahar. C. A. M.  Downe. Science & Technology. Sungai Petani.A..P.  Draskóczy. D. 263282.  Dixey. Lim.  Downe.. and Mayser. November). accident causation and prevention: issues for health promotion from an exploratory study in a Yoruba town. The safety potential of the new driver assistance system (CSA). 53. socio-demographic characteristics and accidents.) Driver Behaviour and Training (pp. S. In Khalid. J. J.A. Ebersbach. (2007. Miller. ‘Fatalism’. 197208. R. W. Mohd Yusuff. Asian Institute of Medicine. 33.. Kuala Lumpur MY: IEA Press. Kedah. Ball.  Dula. C. M.T.  Dodge. (1997). Social information-processing factors in reactive and proactive aggression in children’s playgroups.. Traffic safety and the new research paradigm in human sciences. (1987). 248 .. (1999). T.G. (2001). H. R. and Rodgers. (Eds. Powers. 223-231).G. negative emotional and risky driving. S. Amsterdam: Pergamon.L. Paper presented at the First International Conference-Seminar on Culture. L.Y. Lippold. (Ed. 323-331. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. In Dorn.L. and Che Doi.L. 525-535. (1999). and Coie. M. Health Education Research. and McFadden. A.  Dukes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.S. M. (2003). 85-92). N.  Dobson. (2004. Dietze. Malaysia. R.E. A.
838-844. 771-782. (1962). A. Annals of Internal Medicine. Volume 3: Extensions and Limitations (pp. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry.ictct. Weather-related road accidents in England and Wales: a spatial analysis. 279-294.) Research with the Locus of Control Construct.L. Lalovic. 113. J. A. 74.  Elander.org/workshops/02-Brno/Elvik.. New York: Academic. Psychological Bulletin. R.. 159165.. 201-22. and intention to quit: a structural equations analysis. (1968). New York: Lyle Stuart Press.  Edwards. (2001). G.. Leadership and Organizational Development. Chawky. J. Cross cultural research with the locus of control construct. Behavioral correlates of individual differences in road-traffic crash risk: an examination of methods and findings. Kim. Amsterdam: Elsevier  Dyal.pdf  Engel. Causal ordering of stress. (2005). Psychiatric risk factors for motor vehicle fatalities in young men. A. G. 4(3). 209-306). 17-26). (2002). G.  Engel. and Turecki. Journal of Transport Geography.(Ed. 249 . A life setting conducive to illness: the giving up complex. (2005). C. R. 293-300. (1971).R. 22(4). Boyer.. C. 50(13). satisfaction and commitment. 69. 2007 from www. Lesage..  Elangovan.  Ellis.. West. Czech Republic. In Underwood.M. N. Reason and Emotion in Psychotherapy. Ménard-Buteau. Brno. G. J. and French D.L. March 20-22. Using epidemiological data to address psychological questions about pedestrian behavior. (Ed.B.A.. Retrieved December 25. (1993). (1984). In Lefcourt.  Dunbar. A. Annals of Internal Medicine. R. (1996). Sudden and rapid death during psychological stress.D.) Traffic and Transport Psychology (pp.. Dumais.  Elvik. A. H. G. To what extent can theory account for the findings of road safety evaluation studies? Proceedings of the International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT) 15th Workshop.
Traffic Safety and the Driver. and Alpert. K.  Evans.A. (Industrial Fatigue Research Board Report No. and Chambers. New York: McGraw Hill. G. L. p.  Ey. London: Medical Research Council. American Journal of Public Health. 6(1). 421-435.  Ferguson. Evans. Klesges. L.  Farran. 23(5). (1991). and Popovich. L. December 10). W. J. Worse than a war zone: our roads claim 6.G. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage. (2000). C.. E. Comment: the dominant role of driver behavior in traffic safety. (1926). Hope and Hopelessness: Critical Clinical Constructs. Risk Homeostasis Theory and traffic accident data. (1986). 250 .000 and RM5.A.  Farmer.. Herth.  Farmer. and Chambers.  Evans. E. Hadley. A study of accident proneness among motor drivers. Risk Analysis. B. Driver fatalities versus car mass using a new exposure approach. E. S. S. (1996). E. L. Patterson. London: Medical Research Council.  Farik Zolkepli (2007. Barnard. 86(6).M. E. (Industrial Fatigue Research Board Report No.G. M.S.G. London: Medical Research Council. The Star. Statistical Analysis in Psychology and Education. 38). 784-786. (1929). 19-36. 16.. A psychological study of individual differences in accident rates. Accident Analysis and Prevention. (1984).6bil losses yearly. 81-94.M. (1939). A study of personal qualities in accident proneness and deficiency. (Industrial Fatigue Research Board Report No. Racial differences in adolescents’ perceived vulnerability to disease and injury. E. (1995). N22. 55).M. (1976). New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.. and Chambers.  Farmer. 84)..J. Journal of Behavioural Medicine. L.  Evans.
R.P. (1974). (2002).  Friedman. (2005). R. The task-capability interface model of the driving process. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Attitude. Reading MA: Addison-Wesley. Linderholm. P. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Human Factors for Engineers (pp. 461-472. In Fuller.  Forward. K. (1975). 37. Journal of Safety Research 38. and Rosenman. J. 207-213. 12(4).18(4).. Journal of American College Health. 77-97). S. E. Belief. (2000). S.  Forward. Towards a general theory of driver behaviour.W. B. 47-55. Cultural values in Malaysia: Chinese. consequences and considerations. (2007).. Intention and Behavior. (1986). August).  Frazier. (2004). Accident analysis and Prevention. I. 66.  Fuller. (1998. S. and Bragg.  Firestone. 51(1). In Proceedings of the 24th International Congress of Applied Psychology. Cross Cultural Management.. 137-145. Tix. A. A. San Francisco. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. and McCartt.  Fuller. and Seiden. Ferguson. I.A. 251 .  Fuller. 38(5). R. and Santos. and Barron. Women and traffic accidents.  Fishbein. M. Malays and Indians compared. 9. H. 115-134. (2005). Suicide and the continuum of self-destructive behavior. M.. Progress in teenage crash risk during the last decade.H. R. Journal of Counseling Psychology. Teoh. (2006). 412-426. and Richardson. S.W.A. R.R. The intention to commit driving violations – a qualitative study. R. and Ajzen. 289-298.  Fontaine.  Finn. 63-77.T. Recherche Transports Sécurité. S. R. (1990). Human factors and driving. and Järmark. Perception of the risk of an accident by young and older drivers. New York: Knopf. Type A Behavior and Your Heart. causes.A. R.E. Testing moderator and mediator effects in counseling psychology. P.
 Glass. Y.E. In Pfaff-Czarnecaka. (1977). N. (1999). Fuller. Journal of Applied Psychology. (1996). R.  Grayson.B. Rajasingham-Senanayake. Revue européenne de psychologie appliquée.B. E. (2006). (1949). 42(9).  Galovski. Internal locus of control moderates the effects of road-hostility on recalled driving behavior. Washington DC: American Psychological Association. L. Behavior Paterns. (2006). D.  Gomez. 487-491. and Pender.. Y.C. 109-128. Use of auditory icons as emergency warnings: evaluation within a vehicle collision avoidance application. Stress and Coronary Disease.  Gidron. 540-546. and Davidson. 58(1). A. (2008). (1999). (2006). S. Malta. Amsterdam: Pergamon.A. T. 167-202). 12(4). A. G. 93-96). Gal. 1233-1248. and Blanchard. (1997).) Ethnic Futures: The State and Identity Politics in Asia (pp. Mutu. H.  Graham. and Hyder. 33(6).  Gidron. Exploring the relationship between development and road traffic injuries: a case study from India..A. Theories and models in traffic psychology – a contrary view.. and Syna Desevilya. E. J. Ergonomics.T.. and Mahbob. Journal of Behavioural Medicine. Nandy. 13-21.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 109-116. Road Rage: Assessment and Treatment of the Angry. D.. A.. European Journal of Public Health. E.D. K. Tracing the ethnic divide: race. Journal of Food Products Marketing. E. Task difficulty and risk in the determination of driver behaviour.  Ghiselli. 16(5).E.  Garg. T. Development and preliminary validation of a brief intervention for modifying CHD-predictive hostility components. (2003). MY: Sage. C. In Rothengatter. Petaling Jaya. N.  Ghazali. (Eds. McHugh. R. 6. and Brown. The prediction of accidents of taxicab drivers.W. E. R. and Gomez. 203-220. 252 .T. Hillsdale. (Eds.S. rights and redistribution in Malaysia. E. Aggressive Driver. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. Attitude towards online purchase of fish in urban Malaysia: an ethnic comparison. 19.S. C. and Carbonell Vaya.
 Gregersen, N.P. and Falkmer, T. (2003). In-vehicle support systems and young, novice drivers.
In Dorn, L. (Ed.) Driver Behaviour and Training (pp. 277-292). Aldershot UK: Ashgate.
Green, P. (2002). Where do drivers look while driving (and for how long)? In Dewar, R. E. and Olson, P.L. (Eds.) Human Factors in Traffic Safety (pp. 77-110). Tucson, AZ: Lawyers & Judges.
Greenwald, A.G. and Pratkanis, A.R. (1988). On the use of ‘theory’ and the usefulness of theory. Psychological Review, 95, 575-579.
Greenwood, M. and Woods, H.M. (1919). The incidence of industrial accidents upon individuals with specific reference to multiple accidents. (Industrial Fatigue Research Board Report No. 4). London: Medical Research Council.
Greenwood, M. and Yule, C.V. (1920). An inquiry into the nature of frequency distributions representative of multiple happenings, with particular reference to the occurrence of multiple attacks of disease or repeated accidents. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 89, 255-279.
Griffiths, M. (2003). Communicating risk: journalists have responsibility to report risks in context. British Medical Journal, 327, 1404.
Groeger, J.A. (1997). Mood and driving: is there an effect of affect? In Rothengatter, T. and Carbonell Vaya, E. (Eds.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp.335342). Amsterdam: Pergamon.
Groeger, J.A. (2000). Understanding Driving: Applying Cognitive Psychology to a Complex Everyday Task. Hove, UK: Taylor & Francis.
Groeger, J.A. (2002). Trafficking in cognition: applying cognitive psychology to driving. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 5, 235-248.
Groeger, J.A. and Clegg, B.A. (1995). Automaticity and driving: time to change gear? In Rothengatter, T. and Carbonell Vaya, E. (Eds.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp.137-246). Amsterdam: Pergamon.
Groeger, J.A. and Rothengatter, J.A. (1998). Traffic psychology and behaviour. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 1(1), 1-9.
Guastello, S.J. and Guastello, D.D. (1986). The relation between the locus of control construct and involvement in traffic accidents. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 120(3), 293-297.
Haber, R.N. and Haber, L. (2002). Why witnesses to accidents make mistakes: the cognitive psychology of human memory. In Dewar, R. E. and Olson, P.L. (Eds.) Human Factors in Traffic Safety (pp. 663-695). Tucson, AZ: Lawyers & Judges
Haddon, W. Jr. (1963). A note concerning accident theory and research with special reference to motor vehicle accidents. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 107, 635-646.
Haddon, W. Jr. (1970). A logical framework for categorizing highway safety phenomena and activity. Paper presented at the 10th International study Week in Traffic and Safety Engineering, Rotterdam, 7-11 September.
Haddon, W. Jr. (1972). A logical framework for categorizing highway safety phenomena and activity. Journal of Trauma, 12, 193-207.
