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Several researchers at other institutions have provided assistance in the form of test instruments, unpublished papers and guidance over the course of this project.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.
personality traits. Distal variables included driver (driving experience and driving frequency). driving experience and demographic characteristics are the specific contributors of these factors. 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. externally-focused frustration. demographic (age. Three samples of university students whose primary mode of transportation involved driving automobiles (n = 301. some personality constructs. freeway urgency. hopelessness. BIT had four components: usurpation of right-of-way. The present research was conducted to examine the interaction between the role of behaviour in traffic. 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. seven fatalities are recorded each day. and that driver behaviours. 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 role of the proximal variable in mediating distal effects on crash outcomes was also investigated. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) characteristics. on average. gender and ethnicity) and psychological (locus of control. and destination-activity orientation. demographic characteristics and driving exposure in predicting crash and injury occurrence. Effects of the distal variables and proximal variable on self-reported history of crash occurrence and injuries were examined. respectively).ABSTRACT Motor vehicle crashes are a serious social and economic problem in Malaysia. vii . Previous research has found that human factors play the chief role in contributing to crash outcomes. previous attempts to investigate relationships between psycho-social variables and crash incidence have frequently yielded weak associations and inconclusive results. where. 302 and 252. However.
locus of control moderated the BIT-aggression relationship. as well. Implications for both theory and practice are discussed. 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. As hypothesised. BIT exerted a strong mediational influence over the effects of distal variables on crash outcomes. The advantages of multi-disciplinary approaches to the study of roadway crashes are discussed. consistent with the assumptions of the contextual mediated model. viii . Among distal variables.Results indicated a complex series of interactions between the variables. Results indicated that. particularly with respect to an ongoing debate within traffic psychology over the comparative importance of theories or models of driving behaviour. As reported in previous studies. Two types of hostile automatic thoughts – with content related to physical aggression or revenge – moderated the BITaggression relationship. The role of the proximal variable. BIT. all four BIT components were associated with higher occurrence of both self-reported motor vehicle crashes and crash-related injury. 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. 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.
184.108.40.206 1.3.1 Risk Homeostasis Theory (RHT) 2.3.3 ix .4 1.2.1 Human Factors and the Motor Vehicle Safety Problem in Malaysia 2.1 Accident Proneness 2.2 Differential Accident Involvement 220.127.116.11.3.1 1.2.TABLE OF CONTENTS COPYRIGHT PAGE DECLARATION ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS DEDICATION ABSTRACT TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES PREFACE CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1.3.2 Studies of Causal Factors in Malaysian Roadway Crashes The Professional Background 2.1 Human Factors in Roadway Crashes: A Vexing Research Challenge 2.2 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 The Emergence of Traffic Psychology as a Scientific Discipline 18.104.22.168 An Applied Perspective 2.1 Concepts.1 Roadway Crashes in Malaysia and Public Perceptions of Causality 2.1.4 Risk Theories 2.3 The Individual Differences Approach 2.2.2 1.2 Traffic Psychology: Slow Progress in Theory-Building 2.2 A Multidisciplinary Approach Theories of Driving Behaviour 2.2.5 1. Theories and Models 2.4.