Harrell, W.A. (1995). Factors influencing involvement in farm accidents. Perceptual Motor Skills, 81(2), 592-594.
Hauer, E. (1987). The reign of ignorance. Proceedings of Conference on Transportation and Deregulation and Safety.. Chicago: Northwestern University.
Hair, J.F. Jr., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E. and Tatham, R.L. (2006). Multivariate Data Analysis. Sixth Edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Haight, F.A. (1986). Risk – especially risk of traffic accident. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 5, 359-366.
Haight, F.A. (2004). Accident proneness: the history of an idea. In Rothengatter, T. and Huguenin, R.D. (Eds.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. 421-432). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Hale, A.R. and Glendon, A.I. (1987). Individual Behaviour in the Control of Danger. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Hampson, P.J. and Morris, P.E. (1996). Understanding Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
Harbin, T.J. (1989). The relationship between the type A behavior pattern and physiological responsivity: a quantitative review. Psychophysiology, 26(1), 110-119.
Harlow, L.L. (2005). The Essence of Multivariate Thinking: Basic Themes and Methods. London: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.
Harper, J.S., Marine, W.M., Garrett, C.J., Lezotte, D. and Lowenstein, S.R. (2000). Motor vehicle crash fatalities: a comparison of Hispanic and non-Hispanic motorists in Colorado. Annals of Emergency Medincie, 36(6), 589-596.
Harré, N. Foster, S. and O’Neill, M. Self-enhancement, crash-risk optimism and the impact of safety advertisements on young drivers. British Journal of Psychology, 96(Pt 2), 215-230.
Harris, J.A. (1997). A further evaluation of the Aggression Questionnaire: issues of validity and reliability. Behaviour Research & Therapy, 35, 1047-1053.
Hattaka, M., Keskinen, E., Gregerson, N.P., Glad, A. and Hernetkoski, K. (2002). From control of the vehicle to personal self-control; broadening the perspectives to driver education. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 5, 201-216.
Hattaka, M., Keskinen, E., Katila, A. and Laapotti, S. (1997). Self-reported driving habits are valid predictors of violations and accidents. In Rothengatter, T. and Carbonell Vaya, E. (Eds.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. 295-304). Amsterdam: Pergamon.
Heerwagen, J.H. and Orians., G.H. (1993). Humans, habitats and aethetics. In Kellert, S.O. and Wilson, E.O. (Eds.) The Biophilia Hypothesis. 9 (pp. 138-172) Washington DC: Shearwater Books / Island Press.
Henderson, J.T. (1976, April). Hope and self-destruction: the ratio of external threat to feelings of personal competence on the underlying continuum of self-destructive behavior. Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the Southwester Psychological Association. Albuquerque, NM.
Hernetkoski, K. and Keskinen, E. (1998). Self-destruction in Finnish motor traffic accidents in 1974-1992. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 30(5), 697-704.
Herzog, T.R., Black, A.M., Fountaine, K.A. and Knotts, D.J. (19970. Reflection and attentional recovery as distinctive benefits of restoratie environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 17,, 165-170.
Hewstone, M. and Ward, C. (1985). Ethnocentrism and causal attribution in Southeast Asia. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48(3), 614-623.
Hochschild, (1979). Emotion, work, feeling rules and social structure, American Journal of Sociology, 85, 551-575.
Hofstede, G. (1998). A case for comparing apples with oranges: international differences in values. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 39, 17-29.
Hofstede, G. (1999). Cultures and Organizations: Intercultural Cooperation and its Importance for Survival. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Holder, E.E. and Levi, D.J. (2006). Mental health and locus of control: SCL-90-R and Levenson’s IPC scales. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 44(5), 753-755.
Holzmann, F. (2008). Adaptive Cooperation Between Driver and Assistant System: Improving Road Safety. Springer.
Hong, I., Iwasaki, M., Furuichi, T. and Kadoma, T. (2006). Eye movement and driving behavior in curved section passages of an urban motorway. Proceedings of the Institute of Mechanical Engineers, 220(D10), 1319-1331.
Horswill, M.S. and Coster, M.E. (2002). The effect of vehicle characteristics on drivers’ risktaking behaviour. Ergonomics, 45(2), 85-104.
 Howarth, C.I. and Gunn, M.J. (1982). Pedestrian safety and the law. In Chapman, A.J., Wade,
F.M. and Foot, H.C. (Eds.) Pedestrian Accidents (pp. 265-290). Chichester UK: John Wiley & Sons.
Hoyle, R.H. and Robinson, J.C. (2004). Mediated and moderated effects in social psychological research: measurement, design and analysis issues. In Sansone, C., Morf, C. and Panter, AT. (Eds.) Handbook of Methods in Social Psychology (pp. 213-233).
Hoyt, M.F. (1973). Internal-external locus of control and beliefs about automobile travel. Journal of Research in Personality, 7, 288-293.
Hsieh, T.T., Shybut, J., and Lotsof, E.J. (1969). Internal versus external control and ethnic group membership. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 33, 122-124.
Huguenin, R.D. (1997). Do we need traffic psychology models? In Rothengatter, T. and Carbonell Vaya, E. (Eds.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. 31-40). Amsterdam: Pergamon.
Huguenin, R.D. (2001). Models in traffic psychology. In In Barjonet, P.-E.. (Ed.) Traffic Psychology Today (pp. 31-59). Boston: Kluwer.
Huguenin, R.D. (2005). Traffic psychology in a (new) social setting. In Underwood, G.(Ed.) Traffic and Transport Psychology (pp. 3-14). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Hyder, A.A. and Peden, M. (2003). Inequality and road-traffic injuries: call for action. Lancet, 2034-2035.
Hyman, G.J., Stanley, R. and Burrows, G.D. (1991). The relationship between three multidimensional locus of control scales. Educational and Psychological Measuresment, 51(2), 403-412.
Inagaki, T. (2003). Adaptive automation: sharing and trading of control. In Hollnagel, E. (Ed.) Handbook of Cognitive Task Design (pp. 147-169). LEA
Isani, R. (1963). From hopelessness to hope. Perspectives in Psychiatric Care, 1(2), 15-17.
Islam, Z. and Hoque, N.M.S. (2004, December). Road users behavioral culture of Dhaka, Bangladesh: an anthropological perspective. Paper presented at the First International Conference-Seminar on Culture, Asian Institute of Medicine, Science & Technology, Sungai Petani, Kedah, Malaysia.
Iverson, H. and Rundmo, T. (2002). Personality, risky driving and accident involvement among Norwegian drivers. Personality and Individual Differences 44, 1251-1263.
Jacobs, G. and Baguley, C. (2004). Traffic safety. In Robinson, R. and Thagesen, B. (Eds.) Road Engineering for Development (pp. 57-77). London: Spon.
Jaffe, E. (2004). What was I thinking: Kahneman explains how intuition leads us astray. Association for Psychological Science Observer, 17, 5.
James, L. and Nahl, D. (2000). Road Rage and Aggressive Driving. Amherst NY: Prometheus.
James, L.R., Mulaik, S.A., and Brett, J.M. (1982). Causal Analysis: Assumptions Models and Data. Beverly Hills CA: Sage.
Johnson, H.M. (1946). The detection and treatment of accident-prone drivers. Psychological Bulletin, 43(6), 489-532.
Johnston, I. (2007). Road trauma in the region – avoiding a pandemic. Journal of the Road Engineering Association of Asia & Australasia, 14(2), 5-12.
Jonah, B.A. (1997a). Sensation seeking and risky driving. In Rothengatter, T. and Carbonell Vaya, E. (Eds.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. 259-267), Amsterdam: Pergamon.
Jonah, B.A. (1997b). Sensation seeking and risky driving. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 18, 255-271.
Joseph, C. (2006). Negotiating discourses of gender, ethnicity and schooling: ways of being Malay, Chinese and Indian schoolgirls in Malaysia. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 141), 35-53.
Kahneman, D. (2003). Maps of bounded rationality: psychology for behavioral economics. American Economic Review, 93, 1449-1475.
Kahneman, D., Slovic, P. and Tversky, A. (1982). Judgement Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kanfer, F.H. and Goldstein, A.P. (Eds.) (1990). Helping People Change: A Textbook of Methods. London: Allyn & Bacon
Karlberg, L., Undén, A.-L., Elofsson, S. and Krakau, I. (1998). Is there a connection between car accidents, near accidents, and Type A drivers? Behavioral Medicine, 243(3), 99-106.
Kawazoe, H., Murakami, T.., Sadano, O., Suda, K. and Ono, H. (2001). Development of a lanekeeping support system. Proceedings of Intelligent Vehicle Technology and Navigation Systems pp. 29-35). Warrendale, PA: Society of Automotive Engineers.
Kenny, D.A. (2006. February 7). Mediation. Retrieved April 9, 2006, from http://www.davidakenny.net/cm/mediate.htm
Kerlinger, F.N. and Lee, H.B. (2000). Foundations of Behavioral Research. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Keskinen, E., Hatakka, M. and Katila, A. (1992). Inner models as a basis for traffic behaviour. Journal of Traffic Medicine, 20(4), 147-152.
Keskinen, E., Hatakka, M., Laaapotti, S., Katila, A. and Peräho, M. (2004). Driver behaviour as a hierarchical system. In Rothengatter, T. and Huguenin, R.D. (Eds.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. 9-24). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
King, A. (2004) Measures and meanings: the use of qualitative data in social and personality psychology. In Sansone, C., Morf, C.C. and Panter, A.T. (Eds.) The Sage Handbook of Methods in Psychology (pp. 145-172). Thousand Oaks CA: Sage
King, Y. and Parker, D. (2008). Driving violations, aggression and perceived consensus. Revue européenne de psychologie appliqué, 58(1), 43-19.
Klem, L. (2000). Structural equation modeling. In Grimm, L.G. and Yarnold, P.R. (Eds.) Reading and Understanding More Multivariate Statistics. Washington DC: American Psychological Association.
Klockars, A.J. and Hancock, G.R. (2000). Scheffé’s more powerful F-protected post hoc procedure. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Sciences, 25(1), 13-19.
Koh, S. (2005, October 31). Stop the road carnage! Malaysian Chinese Association (MCA) Online. Retrieved April 5, 2007 from http://www.mca.org.my/services/printerfriendly.asp?file=/articles/exclusive/2005/10/47611.html &lg=1
Korff, R. (2001). Globalisation and communal identities in the plural society of Malaysia. Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography, 22(3), 270-284.
Krishnan, R., & Radin Umar, R.S. (1997). An update on road traffic injuries in Malaysia. Journal of University Malaya Medical Centre, 2(1), 39-41.
Laapotti, S. and Keskinen, E. (1998). Differences in fatal loss-of-control accidents between young male and female drivers. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 30(4), 435-442.
Laapotti, S. and Keskinen, E. (2004a). Are female drivers adopting male drivers’ way of driving? In Rothengatter, T. and Huguenin, R.D. (Eds.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application. (pp. 201-208). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Laapotti, S. and Keskinen, E. (2004b). Has the difference in accident patterns between male and female drivers changed between 1984 and 2000? Accident Analysis and Prevention, 36, 577-584.
Laapotti, S., Keskinen, E. and Rajalin, S. (2003). Comparison of young male and female drivers’ attitude and self-reported traffic behaviour in Finland in 1978 and 2001. Journal of Safety Research, 34(5), 579-587.
Laapotti, S., Keskinen, Htakka, M. and Katila, A. (2001). Novice drivers’ accidents and violations – a failure on higher or lower hierarchical levels of driving behaviour. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 33, 759-769.
Lajunen, T. (2001). Personality and accident liability: are extraversion, neuroticism and psychoticism related to traffic and occupational fatalities? Personality and Individual Differences, 31(8), 1365-1373.
Lajunen, T. and Summala, H. (1995). Driving experience, personality, and skill and safetymotive dimensions in drivers’ self-assessments. Personality and Individual Difference, 19, 307318.
Lajunen, T. and Summala, H. (1997). Effects of driving experience, personality, driver’s skill and safety orientation on speed regulation and accidents (pp. 283-294). In Rothengatter, T. and Carbonell Vaya, E. (Eds.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. 283294), Amsterdam: Pergamon.
Lam, L.T. (2004). Environmental factors associated with crash-related mortality and injury among taxi drivers in New South Wales, Australia. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 36, 905908.
Lambie, J.A. and Marcel, A.J. (2002). Consciousness and the varieties of emotion experience: a theoretical framework. Psychological Review, 109, 219-259.
Langdridge, D. (2004). Introduction to Research Methods and Data Analysis in Psychology. London: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Lau, G., Seow, E. and Lim, E.S.Y. (1998). A review of pedestrian fatalities in Singapore from 1990 to 1994. Annals of the Academy of Medicine, 27(6), 830-837.
Law, T.H., Radin Umar, R.S.,and Wong, S.V. (2005). The Malaysian government’s road accident death reduction target for year 2010. IATSS Research / International Association of Traffic and Safety Sciences, 29(1), 42-49.
Law, T.H., Radin Umar, R.S., Zulkaurnain, S. and Kulanthayan, S. (2005). Impact of the effect of economic crisis and the targeted motorcycle safety programme on motorcycle-related accidents, injuries and fatalities in Malaysia. International Journal of Injury Control and Safety Promotion, 12(1), 9-21.
A.  Levenson. H.  Lenior. K.  Leech. 41. (1974). Moscati. (2002).  Lefcourt.C. H. 37.P. The influence of demographic factors on seatbelt use by adults injured in motor vehicle crashes.  Lee. Barrett. H. Mahwah. (2005).M. Jehle.. Activism and powerful others: distinctions within the concept of internalexternal control. Journal of Personality Assessment. (1989). (Ed. Accident Analysis and Prevention. H. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.M. 377-383. R. 2nd Edition. G. Journal of Social Psychology. 3.407-423. Human-factors engineering for smart transport: decision support for car drivers and train traffic controllers.B. 93. H. Conner. (1973). 262 .M. Billittier. W. Neerincx and Schreibers (2006). and Stiller. (1976). A comparison of reported levels and expression of anger in everyday and driving situations. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. D. Locus of Control: Current Trends in Theory and Research. British journal of Psychology. D. H. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. IV. Janssen. Applied Ergonomics. 303-304.) Research with the Locus of Control Construct. (2001). G..  Lefcourt. Lawton.V. (2002). 479-490. Additional dimensions of internal-external control.  Lerner. N.M. (1975). 253-269). C. 177-196.  Levenson. In Lefcourt. and Nutter. E. Dutton.A.. In Southeast Asian Affairs 2002: An Annual Review.  Levenson.M. 659-662.. New York: Academic. Multidimensional locus of control in psychiatric patients. Malay dominance and opposition politics.G. Volume 2: Developments and Social Problems (pp. R.L. 38.. SPSS for Intermediate Statistics: Use and Implementation. The locus of control as a moderator variable: stress. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychiatry. pp.K. Cancer as a turning point.J. L. 397-401.  LeShan. New York: E. (1983). A. H. and Morgan. 97.
 Lonczak. (Ed. 15-63). powerful others and chance. Media Statement released by the Office of the Malaysian Parliamentary Opposition Leader and Democratic Action Party Secretary-General. A.  Levy.my/news/story. Predicting risky and angry driving as a function of gender. The Star Online.P. D. 213-222. E. (1979). Neighbors. Tools of Critical Thinking: Metathoughts for Psychology. New York: Academic. March 26). Internal and external control as determinants of decision making under conditions of risk. 59-67. J. 263 . and Donovan.) Research with the Locus of Control Construct. S. (2002) Driver skill: performance and behaviour.A.com. (1999. Accident Analysis and Prevention. L-L. 536-545. Retrieved May 14. H-F. M-R.htm. Edmonton AB: University of Alberta Press. Retrieved April 5. Accident Analysis and Prevention. and Yen.P.M.  Lindsey. H. Accident-proneness: does it exist? Occupational Safety and Health... Huang.. H. 125-127.  Loo.  Lonero. L. 10.M. Hwang.com/archive/1999/feb99/sg1541.asp?file=/2007/3/26/nation/17254652&sec=nation&focus=1. H-D. K. (1960). (1997). In Rothe. Volume 1: Assessment Methods (pp. F.S. (1981).  Lim. Wu. 7. Differentiating among internality. D. Defensive driving a must under new curriculum.  Lin. 2007 from http://www. W. (1980). (2007.S.  Looi. C. 2007 from http://thestar. 39(3). R.. 11. Role of primary personality factors in the perception of traffic signs and driver violations and accidents. Levenson. February 2). In Lefcourt. 36. H.. Accident Analysis and Prevention. (Ed. I. (2007). The effect of crash experience on changes in risk taking among urban and rural young people. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.limkitsiang. Psychological Reports. (2004).) Driving Lessons: Exploring Systems that Make Traffic Safer. 8-9  Liverant. and Scodel. Liong Sik should convene an emergency meeting of the Cabinet Committee on Road Safety to develop an urgent strategy to ensure that the number of road deaths during this year’s Hari Raya Aidilfitri and Chinese New Year would not exceed the toll of last year.
Driver information systems: a preliminary investigation of motorists information requirements in Kuala lUmpur. Journal of Personality.. W. A three-factor model of trait anger: dimensions. 103.R. 18(4).M. I. May).  Massie. 73-87.A. 129. D. Malaysia.R. Altering locus of control of individuals with hearing impairments by outdoor-adventure courses.  Matthews. M.  Marsh. 31. (2000).28. C. Basics of Structural Equation Modeling. (Ed.F. and Balla. 264 . and Williams.L.  Luckner. Accident Analysis and Prevention. A. H. Goodness-of-fit indexes in confirmatory factor analysis: the effect of sample size. behavior and cognition.A. M. R.  Marcoulides.A. R. Aldershot UK: Ashgate.  Martin. Quality & Quantity.L.R. Young driver research program – a review of information on young driver performance characteristics and capabilities. driving violations and accident involvement in relation to drivers’ sex. R... K. Monash University Accident Research Centre. 62-67.L. A. G. Lourens. (1994). (1999). and Jessurun. and McDonald. P. J. 27(1).W. of affect. 185-217. (1988). Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.  Macdonald.M. J. 869-897.. 299313.  Maakip. 55(2). age. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Australia. J. Age differences in male drivers’ perception of accident risk: the role of perceived driving ability.  Maruyama. Campbell. In Dorn. (1994. Accident Analysis & Prevention. (1997). (1995). Vissers. Multivariate Statistical Methods: A First Course. H. Report No. 391-411. Balla. and Mooran. Psychological Bulletin. Watson. (1989). G.M. Journal of Rehabilitation.. (1986). 593-597. and Hershberger. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage. and Wan. and level of education.P.F. Goodness-of-fit in CFA: the effects of sample size and model parsimony. (2003). S. D. 233-252). (1998). J. Traffic accident involvement rates by driver age and gender.L. Victoria NSW.K.  Marsh.L. Annual mileage. 68(5).W.) Driver Behaviour and Training (pp. L. C.
Journal of Managerial Psychology. D. I.malaysia-today.P. (1977). E.  McKenna. and Brown. Can we predict suicide and nonfatal self harm with the Beck Hopelessness Scale? A metanalysis. R.E. (1989). 71-77. A.htm  McConnell.  Md-Sidin.  McRae. Cognitive-Behavior Modification: An Integrative Approach. Retrieved April 5.. Hampshire UK. (2009). Psychological Medicine. November 6). 265 . J. Accident proneness: a conceptual analysis.P.. Sambasivan. New York: Guilford. Gilbody. Ismail.. F. D. and Costa. P.. S. Fort Worth TX: Holt. 45-52.P. Relationship between work-family conflict and the quality fo life: an investigation into the role of social support. 23. Perspectives Psychiatriques. 649-663. (2007).  McMillan. (1989). I. Waylen. and Burkes. 37(6). G. Duncan. Malaysia Today. 2007 from http://www. Rinehar and Winston. L.. (1990). Beresford. (1986). (1983). Risk Analysis.W. New York: Plenum. F. Ergonomics. 29. Accident Analysis and Prevention.R. J.  Meichenbaum.  McKenna. M. The University of Reading. (1998). and Neilly.  Mendel.D.  McKenna. Cognitive abilities and safety on the road: a re-examination of individual differences in dichotic listening and search for embedded figures. (1974).net/Bloge/2005/11/malaysia-records-highest-single-day.E. (2005. 769-778. [ in press]. Traffic accidents and convictions: group totals versus rate per kilometer driven. S. 9. G. Malaysia records highest single-day death toll during holiday period. F. 173-181. 34(47). Personality in Adulthood. Male and female drivers: how different are they? AA Foundation for Road Safety Research.  Mercer.. Understanding Human Behavior. M.V. Unconscious suicides.
38(6). M. V.L. Aggressive driving behaviors: are there psychological and attitudinal predictors? Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour.pdf  Moller.  Monárrez-Espino. Accident Analysis and Prevention.J. Journal of Applied Psychology. Finland.A. and Niemi. J. 266 . Aggressive driving. Kayumov. (154). Washington DC. (1989).. Explanatory pitfalls and rule-based driver models. 75-85. C.L. and Schwing. L. Statistics.  Michon. from http://www. and Blum. 21(4). R. (2006).. M. J. and Keskinen.org. E. Journal of Psychosomatic Research. P. H.php.  Miles. 335-342.A. J. Journal of Applied Psychology. A critical review of driver behaviour models: what do we know. 2006 from http://www. E. microsleep episodes.E. D. AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety. Simulator performance.) Proceedings of the Finnish-Soviet Symposium on Cognitive Processes. 6(2). (2006). In Helkama. L. A. Retrieved December 15.) Human Behaviour and Traffic Safety. (Eds. Nhan. Hasselberg.aaafoundation. 61(3).. G. and Johnson.  Mintz.. what should we do? In Evans. A. Turku.org/pdf/agdr3study. (1983. and subjective sleepiness: normative data using convergent methodologies to assess driver drowsiness. Bulmas. (1949).L. 44(2).panducermat. In Aggressive driving: three studies. (2003). A re-examination of the accident proneness concept.  Mizel.my/en/street_smart_statistik. Time intervals between accidents. 401406. L. 2007. (1997). l. Michon. New York: Plenum. 195-211. K.  Mintz. and Laflamme. J. Cognitive theory of traffic behaviour.M. May). First year as a licensed car deriver: gender differences in crash experience. Retrieved May 23.  Mikkonen. 147-161. Safety Science.  Ministry of Transport Malaysia (2007). and Shapiro.C. 341-353. (1985). (Eds. 33(3).