4 Studies of Driving Behaviour Using the Contextual Mediated Model 22.214.171.124.2.1 Statistical Models 126.96.36.199 Aggression Proximal Variables in the Present Research 188.8.131.52.5 Aggression 78 78 84 84 84 84 85 85 x .1 The Haddon Matrix 184.108.40.206. Gender and Ethnicity 3.2 Locus of Control and Driving Behaviour 2.2 Demographic Variables: Age.2.1 Driver Characteristics: Driver Experience and Driving Frequency 220.127.116.11 Hopelessness 18.104.22.168.22.214.171.124 Zero Risk Theory 2.2.1 Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) 126.96.36.199.188.8.131.52 2.2 Conceptualization and the Research Framework Definition of the Variables 184.108.40.206.3 Core Concepts in the Contextual Mediated Model: Moderation and Mediation 2.6 Task Capability Interface (TCI) Theory 220.127.116.11.4.1.2 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 18.104.22.168.1 Type A Behaviour Pattern and Motor Vehicle Crashes 22.214.171.124 Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) Descriptive Models of Driver Behaviour 2.3 Locus of Control 3.1 Experience 2.3 Psychological Variables 2.1 Locus of Control 2.4.5 Use of the Contextual Mediated Model in Other Research Distal Variables in the Present Study 2.1 3.7 Attitude-behaviour Theories 2.2 Driver Characteristics 2.5.5 Hierarchical Theories of Driver Adaptation 126.96.36.199.2 Hopelessness 188.8.131.52 Demographic Variables 2.5 2.3 Locus of Control and Ethnicity 2.3 Ethnicity 2.5.2 Process Models 2.2.1 Age 184.108.40.206 Gender 2.1.2 A Contextual Mediated Model of Personality and Behavioral Predictors of Motor Vehicle Crashes 220.127.116.11.4 2.2 Driving Frequency and Traffic Exposure 2.5.1 Unidimensional and Multidimensional Constructs 2.
18.104.22.168.7.6 3.7.7 3.7.3 Study 1C 3.7 Expected Cross-Validation Index (ECVI) 3.2 Levenson Locus of Control Scale 3.7.2. p-Value and χ2/df Ratio 3.8 Kolmogorov-Smirnov One-Sample Test 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 .1 Study 1A 3.5.7 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) 3.7.2 One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) 22.214.171.124 Hostile Automatic Thoughts (HAT) 126.96.36.199 Degree of freedom (df) 3.6 Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index (AGFI) 188.8.131.52 3.8 Parsimony Goodness-of-Fit Index (PGFI) 3.3 3.1 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) Scale 3.5.2 Study 1B 184.108.40.206.4 Linear Regression Analysis 220.127.116.11 Study 3 Formulation of Hypotheses Methods of Data Collection and Analysis 3.2.5 Multiple Regression Analysis 3.7.5 Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) and Comparative Fit Index (CFI) 3.1 The Sample 18.104.22.168.2.6 Hostile Automatic Thoughts 3.4 3.6 Logistic Regression Analysis 3.7.2 Study 3 Analysis of the Data 22.214.171.124 The General Linear Model (GLM) Univariate Analysis 126.96.36.199.188.8.131.52.7 Structural Equation Modelling 3.6 Personal Information Form (PIF) Procedure 3.3.1 Chi-Square (χ2).1 Studies 1 and 2 3.7.3 Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) and Root Mean Square Residual (RMR) 184.108.40.206 Study 2 3.4 Aggression Questionnaire (AQ) 3.3 Beck Hopelessness Scale (BHS) 3.2 Research Instruments 220.127.116.11 Normed Fit Index (NFI) 3.9 Injury Occurrence Research Design of the Studies 18.104.22.168.7.8 Crash Occurrence 22.214.171.124 Independent-sample t-tests 3.