K. Amsterdam: North Holland. S. (1999). R. (2007). 243-261.  Nandy. 51-63. (Eds.L. Nandy. J. Petaling Jaya. R. Transcultural Psychiatry.) Ethnic Futures: The State and Identity Politics in Asia (pp. Religioin 37. and Maniam. 339-343. Rajasingham-Senanayake. 38(1). Clinical problems of anger and its assessment and regulation through a stress coping skills approach. H. Journal of the Institute of Automobile Assessors. Coping with the politics of faiths and cultures: between secular state and ecumenical traditions in India. W..  Näätänen. (Eds. A. 72. 125-132. Fifth Edition.  Morris. 8. 42. 15(2). and Astur. Road User Behavior and Traffic Accidents. Feature-based attentional set as a cause of traffic accidents. P.  Most. and Comrey. (1994). 267 .L. T. Journal of Applied Psychology. W.L. 137-144. A model for the role of motivational factors in drivers’ decision-making. Visual Cognition. (1974).  Neuman. A.  Näätänen. Montag. L. Defining ‘modern’ Malay womanhood and the coexistent messages of the veil. In O’Donoghue . E.B. 164-174. Internality and externality as correlates of involvement in fatal driving accidents.. Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches.  Niméus. R. (1987). R. (2003). New York: Allyn & Bacon. and Summala. MY: Sage. 32-37. A. 320-388).  Mousser.S.E. (1976). In Pfaff-Czarnecaka. (2007).T. 6. Accident proneness and road accidents. A. A. (2001) Ethnicicity and suicidal behaviour in Malaysia: a review of the literature. Boston: Pearson.) Handbook of Psychological Skills Training: Clinical Techniques and Application (pp. and Gomez.  Novaco. and Summala H. I. Träskman-Bendz and Alsén (1997). 167-202)..  Moore. D. Hopelessness and suicidal behavior. (1956). Journal of Affective Disorders. Accident Analysis and Prevention. and Krasner.
(Ed. [Review of the book Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application]. E. M. In Fuller. R.  O’Connell.  N-S highway still one of the safest roads. 654-656.  Noy. The decade 1989-1998 in Spanish psychology: an analysis of development of professional psychology in Spain.R. In Baenninger..  O’Neill. Pentilla. (1997). R. P. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice.  Novaco.38. (Eds. (1996). 253-326). and Z. Injury Prevention. W. M. Oxford UK: North Holland. Human factors in modern traffic systems. Spanish Journal of Psychology. (1998). 171. says operator. In Dewar. Social psychological principles: ‘the group inside the person’. 468-472. I. Road traffic injuries in developing countries: a comprehensive review of epidemiological studies.L. p. R. February 8).. AZ: Lawyers & Judges. 268 . Temes. (2002). (2007. (2000). [Letter to the Editor] The Star. and Williams. K. Tucson.  Ohberg. Amsterdam: Elsevier  Odero. Garner.A. p. 40(10). Aldershot. A. Aggression on roadways. A. Driver suicides. P. 4(2).W.L (2002). 2(5). December 9).  Ogden. N51. P. UK: Ashgate. J. J.B.  Our roads are filled with selfish drivers. 237-252. and Santos. British Journal of Psychiatry. J. 201-215).  Ochando.  Olson. (2001). F. (1997). 92-93. B.. Novaco. Tropical Medicine and International Health. Driver perception-response time. 1016-1024. R. and Hermida. Risk homeostasis hypothesis: a rebuttal.) Human Factors in Traffic Safety (pp. A. 43-76). Safer Roads: A Guide to Road Safety Engineering. R. Human Factors for Engineers (pp.W. 4. (1996. 34.) Targets of Violence and Aggression: Advances in Psychology (pp. Ergonomics. Straits Times. Zwi (1997).W. and Lonnqvist. and Olson.F (2001). 445-460.S.
.  Parker. Exploring motorcyclist injury severity in approach-turn collisions at T-junctions: focusing on the effects of the driver’s failure to yield and junction control measures. (1988).A.pdf -  Pai. D. A. H.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application. (2004). S.ictct. 37(1).. Locus of control in university students from eastern and western societies. and Saleh. Anger and aggression among drivers in three European countries. B. 1036-1048. (1995). Ergonomics. L. J.G. T. 42.  Parker. 125-134). R. 40. Tassinary. and Lajunen (2005).T.R. 479-486.. Journal of Environmental Psychology. The view from the road: implications for stress recovery and immunisation. (Eds. (2001). 18. and Huguenin. C.  Parsons.. Ulrich. Poster session presented at the 18th International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT).  Parkinson. Reason. (pp. Road safety: what has social psychology to offer? In Rothengatter. 113-140.  Parker. Driving errors. N. Lajunen. Applied Psychology: An International Review.  Parsons. and Schneider. 507-526. D.R and Stradling.G. 38(5). Multidimensional Traffic Locus of Control Scale (T-LOC): factor structure and relationship to risky driving. M. Personality and Individual Difference. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. (1974). and Kaistinen.  Özkan. 92. Anger on and off the road. 38(3). and Summala. Accident Analysis & Prevention. 456-461. and Grossman-Alexander. T. T.. (2005). 269 .S. Dimensions of driving behaviour and driver characteristics. J. T. R.org/workshops/05Helsinki/P1_Ozkan. Accident Analysis & Prevention. Lajunen. Finland. 229-235. Özkan. Traffic locus of control. Helsinki. 533-545.. C.E. T. 3-13. (1998). and Synodinos. (2008). Hebl.D.. driving violations and accident involvement.M. R.W. Retrieved December 20.  Papacostas.S.S. driving skills and attitudes toward in-vehicle technologies (ISA & ACC). Manstead. M. (2002). W. Amsterdam: Elsevier. O. 2007 from www. British Journal of Psychology. 34. D. J.
B. 8(1).. M. Road traffic injuries are a global public health problem [Letters]. Perceptual and Motor Skills. Neuroticism-extraversion as correlates of accident occurrence.B. Quera-Salva. A. (2000). 9-14 270 . Type A behaviour pattern and motor vehicle drivers’ behaviour.. A. Hyder. G. D. S. Mohan. D.  Per. B.J. and Renner. 324.  Philip.A.  Peters. D. 875-878. M.. (2003). (1986).. Campo Grande. (2002). K. (2002).  Perry. 63. Further evidence of associations of type A personality scores and driving-related attitudes and behaviors. World report on road traffic injury prevention. D.) (2004). Road safety in southeast Asia: factors affecting motorcycle safety. 91. P. M. 201-204. and Al Haji. Bioulac. and Baldwin.  Phares.ictct. Superstition. March 20-22. L. G. and Mathers (Eds. Scurfield. and Hyder. Morristown NJ: General Learning. London: Taylor & Francis. (1971).J. and Åkerstedt.  Peltzer. U. 2007 from http:www. Taillard. Simple reaction time. British Medical Journal. Peden. and Peters. 147-154.  Peden. and Singh. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Are young drivers really more dangerous after controlling for exposure and experience? Journal of Safety Research. risk-taking and risk perception of accidents among South African taxi drivers.R. Automotive Vehicle Safety.H. 68-79.. duration of driving and sleep deprivation in young versus old automobile drivers. Matto Grosso do Sul. A.A.M. Switzerland: World Health Organization. Proceedings of the International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT) Extra Workshop. Brazil.A.s  Pelz. (2005). Journal of Sleep Research.. Geneva. R. (1980). Perceptual and Motor Skills..C. Locus of Control in Personality. 12(3). 3. D. E. 1153. Accident Analysis and Prevention. T. (1999).R. W. Jarawan.and Schuman. A. (1976). Sleet. E. 35.org/workshops/05-CampoGrande  Perry. Retrieved March 31. 619-623.  Pestonjee.. J.
Venturesomeness and extraversion as correlated of juvenile drivers’ traffic violations. P. 3112). 26. (1994). New York: McGraw Hill. D. Human Error. R. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health.  Prociuk. Journal of Applied Psychology. 78-80. R. Breen. and Lussier.  Reason.J. K. and Langley. reasons for riding and the social context of riding among young on-road motorcyclists in New Zealand. 29(1). (2000). Ergonomics. J. J.. Manstead.S. T. (1991). and Pant. 299-300. (2007). 284-288.. (1993). and Campbell.. 317-333. The Psychology of Judgment and Decision Making.A. A. IATSS Research / International Association of Traffic and Safety Sciences. 33. L.J. 733-750. 271 .-G. Psychology of drivers in traffic accidents. Stradling. 32(3).. (1965). (1996). 49(4).D. 1315-1332. Delineating road accident risk along mountain roads. T. (1976).I. S.  Porter. J. and Harris. S. C.  Preston.  Proctor. W. J. and Anderle. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Plous. (1989). F.S. Rider training. Baxter.  Radin Umar.E.H. 566-573.. Performance differences of individuals classified by questionnaire as accident prone or non-accident prone. 673-678.  Ranney. E. S. Traffic Engineering and Control. 20(4). Errors and violations on the roads: a real distinction? Ergonomics. Chalmers. C.N. S.J. 32(2). Models of driving behavior: a review of their evoloution. (1990). Hopelessness. Cambridge University Press. 334-343. Accident reduction through area-wide traffic schemes. S.  Reason.  Rautela. Journal of Clinical Psychology. S. (1990).  Reeder. Updates of road safety status in Malaysia. 16(3). and Corlett.J. Disaster Prevention and Management. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 32. 369-374  Renner. (2005). internal-external locus of control and depression.
R.  Robbins. E.. Human factors and motor vehicle crashes: a conceptual framework for ergonomic research in South East Asia.64.B. (2003.G. (2005b) Fatal red light crashes: the role of race and ethnicity.. 34(15). 1-7. Singapore: Elsevier. Anger. European Federation of Psychologists’ Associations Task Force on Traffic Psychology. Organizational Behavior. Tippetts. Retting.efpa. and Downe. (2004). H. S. T. 2007 from http://www. and Nickel. M. K.html  Robbins. R.  Romano.P.  Rimmö. (2000). (2005a) Stop sign violations: the role of race and ethnicity on fatal crashes. (2007) Statistik2006. 45(8). S. Jefferson NC: McFarland & Company. R. (2003). P. Journal of Safety Research. S. Journal of Safety Research.. Ergonomics.pdf  Risser. Pacific Grove CA: Brooks/Cole.96/v5/statistik/statistik-2006. (2005). R.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application.D.S. Retrieved May 23. 569-582. (2000). E. Weinstein. S. P. R. Amsterdam: Elsevier. P-A. Analysis of motor-vehicle crashes at stop signs in four U. 37(1).  Romano. and Voas.  Road Transport Department Malaysia [Jabatan Pengagkutan Jalan Malaysia].G. Upper Saddle River NJ: Prentice Hall. R.L. (2002).A.  Risser. Stress and Health. W-R. and Solomon. April).R.190. In Rothengatter. 453-460. Accident Analysis & Prevention. (Ed). Tippetts. A. Retrieved December 11. cities. Report to the General Assembly. Aggression and Violence: An Interdisciplinary Approach. and Voas. (Eds. (1999). 37(3).be/doc/Final%20report%20TF%20Traffic%20Psychology%20GA%202003. In Lim.Y. Theories of science in traffic psychology. and Huguenin. Aberrant driving behaviour: homogeneity of a four-factor structure in samples differing in age and gender. 485-489. 2007 from http://202. Proceedings of the joint conference of the Asia Pacific Conference on Human Computer Interaction and the Southeast Asian Ergonomics Society Conference.  Richardson. 272 .  Rice.
J. 489-493. 56-67. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. T. M.  Rotter. 5. and Bhopal. 84-115. J.) Behavioural Research in Road Safety VIII. Capital & Class. Amsterdam: Elsevier. T.  Rotter. 43(3). 595-600).P. (1966). Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources.B. 80. Differences between taxi and nonprofessional male drivers and attitudes towards traffic-violation penalties.B. (Ed.) Driving Lessons: Exploring Systems that Make Traffic Safer. In Underwood. Traffic psychology and road safety: separate realities.B. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. T. P-E. (2002). Psychological Monographs.) Traffic and Transport Psychology (pp. G.  Rothengatter. G. (2007). (1975). 273 . 3-12). Edmonton CA: University of Alberta Press. 45. T. J. The role of ethnicity in employee relations: the case of Malaysia. 10.  Rothengatter. and Bhopal. (2002). (Ed.) Traffic Psychology Today (pp. American Psychologist. M. and Shahar. In Rothe. (pp. 249-258. C. whole issue.  Rotter.P. Crowthorne UK: Transport Research Laboratory. Drivers’ illusions – no more risk. (Ed. (2001) Objectives. Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. 43(1). J. C. Some problems and misconceptions related to the construct of internal versus external control of reinforcement. (2005). Rosenbloom. A. The ethnic factor in state-labour relations: the case of Malaysia.  Rothengatter. Boston: Kluwer.  Rowley. (2005). T. 88.(Ed. topics and methods. In Barjonet. (1998). 214-220).  Rowley. J. 428-435  Rothe.  Rothengatter. An overview of traffic psychology: do research and measures match? In Grayson. (1990). 308-331. Traffic safety: content over packaging.B. (2006). Internal versus external control of reinforcement: a case history of a variable.
In Fuller.A2. J. Malaysiatoday (Reuters). Kuala Lumpur. The Star. Bukit Aman. S.  Royal Malaysian Police [Polis Diraja Malaysia] (2007). (1997). Statistik Kemalangan Jalanraya & Kematian.rmp. 37(2).  Sabey. (1999).net/Blog-n/2006/09/thrillsspills-death-plague-malaysian. F. Retrieved December 11. Thrills. Malaysian Road Accident Statistics. IBU Pejabat Polis. Malaysian Road Accident Statistics. 23-42). Kuala Lumpur. [Perankaan Kemalangang Jalanraya Malaysia].my.A. M. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Human Factors for Engineers (pp. IBU Pejabat Polis. (2002).  Salminen.gov. occupational. Kuala Lumpur. September 29).  Sadiq. 2007 from http://www.  Rude drivers lack emotional control.). Retrieved May 22. 33-36. (2005. sports and home accidents. spills & death plague Malaysian roads. [Perankaan Kemalangang Jalanraya Malaysia].  Salminen. Basingstoke UK: AA Foundation for Road Safety Research. Royal Malaysian Police [Polis Diraja Malaysia] (2000). p.  Saad. IBU Pejabat Polis. [Perankaan Kemalangang Jalanraya Malaysia]. Relationships between injuries at work and leisure time. and Heiskanen. IBU Pejabat Polis. Bukit Aman. September 26). R. J. Ergonomics of the driver’s interface with the road environment: the contribution of psychological research. [Perankaan Kemalangang Jalanraya Malaysia]. (2006. Bukit Aman. Kuala Lumpur.  Royal Malaysian Police [Polis Diraja Malaysia] (2003). Bukit Aman. Accident Analysis and Prevention.  Royal Malaysian Police [Polis Diraja Malaysia] (2001). (2005). 373-376. 2003 from http://www. 29(1). Amsterdam: Elsevier. Road Safety – Back to the Future.htm 274 .  Royal Malaysian Police [Polis Diraja Malaysia] (2002). and Santos (Eds. S. Correlations between traffic. B.malaysia-today. Malaysian Road Accident Statistics. Malaysian Road Accident Statistics.
An investigation of behavioural adaptation to airbags and antilock brakes among taxi drivers.. Regional Development Series. A. The effects of contextual interference on the acquisition and retention of logical rules. 41. K. H. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage. Morf. 275 . Applied Economics. Ericsson. Economic factors and traffic crashes in New Zealand. and Bourne.C.  Scuffham.  Scuffham.F. (1995). 29(3).. Ball. Sagberg. (Ed.I. Asian Survey. A. D. Traffic Engineering + Control. P. C. 179-188. Nagoya: Japan..C. (2008. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Personal correspondence. and sensation seeking..  Schwebel. 35. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 6. A. and Bourne.E.L. C. Public acceptability of traffic demand management in Europe. and Sætermo. B. K. (2003). Urbanization and Regional Development (pp. In Healy. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage. The research process: of big pictures. Fosser. and Young. and Rizzo. S. Morf. 314-318. (1981). M.  Schneider.A.  Sambasivan.F. November 15).K.T.. 293302  Salih. and Langley (2002).  Sendut. (2004). Singapore: Maruzen Asia for United Nations Centre fro Regional Development.A. 801-810. and Panter. J. Severson. Healy. 38. (Eds. 484-491.. V. Learning and Memory of Knowledge and Skills: Durability and Specificity. P. (2006). In Honjo. Jr. Individual difference factors in risky driving: the roles of anger/hostility. F.T. In Sansone. v. K. little details.A. and Panter. C.). Accident Analysis and Prevention. and the social psychological road in between. Contemporary urbanization in Malaysia.C.  Sansone. Jr. conscientiousness. 6(9). A. M. (2000).  Schlag. L. 3-16). (1997).E. 117-147). M.F. C. L.. M. (1966). A model of traffic crashes in New Zealand. 673-687. and Schade. J.) The Sage Handbook of Methods in Psychology (pp. 34. I. Malaysia: urbanization in a multiethnic society – case of peninsula Malaysia.
T. (1998). 3-7. Sekaran. 237-240.  Shinar. (2007). Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour.  Shook. Automobile accidents. Summala.  Siegel. Aggressive driving: the contribution of the drivers and the situation. H.  Siegriest.. Los Angeles CA: Western Psychological Services.  Shapiro.H. P-E. G.E. Journal of Counseling and Development. Manual for the Attitudes toward Guns and Violence Questionnaire (AGVQ). 180-205). and Kanekar. The effects of safety regulations and law enforcement. D. New York: John Wiley & Sons. 397-404. 15(3). 119(3). and Payne.  Selzer. An assessment of the use of structural equation modeling in strategic management research. C. 66. S.. B. D. Hartwick. 1549-1565. M. 1. M. Hult. Theory of reasoned action and theory of planned behavior in alcohol and drug education. The theory of reasoned action: a metaanalysis of past research with recommendations for modifications and future research. Fourth Edition. (2000). A. (Ed. J. J.  Sheppard. (1956). S. Ergonomics... L. (2004). Ketchen. B.  Sharma.R.  Shinar.M. and Zakowska. American Journal of Psychiatry.E. (2003). Boston: Kluwer.L. Strategic Management Journal. suicide and unconscious motivation. Traffic sign symbol comprehension: a cross-cultural study. and Roskova. 51(1).) Traffic Psychology Today (pp. R. D. In Barjonet. U. Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education.S. 46(15).P. Research Methods for Business: A Skill Building Approach.. (1988). 325-343.M and Kacmar. 361-365. P. (2001). (1988). E. C. and Warshaw. 137-160. (1962).  Sharkin. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences.L. New York: McGraw Hill. Journal of Consumer Research. Dewar. 25. K. The measurement and treatment of client anger in counselling. 276 .J. (2003).
(2007). 47(8). (1998).. Injury control: a promising field for psychologists. P. Auto safety and human adaptation.sirc. C. and Sydeman.J. Issues in Science and Technology. and Frank. In Stanton. B.org/publik/driving. P. 1151-1158.K..  Smiley. (2007).  Slinn. 14(4). Sinha. London: Arnold. 49-68). FL: Taylor & Francis. coping and psychological illness: a cross-cultural study. American Psychologist.). Jr.C. A.R.  Spielberger. Corrigan..pdf  Spielberger. Retrieved December 1. B.. 2007 from http://findarticles. Boca Raton. Kurylo. P. Editorial.A. (1995). Cognitive Therapy and Research. Product design with people in mind. Winter). 237-258. Assessing hostile automatic thoughts: development and validation of the HAT scale. (Ed. Preference for insuring against probably small losses: insurance implications. In Kassinove. 386-397. Retrieved December 25. (1977).D. and Poirier. Sex differences in driving and insurance risk: an analysis of the social and psychology differences between men and women that are relevant to their driving behaviour. B. International Journal of Stress Management. (1992). 2007 from http://www. Philadelphia PA: Taylor & Francis. R.A. and Watson. Crowson. Fishchoff. B. Stress. Ergonomics. 277 . N. Oxford UK.J. S. J. (2001.  Stanton. (2004).. Houston. August).K. D. B. Traffic Engineering Design: Principles and Practice. and Guest.D. Reheiser. Measuring the experience. 1-18). M. 21(4). N. Lichtenstein. C. Matthews. S. Journal of Risk and Insurance.C.) Anger Disorders: Definition and Treatment (pp. H.  Stanton. 50(8).  Social Issues Research Centre (2004.. Human Factors in Consumer Products (pp..A. N.  Slovic. expression and control of anger. 1029-1030. and Coombs. 477-492.. C. E. 44. (1997). M. J.G. (Ed.com/p/articles/mi_qa3622/is_200001/ai_n8903050/pg_1  Snyder.
J. N. Cheltenham.  Storey. 44(3). (1989) Prevention and control of injuries arising from road traffic accidents in Malaysia. 279-300). M. Type A Behavior. 2(4). Personality and behavioral predictors of traffic accidents: testing a contextual mediated model. Palamara. 529-544. 178-182. N.W.A. M. and Havland. 247-254. 139(6). P... 35. Accident Analysis and Prevention. (1988). A. (1996).  Sümer.  Sümer. Traffic congestion. R. E. 37(4). The Methodology of Theory Building. Morrison. Methodological and technical challenges in regional evaluation of ITS: Induced and direct effects.E. R.  Stokols. G.. Behavioral factors as predictors of motor vehicle crashes in young drivers.. and Ryan. Trabasso. (2005).E. UK: Edward Elgar. and Campbell.  Stough.M. 43(9). Harlow UK: Addison-Wesley. 278 .  Steiner. In Lewis. Personality attributes as predictors of psychological well-being for NCOs.  Stewart. 1359-1370. Journal of Applied Psychology.. R. H. J. Behavioural compensation by drivers of a simulator when using a vision enhancement system. M. (Ed.. Ergonomics. In Stough. and stress. (Eds. Maggio. D. R. (1978). Journal of Psychology. (2005).C. (2003). The representation and organization of emotion experience: unfolding the emotion episode. (1993). M. R. Stanton. N.L. N.) Intelligent Transportation Systems. New York: Guilford. and Jin. D. M. 949-964. J.  Subramaniam. Accident Analysis and Prevention.  Stein. (2001). and Liwag. Stokols. (2000).R. 63. and Erol. (2001). T. N. Attributions of responsibility for motor vehicle crashes. Safety-Critical Computer Systems. 467-480.. 681-688. Novaco.) Handbook of Emotions (pp. T.. D.R. Medical Journal of Malaysia. and Pinto. Bilgic. Traffic Injury Prevention. Sümer. N.  Stevenson. Sydney AU: Educology Research Associates.A.