6 xii .6.2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Levenson Locus of Control Scale 4.2.3. Gender and Ethnicity 4.13 Hypothesis 13: Demographic Factors Influence Hostile Automatic Thoughts 4.12 Hypothesis 12: Locus of Control Moderates the Relationship Between Aggression and Behaviour in Traffic 4.6.2 Externality-chance and Externality-powerful-others as Moderators 4.12.2 126.96.36.199.1 Hypothesis 1: Behaviour in Traffic Influences Motor Vehicle Crash Outcomes 4.4 4.4 Hypothesis 4: Demographic Variables Influence Locus of Control 188.8.131.52 Age.184.108.40.206.2 Results of Study 2 4.3.2 Hypothesis 2: Driver Characteristics Influence Behaviour in Traffic 4.2.3 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the AQ Scale 4.4 Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 3 Reliability and Validity 4.3 4.6.1 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the BIT Scale 4.5 Hypothesis 5: Demographic Variables Influence Hopelessness 4.1 Results of Study 1 4.2.4 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the HAT Scale Normality.6.2.2 Parallel-Form Reliability 220.127.116.11.11 Hypothesis 11: Aggression Influences Behaviour in Traffic 4.CHAPTER 4: ANALYSIS OF DATA 4.5 4.6. Skewness and Kurtosis Crash and Injury Occurrence Data Distal and Proximal Variable Data 4.3 Results of Study 3 Hypothesis Testing 4.3 Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 2 18.104.22.168 Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 1 4.7 Hypothesis 7: Hopelessness Influences Behaviour in Traffic 4.1 Internality as a Moderator 4.6.1 Description of the Sample 4.10 Hypothesis 10: Demographic Factors Influence Aggression 4.2.6 Hypothesis 6: Locus of control Influences Hopelessness 4.9 Hypothesis 9: Hopelessness Moderates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Behaviour in Traffic 4.3 Validity Test Results 22.214.171.124 Hypothesis 8: Locus of control Influences Behaviour in Traffic 4.6.3 Hypothesis 3: Demographic Variables Influence Behaviour in Traffic 4.15 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 4.1 Reliability Test Results: Cronbach’s Alpha 126.96.36.199.188.8.131.52 Hypothesis 14: Hostile Automatic Thoughts Influence Behaviour In Traffic 4.
3 A Contextual Mediated Model for Understanding Factors Influencing Unsafe Driving Hopelessness Locus of Control 5.3 Best Fit or Best Model 5.5.8 4.5.3 Locus of Control and Ethnicity: Malay and Chinese-Malaysian Drivers Aggression Testing the Contextual Mediated Model Using Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) 5.2 Goodness of Fit 5.1 Differences between Automobile Drivers and Motorcycle Drivers 4.1 Generalisability of Findings 184.108.40.206.7.6 xiii .2 Use of Self-Report Methods 5.2 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Aggression and Crash Outcomes 4.3 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 5.5 What Can be Learned from Testing Contextual Models with SEM? Limitations of the Study and Methodological Considerations 220.127.116.11.4 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Crash Outcomes Comparison of Automobile Drivers.2 Locus of Control and Ethnicity: Indian-Malaysian Drivers 5.8.7 4.2 5.1 Study 1C: Automobile Drivers 5.1 Study 1C 4.9 Relationship Between Aggression and Behaviour in Traffic 4.4.3 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hostile Automatic Thought and Crash Outcome 4.1 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hopelessness and Crash Outcomes 18.104.22.168.4.5.1 Internal and External Locus of Control as Determinants of Driving Behaviour 5.5.1 Advantages of Using SEM 22.214.171.124.6.4 5.4.3 Study 3 Testing Mediational Relationships Using SPSS 4.2 Study 2: Motorcyclists 5.2 Differences between Automobile Drivers and Taxicab Drivers 4.6.2 Study 2 4.4 Testing the Contextual Mediated Model 5. Motorcycle Drivers and Taxicab Drivers 126.96.36.199 Study 3: Taxicab Drivers 188.8.131.52.16 Summary of Hypothesis Tests Testing the Contextual Mediated Model Using Structural Equation Modelling (LISREL Analysis) 4.1 5.6.5 5.3 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.
184.108.40.206 220.127.116.11.3 Education 5. Training and Rehabilitation 5.4 Measurement of Driving Frequency Implications and Areas for Further Study 18.104.22.168.7.7. Models in Traffic Psychology 5.1 Generating and classifying crash prevention interventions 5.2 Factors in Behavioural Adaptation (BA) 22.214.171.124.4 Preventive Measures: “The Three E’s” 5.1 Theory vs.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 .3 Driver Selection.2 Engineering Interventions 5.