and Tantriratna. 103-117. 442-451. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology.  Sümer. Mahasakpan. H.  Swaddiwudhipong. Amsterdam: Elsevier  Summala. H. Traffic psychology theories: towards understanding driving behaviour and safety efforts.. H. 18(4). Risk control is not risk adjustment: the zero-risk theory of driver behaviour and its implications.. (1988). (Report 11). 383-394).  Summala. Özkan. Berument. R. H. (1996). M. vehicles..  Summala. The zero-risk theory and overtaking decision.K. Journal of Traumatic Stress.  Summala. Sümer. (2005). 82-92). Helsinki. 38. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 38(3). Ergonomics. G. (1996). In In Rothengatter.. H. Human Factors.. H. and Punto. H.  Summala. and Merisalo. (Eds. Personal resources. S. A.) Road User Behaviour: Theory and Research (pp. (Ed. Epidemiologic characteristics of drivers. P. S. R.  Summala. University of Helsinki Traffic Research Unit. T. pedestrians and road environments involved in 279 .. Risk control is not risk adjustment: the zero-risk theory of driver behavior and its implications. H. A psychophysical method for determining the effects of studded tires on safety. T. Nieminen. 21.  Summala.  Summala. A. Nguntra. and Gunes. T. 491-506. 22(1-3). (1994). Maintaining lane position with peripheral vision during in-vehicle tasks. coping selfefficacy and quake exposure as predictors of psychological distress following the 1999 earthquake in Turkey. N. In Underwood. 41-52). and Näätänen. 31. Safety Science. Asymmetric relationship between driving and safety skills. (1988). (1980).) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp.) Traffic and Transport Psychology (pp. Koonchote. (2006). W. (Eds. Accident risk and driver behaviour. 703-711. 331-342. In Rothengatter. 193-199. (1986). P. H. N. Hierarchical model of behavioural adaptation and traffic accidents. and Carbonell Vaya E. Assen/Maastricht: Van Gorcum.. T. and Lajunen. and de Bruin. T. (1997). Karanci. (2005). G.N.
N. British Journal of Mathematics and Statistics. A Modern Dictionary of Sociology. Sakamoto.C. Anger: The Misunderstood Emotion.  Theodorson. 138(5). Fujihara.R. 167-172. Sakamoto.M.  Tanaka.M.S. P. (1985). Journal of Clinical Psychology.  Theeuwes.  Tanaka.R. J. (2001).G. (eds. Neural Networks. 42. 581-590. and Kitamura. (2001).  Thompson. The interaction of attention and emotion. The effects of road design on driving. A fit-index for covariance structure models under arbitrary GLS estimation.  Tanaka. (1969). Y. G.J. C. Fujihara. and Papacostas. and Kitamura.road traffic injuries in rural Thailand. G. and Fragopanagos (2005). E. Boston: Kluwer. S. Age and gender patterns in motor vehicle crash injuries: importance of type of crash and occupant role. (1985). (2000). Ono. Journal of Social Psychology. and Theodorson. Ten commandments of structural equation modeling.A. Driving habits and behaviour patterns of university students. 609-615. T. New York: Simon & Schuster.. 52(6)..) Traffic Psychology Today (pp. L. C. 33(2). T. 241-263). (1989). 25(1).. and Layde. E. (Ed. 18(4)..  Synodinos.E. Kuhn. 37-44. In Barjonet.. J. Hopelessness in a community population: factorial structure and psychosocial correlates. 34. P-E. S. 241-257. In Grimm..  Tavris. S. Accident Analysis and Prevention. International Review of Applied Psychology. New York: Thomas & Cromwell. Southeast Asian Journal of Tropical Medicine and Public Health. D.) Reading and Understanding More Multivariate Statistics. S. Hopelessness in a community population in Japan. 280 . and Yarnold. B.S.  Tavris. 353-369. J. E. G.  Taylor. A. Washington DC: American Psychological Association.. (1996). and Huba.233-239. Ono. P. Y. (1998).
207-332. (Eds. Wright and Crundall.  Turner.. Automatic and controlled information processing: the role of attention in the processing of novelty. J.. R. A. (1974). 5. accident involvement. Relationship to risk-taking preferences. 2. Judgment under uncertainty.  Underwood. D. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomic Science. 321-333. Collusion after a collision: witnesses’ reports of a road accident with and without discussion. (1999). and Sanders.F. 5(5). H.. 55-68. 4(4). R. D. Science. J. and Everatt. Anger while driving. Enns. G. Thurman. (2003). 385-424. 281 . 11-22. Personality subtypes of young drivers. B. 279-297. Age and gender differences in risk-taking behaviour as an explanation for high incidence of motor vehicle crashes as a driver in young males. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. 185. G.  Trimpop. and response to a traffic safety campaign. G. Effectivenss of cognitive-behavioral treatments in reducing Type A behavior among university faculty – one year later. Paying attention behind the wheel: a framework for studying the role of attention in driving. and McClure. Cognitive Psychology. Mills. L. Chapman.  Ulleberg. In Neumann. and Kahneman. 10(3).  Trick. 1124-1130. Availability: a heuristic for judging frequency and probability.T. The accident prone automobile driver. and Milton. Applied Cognitive Psychology. C.  Underwood. P. C. Volume 3: Attention.  Tversky. and Kirkcaldy. 147-152. Personality predictors of driving accidents. Injury Control and Safety Promotion. J. 32(3). A. A.  Tversky. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour.M. (1949).A and Hobbs. (1996).) Handbook of Perception and Action. 445-448. J. (1973). 23(1).E. (2004).W.  Tiliman. O. (1985). London: Academic. Personality and Individual Differences. 7. (2001). W. 106(5).. 123-130. (1997). and Kahneman. American Journal of Psychiatry. and Vavrik. Journal of Counseling Psychology.  Underwood. P. G. (1993). D.
444-458. S.B. (2007). Cockfield.org/workshops/01-Caserta/Vaa. (2001).A. A. Ergonomics. R. (Ed. and Vallerand. 336-345. J.M. 26. Personality and Individual Differences. D.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application.) Traffic and Transport Psychology (pp. (1999). Ergonomics. “Accident prone. (1999). and McIntyre. Retrieved September 1. Italy. 913-921. Caserta. Sanson. Traffic accident risks in developing countries: superseding biased approaches. D. and Rothengatter. (2000).pdf  Vallières. 181-190).  Vavrik.... In Rothengatter.A.. Effects of road situation and age on secondary task measures. W. Proceedings of the 14th workshop of the International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT). M. On-line driver workload estimation. T. J.D. 210-222. (2005). Driver selection and improvement in Germany.ictct. J. Meijman. Anticipation and the adaptive control of safety margins in driving. Personality and negative expectancies: trait structure of the Beck Hopelessness Scale. (Eds. T. Amsterdam: Elsevier  Van der Hulst. Harris.ictct. Smart. 43(2). É. E. (2004).F. Harrison.. 39. A. T.  Vasconcellos.J. Bergerson. R.” Recovery. A. Amsterdam: Elsevier. and Huguenin.  Vaa. In Underwood. Proceedings of the International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT) Extra Workshop.  Velting. Campo Grande. Risky driving among young Australian drivers: trends precursors and correlates.  Verwey. The role of attributions and anger in aggressive driving behaviours. 2007 from www. H. 42.org/workshops/05-CampoGrande  Vassallo. Utzelmann. W. Matto Grosso do Sul. (1998). Retrieved December 5. Accident Analysis and Prevention.. 2007 from http:www. (2005). 282 . Cognition and emotion in driver behaviour models: some critical viewpoints.F. March 20-22. G. 9(2).D. 24-29. S.. Brazil.
(2006).F. Wellington. 50(4).  Watson. and Mallinckrodt (2003).backwoodshome. In Proceedings of the 1998 Road Safety Research. M.com/public_affairs/reports/AA-foundation-FDN33-cradle-grave. Predicting drowsiness accidents from personal attributes. 2008 from http://www. and McKenna. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. eye blinks and ongoing driver behaviour.. and Zaidel. Methodological problems associated with surveying unlicensed drivers. M. New Zealand. Heppner. Basingstoke UK: AA Foundation for Road Safety. T. Accident Analysis and Prevention.M.  Waller.R. The development of gender differences in risky attitudes and behaviour in road use (Summary Report). 123-142. Stanton.  Waylen.  Waller. Retrieved November 2.A.J.com/articles/waterman37. (2001).T. (2002). 427-433.. P.. M. 438-447. A. Here’s the story of Burma-Shave. and Carbonell Vaya E.theaa. Policing and Educatino Conference 2. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 2007 from http://www. W. Personality and Individual Differences. Retrieved December 15. H.. Feeling nostalgic? Now you’ll rave.F. and Little. Elliot. Verwey. N. D. P. R. Cradle Attitudes – Grave Consequences. B. P.. An on-road investigation of vehicle feedback and its role in driver cognition: implications for cognitive ergonomics.  Waterman. (2000). Amsterdam: Elsevier. January 21). L. (2001).E. Backwoods Home Magazine. and Young.A. J. In Rothengatter. (2009. 1-8).  Wállen Warner. (1998). International Journal of Cognitive Ergonomics. Transportation and society.P. Raghunathan.H. 9. and Åberg. 421-444. T. F. Shope. 117128. 33.S.  Walker.html. 283 . (Eds. 28. A.P. G. Drivers’ decision to speed: a study inspired by the theory of planned behavior. Changes in young adults offense and crash patterns over time.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp.B.pdf  Wei. Perceived coping as a mediator between attachment and psychological distress: a structural equation modeling approach. 5(4). (1997).
S. 31.  Wilde. J. M..  Wilde. S. Preventions of accidents in childhood. (2002). 209-225. 450-455..S. and French. 34. Elander. 130(4). 84.. M. 1116-1121.W.  Wheatley. Risk Analysis. 1149-1152. Mild social deviance. Ergonomics. Proceedings of the International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT) Extra 284 . 8. (1994).S. G. deductions and discussion of recent commentaries. Ceminsky. R.  Wells.  West.J. In Halsey. 195.).  Wells-Parker. 15(11/12). (1988). G.. Weissman. M. G. Advances in Paediatrics. 207-219. 441-468. E. (2005). (1961). S. British Journal of Psychology.L. Fox.J.. Does risk homeostasis theory have implications for road safety? British Medical Journal. 271278. 324. Toronto: PDE Publications. Childhood accidents. Risk homeostasis and traffic accidents: propositions. G. (Ed.) Transport Risk Assessment (pp. Target Risk. (2007). D.  Wilde. (2002).  Wilde.  Wilde. In Yager. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 135-154).J. Guiling.. An exploratory study of the relationship between road rage and crash experience in a representative sample of US drivers. 469-529) New York: McGraw Hill. The theory of risk homeostasis: implications for safety and health. Hostility and depression associated with suicide attempts. (1982). (ed. 2. K.S.N. B.. (pp. J. Type-A behaviour pattern and decision-making style as predictors of self-reported driving style and traffic accident risk. Accident Prevention. American Journal of Psychiatry.  Wilde.M (1956). P. G. G. R. and Anderson. G. and Klerman.S.J.M. (1984). Snow. On the choice of denominator for the calculation of accident rates. G. University of Waterloo Press.S. Risk homeostasis theory and traffic education requirements. Deaths and injuries from car accidents: an intractable problem? Journal of Cleaner Production. Dunaway. (1993). Hallberg. G. G.J. (1973).  Wheatley.J. Wiliams.
The fluid state: Malaysia’s national expressway. T. (2003). (2003). A. A.. Possession and displacement in Kuala Lumpur’s ethnic landscape. 285 . (2000).B. E. J.. L. N. Campo Grande. T.E.A. Boyd. Matto Grosso do Sul. Space and Culture. N.) Contemporary Ergonomics. Gavin.F.  Williams. Applied Ergonomics. J. 398-403. (2001).. and Poythress. M. (2003). S. (1996). S.S.I. (1994). Mastering the World of Psychology. Brazil. Driver experience with antilock brake systems. International Social Science Journal.Workshop. 303346.. (2008). J. 99-109. 8. March 20-22. 6(2). M. Wood. The factor structure and convergent validity of the Aggression Questionnaire in an offender population. Boston: Pearson. 1.K. A. Lenard. Welsh.  Williams. (2004). M. 34(5). Flyte and Garner.  Williamson. 527-531. J.ictct. Designing for the in-car safety and security of women. 557-567. 110-131. T. 31. 26(6). 55(175).J. In Hanson.Y. and Boyd.  Williams. New York: Taylor & Francis.C.  Wilson. Research Methodology in Strategy and Management. (1999). Structural equation modeling in strategy research: applications and issues.  Williams.  Williamson. Farmington Hills MI: Gale.G. for motor-vehicle crash deaths. A. Responsibility of drivers. Cascardi. and Hartman.org/workshops/05-CampoGrande  Willford. Retrieved March 31. and Well. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Countries and Their Cultures. Journal of Safety Research.. Fundamentals of ergonomics in theory and practice. D. V.  Wood. Psychological Assessment. by age and gender. 2007 from http:www.F. and Shabanova.R.. (Ed.  Woodcock. 807-811.G.
118. Regional Office for the Western Pacific. and Stanton. D. X. Report of an Advisory Group. 740-746.  Yaapar.A. 50(1). (1999).) Traffic and Transport Psychology (pp. 473-485.  World Health Organization [WHO] (2004). D. M. S. Technical Report Series No. (2005). Ergonomics. (2007). Islam. (2000). In Underwood. Asian Journal of Social Science. and Harris.C. N.  Zhang.R. 286 . Amsterdam: Elsevier  Young. Country reports. Drivers and traffic laws: a review of psychological theories and empirical research. 487-503). Back to the future: brake reaction times for manual and automated vehicles. Accidents in Childhood: Facts as a Basis for Prevention. Negotiating identity in Malaysia: multi-cultural society.  Zikovitz.  Yergil. Ergonomics. D. and Chaffin. G. Ergonomics. theatre and tourism.S. 1314-1330. A three-dimensional dynamic posture prediction model for simulating in-vehicle seated reaching movements: development and validation. 43(9). Geneva. (Ed. World Health Organization [WHO] (1957). 42(5). 46-58. . L. 33(3). (2005). Head tilt during driving.
the brake line pressure is relates. drivers stop sooner and in a more controlled manner than with traditional rack-and-pinion braking systems. 1939) and arising from the individual differences approach in psychology. Because the wheels continue to turn during the braking manoeuvre. the ABS reapplies it until the wheels begin to lock-up again. Anti-lock braking systems (ABS): in-vehicle technology that modulates the pressure in each wheel’s brake line so that when a whell lock-up is anticipated or occurs. allowing the wheel to turn. (see also. Behavioural adaptation (BA): “the ability to adapt to novel conditions based on one’s experiences. the outcome of which is typically reflected by perceived advantages. As a result. traction is maintained steering and braking actions continue to be effective. presumably because of personality factors. a concept generally attributed to Farmer and Chambers (1926. Immediately after releasing the pressure. ABS ensures that.GLOSSARY Acronyms and Symbols: ABS AQ BA BHS BIT C DDB FARS HAT I ITS IFRB Anti-lock braking system LoC Aggression Questionnaire MVA Behavioural adaptation P Beck Hopelessness Scale PBC Behaviour-in-Traffic RHT Chance SEM Dangerous driving behaviour SRS Fatality Analysis Reporting System TAPB Hostile automatic thoughts TCI Internality TPB Intelligent transportation system TRA Industrial Fatigue Research Board Theory of Reasoned Action Theory of Planned Behaviour Task capability theory Type A Behaviour Pattern Supplementary restraint system Structural equation modelling Risk Homeostasis Theory Perceived behavioural control Powerful others Motor vehicle accident Locus of control Definitions: Accident-proneness: a tendency toward accidents. to the individual” (Brown & 287 . differential accident involvement). or benefits. on most surface types.
drivers will alter their behaviour (see also. (b) does not prejudge the causation of personality variables. (see also.Noy. time of week and. In the present research. 25). Also referred to as risk compensation. The central idea is that. accident proneness) Differential psychology: see individual differences approach. it is essential when searching for black spots to disaggregate the accident mass by splitting it into progressively smaller units by type. proximal variable. BA is a core concept in all risk theories of driver behaviour. where possible. 288 . (see also. road and traffic conditions. risk homeostasis theory. first offered by Nebi Sümer of the Middle East Technical University in Ankara. including driver behaviour. rather than a theory. crash outcome) Differential accident involvement: a concept proposed by Frank P. Usually based on geographical location of the crash. black spot) Black spot: a term attributed to Heikki Summala of the Traffic Research Unit at the University of Helsinki. (see also. it refers to a combination of circumstances. Black event: a post-hoc extension of the black spot concept. hierarchical driver adaptation theory. the statistical model was based on the results of automobile users’ responses to psychological testing and questionnaires. The contextual mediated model forms the basis of ordering variables within the research design for studies reported in this thesis. 2004. and (c) assumes that individuals may vary along a continuum with regard to factors that affect their risk of crash. (see also. Turke showing the manner in which the certain demographic. McKenna of the University of Reading. The model posits certain variables as distal to the crash event and predicts that their influence will moderate drivers’ self-reported tendencies to behave in certain ways when in traffic situations. driving and psychological variables influence self-reported behaviour in traffic and self-reported crash outcomes. therefore allowing for the influence of external factors. The concept has been applied both to Summala’s (1996) hierarchical adaptation theory and to Fuller’s (2000) task capability theory. as an alternative to the largely discounted notion of accident proneness. distal variable. where effort to save lives may be concentrated. characteristics of road users. when confronted by differing levels of perceived or objective risk in the environment. that corresponds to an accumulation of crashes in the statistical mass. It differs from accident proneness in that it (a) denotes an area of study. task capability theory) . p. It refers to accumulations of motor vehicle crashes in amassed statistics. black event) Contextual mediated model: an empirically-based path analysis.
demographic and motivational variables – contribute to diving outcomes.. interests. aptitudes. self-concept. personality) Industrial Fatigue Research Board (IFRB): a body set up in Great Britain during World War One to investigate the cause and prevention of industrial accidents. It contains detailed information about fatalities resulting from motor vehicle crashes on public roadways in the United States since 1975. Department of Transportation. One such multidimensional model of LoC was advanced by Hanna Levenson. 289 . selfefficacy and self-esteem. Locus of control (LoC): a concept generally credited to Julian B. (see also. who posited three dimensions: Internality (I). Individual differences approach: also referred to as differential psychology. a body of theoretical and empirical knowledge has been generated from attempts to consider how individual differences – primarily in personality. this is an orientation in psychology concerned with the study of traits or quantitative differences in traits by which any individual may be distinguished from other individuals. in-crash. then of the Veteran’s Administration Medical Centre in San Francisco. and after crash – to form a matrix with nine cells. (see also. Later conceptualisations have viewed LoC. it refers to the degree to which individuals attribute the cause of their behaviour to environmental factors (external LoC) or to their own decisions and actions (internal LoC). Headway: the distance between two vehicles travelling one in front of the other. Haddon matrix: a model developed by the American traffic analyst.S. The name was changed to the British Industrial Health Research Board in 1931. Each of the nine elements of the matrix represents a possible focus for road safety. accident proneness) Inner speech: see self-talk. Individual differences research typically focuses on the domains of personality. In traffic psychology. It was at the IFRB that statisticians and analysts first examined the distribution of accident frequency. the vehicle and the road – with the three phases in a motor vehicle crash – pre-crash. which combines the three components of the road traffic system – the human. motivation.Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS): is a database in the public domain maintained by the U. not as a unidimensional. intelligence. values. ability. bipolar construct ranging from I (internal) to E (external) maximums. William Haddon Jr. leading to the now largely discredited concept of accident proneness. Externality Chance (C) and Externality Powerful Others (P). but rather as a multidimensional variable made up of three or more dimensions. Rotter of the University of Connecticut.
bicycling. motorcycles. most usually on roads. Wilde’s theory has generated equivocal 290 . regards it as “that which permits a prediction of what a person will do in a given situation. Motor vehicle crash: a collision or incident that may or may not lead to injury.S. occurring on a public road and involving at least one moving motor vehicle. or characteristic manner of responding to life’s problems. Professor Emeritus at Canada’s Queen’s University. the ego and the superego. trucks (lorries). Freudian psychology considers it to be a manifestation of the integration of the id. motor vehicle crash was considered largely synonymous with the concept of motor vehicle accident. PBC refers to the degree of control that individuals believe they have over a given behaviour. motorised bicycles. That is. as expressed by Raymond Cattell. motor vehicles included automobiles. 1985. mobile construction equipment or platforms. if perceived risk exceeds target risk. if perceived risk falls below the target risk. When there is a discrepancy between the level of perceived risk in the environment and an internalised “target risk” level. Included in this term are walking. Private speech: see self-talk. Different schools of psychology vary in their conceptualisation of personality: the individual psychology of Gordon Allport views personality as “the dynamic integration within individuals that determine their characteristic behaviour and thought”. Risk homeostasis theory (RHT): Originally postulated by Gerald J. Non-motorised transport: any transport that does not require a motor to generate energy. Personality: is the integration of traits that can be investigated and described in order to render an account of the unique quality of the individual. For the purposes of the present research.Motor vehicle: a machine which incorporates an engine and wheels and is used for transportation on land. Wilde. p. somewhat analogous to a thermostat. Perceived behavioural control (PBC): a key concept in Azjen’s Theory of Planned Behaviour. the RHT posits that an underlying feedback system. Adlerian psychology views it as “the individual’s style of life. individuals will engage in more cautious behaviour. For the purposes of the present research. and buses. the individual differences approach. operates to keep user risk at an essentially constant level. individuals will engage in behaviour intended to eliminate the discrepancy. Risk compensation: see behavioural adaptation. conversely. including life goals” (Chaplin. individuals are likely to perform riskier behaviour. and using animal-drawn or human-drawn carts or other devices. but excluded those vehicles which operate on rails. 333-334).