3 3.9 4. Gender and Ethnicity of Participants in Studies 1.LIST OF TABLES No.1 4. Table Page 2.4 3.2 Malaysian Roadway Crashes and Casualties.7 4.2 4.11 xv .10 4.1 3.3 114 4.8 111 121 121 122 4. Kurtosis and Skewness Statistics 13 14 57 91 95 97 98 101 112 114 2.3 3.5 4.4 115 117 118 119 4.5 4.2 3.6 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.1 2. 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.
19 133 4.18 131 4.14 4. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 2 (n=122) Means.23 136 4. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1A (n=301) Means. 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 4.20 134 4. Gender and Ethnicity in Study 1 (N=855) 124 125 Crash Occurrence Frequency.27 4.26 138 139 144 145 4.21 135 4.13 4.12 4.17 129 4. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1B (n=302) Means.4.22 136 4.25 138 4.24 137 4.28 4. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1C (n=252) Means.29 xvi . Gender and Ethnicity in Study 2 (N=122) 125 Means.15 Crash and Injury Occurrence Crash Occurrence Frequency.16 128 4.
32 4.35 4.34 4.5 209 225 5.3 5.40 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 4.39 4.41 175 5.4 208 5.33 4.6 xvii .31 4.2 5.30 4.36 4.37 4.38 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 4.4.1 199 206 207 5.
4 2.4 148 xviii .LIST OF FIGURES No.1 4. 1989) The Haddon Matrix (Noy.3 3.2 3.2 147 148 4.4 4. 2000) Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen.8 Proposed Contextual Mediated Model for Safety Research in Agriculture (from Downe.3 2. 2.7 2. 1996. 2007) 50 Hierarchical Levels of Driving Behavior (after Keskinen.9 59 2. 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. 1996) Task-Capability Theory (after Fuller.3 4.1 2.1 3.10 64 80 81 82 83 146 3.5 Figure Task Cube (from Summala. 2003) Inter-variable Relationships in Mediation Models Inter-variable Relationships in Moderation Models Page 36 37 40 42 44 46 47 2. Hatakka.2 2.6 2. Behavioral Predictors and Motor Vehicle Crashes (from Sümer. 1997) Contextual Mediated Model of Personality.
6 4.9 4.4.10 4.5 4.8 4.7 4.12 4.13 xix .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.
But sometimes. and his mental state. she was riding pillion. at least not with real tears. I don’t cry much any more. I was confused by the results I was getting. The behaviour of the traveller. She started crying and couldn’t stop. LISREL couldn’t. are factors that influence the likelihood of occurrence. like encounters with fairies and werewolves. She told me about the motorcycle crash that had claimed the life of her cousin. just every so often. I like to watch boxing. They quarreled and then left on his motorbike. The factors she described that evening were the same ones I’d been trying to study – freeway urgency. and this thesis is the result. only a trimester or two earlier. he’d taken the same course as she. but she’d nagged him. but accidents or encounters with fairies or werewolves are random events. I hope it makes a contribution.D. I’m a fairly big guy. He died instantly and she spent three weeks in the hospital. when humans are prone to imagine fairies or werewolves. I feel like it each time I think of that moment. I told her not to worry. But. finally. they were focused on the errand. He was very popular with other students. He’d sent me a nice card at Christmas. Then one evening into my office came a student from my first-year Critical Thinking class. I despair that we may never be able to snare this werewolf. She had needed to go on an errand. they are prone to other types of error as well. or wouldn’t. is a matter of debate … Obviously. I sure felt like it as I sat there beside her. He didn’t want to go. I feel like it a bit right now.PREFACE Accidents occur. I got back to work on them. . they were frustrated and angry with each other. lane deviation and all the rest. handle the latent variables I wanted to include in my structural equation model. they cut across a lane too quickly. programme. I’m pretty happy with it. And they crashed. xx . to the weary traveler. Her face and arms had been bruised and lacerated. I didn’t recognise her at first. things were not going well. I wanted to throw in the towel.Talib Rothengatter & Raphael Huguenin. 2004 Some three years or so into my Ph. She had been badly injured. Her hands and voice quivered. They were hurrying. He was driving. externally-focused frustration. She was afraid she had missed too many lectures. How important these factors are. I knew the fellow. My research design needed a serious re-working.
Even after decades of study.2 million deaths in motor vehicle crashes worldwide (Peden.. Furuichi & Kadoma. including the 1 . Scurfield. Graham. judgement. 2001. kinaesthetic (Zhang & Chaffin. 11). Drivers’ performance and avoidance of collisions depend on their skills. perceptual-motor processes (Young & Stanton. scholars still search to identify the relative effects of vehicle. leading to a rich information base for regarding humancentred design as a “requirement for all elements in the traffic system. 2002). where rates of roadway accidents and deaths have been consistently higher than in other parts of the world (Peden & Hyder. the most prevalent factors have been human failures associated with speed. 1996. 2000.CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1. Trick. 2002) and road safety engineering (e. 2006. for instance.. Verwey. Mills & Vavrik. Peters & Peters. Ogden.g. 2004). Theeuwes. 2007. 2001). road. cognitive (Vaa. the quest for a better understanding of the causality and prevention of roadway mishaps has become an urgent task for safety researchers. 1999). 2000). Green. 2004) have been studied extensively. environment and human characteristics on the risk of accidental events and fatalities. anticipation. policy-makers. much of the recent attention on causal elements in roadway crashes has focused on the human factors involved. “human factors play a major role in road accidents. highway engineers and automotive design specialists. This is particularly salient in developing countries. Stanton & Pinto. Drivers’ attentional (Most & Astur. state of mind and physical well-being. 2000). such as Malaysia. 2002. Sleet. Notwithstanding the extensive literature that exists on safety design factors for automotive products (e. Consistently over the years. Iwasaki.g.1 Background of the Study With an estimated 1. perceptual difficulties and drink driving” (p. 2007. commented that. Enns. 2004). Olson. 2002) and their impairment (de Raedt & Ponjaert-Kristofferson. Sabey (1999). perceptual (Hong. Mohan & Hyder.
with the intent to determine the degree to which measures of aggression.790.252 accidents in 2006 and over 6. locus of control.732 motor vehicles were registered in 2006.351. Malaysia is also a nation with a disproportionately high frequency of motor vehicle accidents. the vehicle and the new technologies that are increasingly being deployed by the road and fitted in vehicles” (Carsten. behavioural and attitudinal characteristics of drivers and the environmental situations in which they find themselves (Haight. The research comprised five separate studies of Malaysian drivers aged 18 to 73 years. and as a “major public health problem” (Subramaniam. p. including the study of a large number of variables. 2002. McKenna. This first chapter of this dissertation presents the background of the study. The chapter 1. 2005). However. “the literature on personality has a long history. More challenging has been the attempt to link personality and psychosocial variables to driver behaviour and performance. 1989).332 drivers and 15. 2004. concludes by noting the delimitations of the research. 2007). describes its significance and presents an overview of the methodology used. According to Dewar (2002b). hopelessness and other variables interacted to affect attitudes toward driving and the severity and frequency of participants’ self-reported involvement in motor vehicle crashes. Very early initial attempts to identify an “accident proneness” personality trait (Tiliman & Hobbs.000 fatalities were recorded (Ministry of Transport Malaysia. as a “social menace”(Abdul Kareem. A total of 10. There was a total of 341.112). there are conflicting findings and associated problems with this research” (p.roadway. 1983). 2003). 1949) have since been replaced by more complex explanations that focus on the interaction between emotional. 21). 2 . This dissertation is a report of research into relevant psychosocial variables and their effects on self-reported driving behaviour. often labelled as “tragic” (Koh.2 Road Safety in Malaysia Malaysia is a nation of motor vehicle users. The high rate of roadway accidents and deaths has been described in both scholarly and popular print or internet media in extreme terms.