Studded tyres: used primarily in countries that experience ice. draining system. Within the context of this research. Self talk: a fundamental concept in most theories of cognitive behaviourism. archways and footpaths. but only 291 . as the result of injury sustained in the crash. (see also. most frequently attributed to Donald Meichenbaum at Canada’s University of Waterloo. A motor vehicle crash may be considered as a failure in the system. including the network. signage.research results and some heated controversy within the field of traffic psychology. stopping places. Cognitive self-statements may be either negative or positive. Road traffic fatality: a death occurring within 30 days of a motor vehicle crash. Road traffic system: Road traffic may be considered as a system in which three components (the human. They enable better traction and shorter braking distances than non-studded counterparts. which applies engineering principles in order to identify road design or traffic management improvements that will cost-effectively reduce the cost of road accidents. p. 1996. overpasses. tunnels. bridges. target risk. Road traffic injuries: fatal or non-fatal injuries incurred as a result of a motor vehicle crash. (b) incorporation of safety features in the design of new roads.” (Ogden. Road user: a person using any part of the road system as a non-motorised transport user or as a user of a motor vehicle. Also referred to as private speech or inner speech. (c) improvement of safety aspects of existing roads to avoid future problems. these tyres are manufactured with small metal studs – much like football cleats – inserted in the treads. behavioural adaptation. Opportunities for road safety engineering in general apply at four levels: (a) safety conscious planning of new road networks. It refers to the constant stream of chatter that goes on in one’s mind. parking spaces. based on analysis of road and traffic related accident information. and (d) improvement of known hazardous locations on the road network. 35). the vehicle and the road) interact with each other. zero risk theory) Road infrastructure: road facilities and equipment. Road safety engineering: “a process.and snow-covered roads during the winter months. self talk related to drivers’ cognitive statements about other drivers was studied in terms of its direct effect on driving behaviour and as a mediator of trait aggression on driving behaviour. at both conscious and unconscious levels.
the TPB posits that a given behaviour is determined by individuals’ intentions. (3) the benefits expected from cautious behaviour alternatives. where i represents the number of factors defining the functional taxonomy dimension. which in turn are a function of attitudes and subjective norms. The TPB has been applied to a wide range of research problems in traffic psychology. theory of reasoned action. and (4) the costs expected from risky behaviour alternatives. derived from Summala’s (1996) hierarchical adaptation theory of driver behaviour. which are the best predictors of behaviour. Supplementary restraint system (SRS): Also referred to as “airbags”. According to Wilde (1994). it is a level of risk that each individual is willing to accept. According to RHT proponents. Intentions are influenced by: (a) attitudes (the positive or negative evaluation of the behaviour). (b) subjective norms (opinions about what significant others would think of the behaviour). A complex 3 X 5 X i matrix. remains constant at the target level. These are energy absorbing buffers designed to protect drivers from injury during collision by preventing the head and upper body from striking the steering wheel. studded tyres actually increase braking distances and decrease lateral control of the vehicle. and (c) perceived behavioural control (PBC) over the performance of the behaviour (which jointly influences both the intention and behavioural performance). On dry roads. Target risk: a core concept in Wilde’s risk homeostasis theory. (2) the costs expected from cautious behaviour alternatives. perceived Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA): was proposed by Martin Fishbein at the time with the University of Illinois at Urbana and presently of the Annenberg School for Communication at University of Pennsylvania. (see also. risk homeostasis theory) Task cube. behaviour control) (see also. Individuals will undertake behaviour to ensure that the level of risk in which they are engaged. (see also. and Icek Ajzen at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst. (see also. The TRA has been used as the basis for some driving safety research but is perhaps more significant as a conceptual stepping-stone to the now widely used theory of planned behaviour. Each cell of the matrix represents a combination of the three dimensions which form the basis of the theory. hierarchical adaptation theory) Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB): as proposed by Icek Ajzen of the University of MassachusettsAmherst. instrument panel and windshield of a motorcar.when manoeuvring on icy or hard-packed snowy surfaces. The theory of reasoned action (TRA) proposes that behaviour is a function of intentions. target risk is determined by four “classes of utility factors”: (1) the benefits expected from risky behaviour alternatives. theory of planned behavriour) 292 .
coordinating. from its outset. The emergence and impact of the field of traffic psychology is discussed in chapter 2 of this thesis.Traffic management: planning. convenience and economy. risk homeostasis theory) 293 . only when a subjective threshold is exceeded and “feelings of fear” are experienced. It is often proposed as an alternative to Wilde’s risk homeostasis theory. the term is considered synonymous with transport psychology and with mobility psychology. motorised and non-motorised. In the present research. The five basic transportation factors include: safety. Traffic psychology: a relatively new and developing field of applied psychology that. it posits that drivers attempt to maintain a stable balance between subjective and objective risk. adapting behaviourally to driving conditions. management science and economics. community planning. Traffic mix: the form and structure of different modes of transport. that share the same road infrastructure. Zero risk theory: as proposed by Heikki Summala of the Traffic Research Unit at the University of Helsinki. It is primarily concerned with the study of the behaviour of road users and the psychological processes underlying that behaviour. comfort. road engineering. controlling and organising traffic to achieve efficiency and effectiveness of the existing road infrastructure capacity. time. ergonomics. has embraced a multidisciplinary approach and a shared focus with human physiology. Transportation factors: a set of five domains operating on the process of moving goods or persons from one place to another. (see also. behavioural adaptation.
Appendix A: List of Published and Research Scales 294 .
Research scales (BIT and HAT) were obtained and used with the permission of the authors. San Antonio. Beck & Steer. TX 78259 USA http://pearsonassess. 1988) Obtained with permission from the authors: c/o Dr. Papacostas & Synodinos.exe?grab_id=0&page_id=1549&query=Beck%20Hopelessness%20Scale&hiword= BECKER%20Beck%20Hopelessness%20SCALED%20SCALES%20SCALING%20Scale%20 Behaviour in Traffic Scale (BIT.S. Information for obtaining copies of these instruments is provided below: Aggression Questionnaire (AQ. Papacostas Department of Civil Engineering 2540 Dole Street University of Hawaii at Manoa Honolulu.hawaii. Available from: Western Psychological Services 12031 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles. C.html 295 . 19500 Bulverde Road.70400&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL Beck Hopelessness Scale (BHS. Brace & Company).eng.A number of variables studied in the present research were measured using scales copyrighted by corporate publishers or by universities where they were developed. CA 90025 USA http://portal. Published scales (AQ and BHS) are marketed only to professional psychologists capable of meeting criteria for psychometric knowledge and expertise. Buss & Warren.edu/~csp/csp. Hawaii 96822 USA http://www. 1993).com/cgibin/MsmGo.com/portal/page?_pageid=53. with the understanding that they would not be re-published. Available from: The Psychological Corporation (Harcourt.wpspublish. 2000).
Hostile Automatic Thoughts Scale (HAT. Snyder. Snyder.ukans.psych. Kurylo & Poirier) Obtained with permission from the late Dr.R. C. Kansas 66045 USA www. Houston. Crowson.edu/hope. Correspondence regarding this scale or the associated hope theory should be directed to: Graduate Training Program in Clinical Psychology The Department of Psychology 340 Fraser Hall University of Kansas 1415 Jayhawk Boulevard Lawrence. 296 .
Appendix B: Personal Information Form (PIF) 297 .
what manufacturer & model (e. what kind of transportation do you use? (please check only one) ___ bus ___ motorcycle (driver) ___ car (driver) ___motorcycle (pillion. Do you presently have a driver’s licence? (circle one) yes no If yes. __________ (city/town) (state) (country) 5. so please answer all questions as truthfully as you can. please answer the following questions: 2. Most of the time when you travel.g. 250 cc) ______________ ___ other (please specify: _________________) 7.. 1. Proton Wira) _______________ ___ motorcycle – what engine size (e.. We are not asking for your name. For how long have you had your driver’s licence? __________ years and ___________months (number) (number) 3. __________ (city/town) (state) (country) 4.g. sitting behind driver) ___ car (passenger) ___ bicycle (non-motorized) ___ walk ___ other (please specify: _______________) 6. _________.CONFIDENTIAL Personal Information Form Please answer the following questions about Please answer the following questions about YOURSELF. How often do you travel in a car: as a driver (please check only one): ___ every day ___ several times a week ___ about once or twice a week ___ about once every two weeks ___ almost never ___ never as a passenger (please check only one) ___ every day ___ several times a week ___ about once or twice a week ___ about once every two weeks ___ almost never ___ never 298 . In what city/town have you lived most of your life? _______________. _________. What type of motor vehicle do you most often drive? (please check only one) ___ car -. In what city/town did you learn to drive? _______________.
Within the last twelve (12) months. When you want to use a motorcycle.8. do you have ready ACCESS to a motorcycle? (please check only one) ___ yes. do you have ready ACCESS to a car? (please check only one) ___ yes. When you want to use a car. all the time ___ yes. sitting behind driver) ___ car (passenger) ___ bicycle (non-motorized) ___ I was walking ___ other (please specify: _______________) If yes. some of the time ___ yes. some of the time ___ yes. what phrase best describes what happened? (please check only one): ___ my vehicle was changing lanes and hit (or was hit by) another vehicle ___ my vehicle hit (or was hit by) another vehicle that was changing lanes ___ my vehicle went out of control and went off the side of the road ___ my vehicle went through a red light (or sign) at an intersection (junction) ___ the other vehicle went through a red light (or sign) at an intersection ___ my vehicle hit another vehicle from behind ___ my vehicle was hit from behind by another vehicle ___ other (please specify:__________________________________________ ) 299 . most of the time ___ no 10. most of the time ___ no 11. How often do you travel on a motorcycle: as a driver (please check only one): ___ every day ___ several times a week ___ about once or twice a week ___ about once every two weeks ___ almost never ___ never as a passenger (please check only one) ___ every day ___ several times a week ___ about once or twice a week ___ about once every two weeks ___ almost never ___ never 9. have you been in a motor vehicle accident that required you to be hospitalised for injuries? yes no If yes. all the time ___ yes. in what kind of vehicle were you travelling when the accident occurred? ___ bus ___ motorcycle (driver) ___ car (driver) ___motorcycle (pillion.
what phrase best describes what happened? (please check only one): ___ my vehicle was changing lanes and hit (or was hit by) another vehicle ___ my vehicle hit (or was hit by) another vehicle that was changing lanes ___ my vehicle went out of control and went off the side of the road ___ my vehicle went through a red light (or sign) at an intersection (junction) ___ the other vehicle went through a red light (or sign) at an intersection ___ my vehicle hit another vehicle from behind ___ my vehicle was hit from behind by another vehicle ___ other (please specify:__________________________________________ ) 15. What is your ethnic background? (please specify only one:) ___ Malay ___ Indian-Malaysian ___ Chinese-Malaysian ___ other (please specify: _____________) THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR COOPERATION 300 . but no injuries? If yes. what phrase best describes what happened? (please check only one): ___ my vehicle was changing lanes and hit (or was hit by) another vehicle ___ my vehicle hit (or was hit by) another vehicle that was changing lanes ___ my vehicle went out of control and went off the side of the road ___ my vehicle went through a red light (or sign) at an intersection (junction) ___ the other vehicle went through a red light (or sign) at an intersection ___ my vehicle hit another vehicle from behind ___ my vehicle was hit from behind by another vehicle ___ other (please specify:__________________________________________ ) 13. sitting behind driver) ___ car (passenger) ___ bicycle (non-motorized) ___ I was walking ___ other (please specify: _______________) If yes. Within the last twelve months.12. have you been in a motor vehicle accident that resulted in damage over RM100 to your vehicle. in what kind of vehicle were you travelling when the accident occurred? ___ bus ___ motorcycle (driver) ___ car (driver) ___motorcycle (pillion. in what kind of vehicle were you travelling when the accident occurred? ___ bus ___ motorcycle (driver) ___ car (driver) ___motorcycle (pillion. Within the last twelve months. What is your age? ___ male _____ years ___ female 17. sitting behind driver) ___ car (passenger) ___ bicycle (non-motorized) ___ I was walking ___ other (please specify: _______________) If yes. What is your gender? 16. have you been in a motor vehicle accident that required you to go to a medical clinic for minor injuries? yes no If yes.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.