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. 1997). 3). 1999. 2002. Schwebel. Sumala & Zakowska. Ulleberg. Elander. Blasco. Lin. 2006. 2002b. Barrett & Alexander. Many studies have been devoted to the examination of behavioural. risk-taking and sensation-seeking (Horswill & Coster. there has been an increasing recognition of the need for theoretical formulations and specific models. Wells-Parker et al. Loo. attitudinal and personality correlates of roadtraffic crash risk. 1993. Ball & Rizzon. Stewart. 1997). Wells. Cohn. 2002) and many others. often with widely varying results (Dewar. Rimmö. leading many researchers and safety organisations to regard road safety as a leading international development issue (Garg & Hyder. Hartos & Simons-Martin. 2005. Huang. aggression (Parkinson. Vasconcellos. Gonzalez. integrative and international viewpoint based on application in order to address changing situations and objectives” (p. 2000. 1994. 2004). Severson. locus of control (Arthur. ethno-cultural background (Byrd. 2005. 2001. Hwang. and (b) the elimination or reduction of effects of task-induced or environmental stressors on human performance when driving (Brown. 3 . 1997. Investigations of individual differences have included driver age and gender (Beck. Lajunen & Summala. Gal & Syna Desevilya. Hence. Huguenin (2005) has argued that the field of traffic psychology arises from an “interdisciplinary. 2000). easily generalised to a variety of cultural and social settings. 2006. Historically. 2001. that allow for better prediction and explanation of roadway crashes (Risser & Nickel. 2003.Trends toward high rates of motor vehicle crashes and fatalities have been observed in developing countries world-wide (Peden et al. West & French. Özkan. Wu & Yen. 2005). Barjonet & Tortosa. 2007). Dewar. Draskóczy. 2001). 1997). Gidron. 1991. Trimpop & Kirkcaldy. Shinar. 1997). 2002. and the past twenty years has seen the emergence of the new discipline of traffic and transport psychology (Barjonet & Tortosa. Parada & Cortes. 2004. Verwey. Renner & Anderle. 2002. 1979. 2004. 2003). Lajunen & Kaistinen.
Parker. Hampson & Morris. Sümer (2003). drivers still operate automobiles and motorcycles in ways that reduce the likelihood of safe arrival at destinations.e. What demographic and personality factors are associated and interact with unsafe driving behaviour and. vehicle. it has been recognised that the psychosocial factors involved in driving safely differ greatly across the range of human.Increasingly. externally-focused frustration. in developing general and specific cognitive models of individuals’ interaction with the world around them (Brown. 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. for instance. in particular. loss of attention and the deliberate usurpation of right-of-way are frequent behaviours in traffic. 2004).e. 1997. Speeding. 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. however. with the risk of roadway casualty? 4 . 2005). 1997). has recently proposed a promising contextual mediated model which distinguishes between distal (i. has been that such behavioural models have seldom been used as the foundation for developing an integrated. Noy (1997). This has led to a growing interest in modelling human behaviour involved in the driving task and. falsifiable hypotheses might be drawn (Summala.3 The Problem Statement Given widespread awareness about the high rates of death and injury resulting from motor vehicle crashes worldwide and in Malaysia. personality and demographic) and proximal (i.. aberrant driving behaviours) variables in predicting traffic accident involvement. 1996. with resulting outcomes often involving crash and injury. road and environmental conditions that comprise the driving situation.. theoretical basis for traffic psychology (Huguenin. A frequent criticism. 1. leaving the field with inadequate theory development from which testable.
9). By better understanding the manner in which psychosocial characteristics of individuals might predispose them to engage in unsafe driving behaviour. While there is no doubt that collective knowledge pertaining to the causality and prevention of roadway crashes is growing exponentially. “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. 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. with a view to assessing which preventive measures would be most effective. this research is important to organisations and people concerned with driving safety. 2005. (b) driving experience. injuries and deaths. the present research might be seen as making a contribution to our growing understanding of that very interface. By focusing on not only demographic.The aim of the present research is to determine those factors contributing to traffic accidents on Malaysia roadways. This is both a key goal and a persistent challenge within the emerging field of traffic psychology. psychological and behavioural variables inherent in the dynamics leading motor vehicle crashes. gender and ethnicity. and (f) drivers’ hostile automatic thoughts would not only affect each other but also four self-reported measures of behaviour in traffic. Fifteen hypotheses are formulated to predict that distal variables including: (a) driver age. (e) driver aggression. but also on their interactions. (c) driver locus of control. Results of the resulting analyses are detailed in chapter 3. it becomes possible to construct a broader awareness of how demographic and personality variables contribute to motor vehicle crashes. (d) driver hopelessness. 1.4 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. situated as proximal variables. 5 . in which distal psychosocial factors exert an influence on behavioural tendencies more proximally related to the crash event. p.
Laapotti. 2004. 1974). The present research adds to the growing body of literature dealing with driver aggression and its various forms of expression. the development and adaptation of in-vehicle safety devices or intelligent transportation systems and the construction of models to foster additional research. Utzelmann. the plethora of theories available.Of particular interest may be variables related to driver affect. p. 2004). There is a growing sentiment that. Despite considerable popular attention to the problem of motor vehicle crashes and fatalities in the developing countries of Southeast Asia. Some authors have suggested that. 2001. 1997. they also have implications for a broader “theory versus model” debate in traffic psychology. It is also the first attempt to examine closely the effects of the psychological construct of hopelessness on driver behaviour. 2004. in the applied sciences. 2005. the Malaysian setting has remained relatively understudied (Richardson & Downe. Katila & Peräaho. Rothengatter. 1997). Näätänen & Summala. 2000). Findings of the present research have implications for driver selection and training. 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. road safety measures and public policy. 94). “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. 1993). all of which have been noted as purposes for traffic psychology (Brown & Noy. 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. Moreover. Recent trends in the philosophy of science call conventional hypothetico-deductive processes into question (Becker. an area that some authors have argued is overlooked in the current literature (Keskinen. 6 . Hatakka.
goes some distance in differentiating the present study from other more narrowly-defined examinations of driver behaviour. 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. which deals with methodology. 2005) and attempts to link driver performance to road engineering (e. This broader perspective. 2001).5 Overview of the Methodology Questions about how the study was conducted and the choice of research methods are answered fully in chapter 3. Selection of alternate structural equation models is also discussed. incorporating cognitive ergonomics. This has left the door open for largely unsupported speculation about the character of Malaysian drivers and. this research draws on principles from a wide range of disciplines.g.g. 2001).Notwithstanding a handful of well-founded reviews of statistical trends and risk factors (e. 1. attitude theory. and on the manner in which those factors interact to affect safety outcomes on the roadway. It is useful. this work represents the first instance in which Baron & Kenny’s (1986) widely-cited procedure for establishing mediation has been performed using logistic regression.. A multi-disciplinary approach has been generally considered one of the hallmarks of the new field of traffic psychology (Rothengatter. cultural anthropology and applied psychology. In doing so. with emphasis on the importance of model comprehensiveness as a factor in addition to goodness-of-fit. although adding additional layers of variables and complexity to the analysis. Radin Umar. Certain methodological considerations add to the professional significance of this research. very little research has been focused on the psychological and social features of the motoring population in Malaysia. may be limiting the development of effective public policy and intervention measures. Che Ali. human motivation. in turn. and is appropriate for this examination of psychosocial features of the Malaysian driver. 7 .. To the author’s knowledge.
In this case. destination-oriented activity) and two self-reported measures of accidentrelated (crash occurrence and injury occurrence) outcomes were assessed. but where differences which already existed between subject groups on independent measures were evaluated to determine their naturally-occurring influence on dependent. cultural background). In Study 1. Maruyama (1998) has argued that the two prominent reasons why researchers use structural equation modelling techniques lie. similar to a series of multiple regression equations. 2006. or outcome. moderating and mediating relationships between variables. The present research consisted of three studies: Study 1. at the conclusion of Study 1C. driving (experience. was a multi-dimensional path analysis depicting causal. each entailing data collection from a different sample. 711). Structural equation modelling is a family of statistical methods that “examines the structure of interrelationships expressed in a series of equations. Babin. variables (Sekaran. externally-focused frustration. aggression. Structural equation models were also used to explain the relationships between these variables. different combinations of variables were added to the respective structured equation model and the level of complexity was examined. driving experience. 1B and 1C). to include in this first chapter a general statement of the method used in order to round out the introductory picture presented. The final result. In each successive study. 2003). Anderson & Tatham. the effects of selected demographic (age. second. freeway urgency. Study 2 and Study 3. in their capacity to predict outcomes and. hopelessness. three separate phases were carried out (Study 1A. The present research applied an ex post facto research design. in their capacity to explain which specific predictors 8 .however. gender. This model drew on the similar conceptual theory used by Sümer (2003) in the construction of his earlier contextualmediated model. hostile automatic thoughts) on four self-reported measures of behaviour in traffic (usurpation of right-of-way. first. in which there was no direct manipulation of independent variables in the laboratory or field setting. access to vehicle) and psychological (locus of control. Black. p. These equations depict all of the relationships among constructs (the dependent and independent variables) involved in the analysis” (Hair.
9 . behavioural inventories and personal profile questionnaires. with resulting variable relationships compared to the model that had been built from the responses of automobile users in Study 1. this time sampling professional taxicab drivers in the Kuala Lumpur area. a model was constructed using a sample of undergraduate participants for whom motorcycles were the primary mode of transport. 1. A team of researchers flagged down taxi drivers at random and. After the initial model-building had been completed. in fact. This issue is discussed at some length in chapter 5 of the thesis. a third model was constructed. In Study 3. 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. Student participants sampled for two of the three studies were selected from an undergraduate population at a single university. verbally administered psychometric instruments.are most important in predicting. representative of the characteristics of high-risk Malaysian drivers.to 45-minute trips. These are discussed in detail in chapter 5 of the thesis but relevant issues are introduced here. In Study 2. Such predictive capabilities were considered to be of importance in any examination of the dynamics leading to risks of roadway crashes and fatalities. Again. leaving room for questions about the generalisability of findings to populations within and outside Malaysia. 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.6 Delimitations All research is confined by the boundaries of its scope and design. over the course of 30.
In a meta-review of traffic safety research. 2001) and others down-playing them (Hattaka. 1997). The present research included procedural elements to mitigate. Keskinen. and (c) culpability for crash outcomes. there has been a vigorous debate about the utility of self-report measures in safety research for several years. Boyce & Geller. lapses and violations as differing behavioural responses underlying the crash event (Reason. such as failing to check the rear-view mirror before pulling out or changing lanes. Are the attitudes. Finally. However. at least to a certain extent. including: (a) test-retest reliability of predictors. social desirability or response set biases? Indeed. The present research. 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. close following or taking aggressive actions against another driver or vehicle. as well. much of the recent driving safety literature has distinguished between errors. Stradling. 1990). 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 . Manstead. did not specifically compare these driving patterns within the context of participants’ self-reported behaviour in traffic. Violations are deliberate deviations from those practices believed to be necessary to safely operate a vehicle and include such behaviours as speeding. is discussed in chapter 5 of the thesis. along with its implications for the validity of results and potential alternative methodologies. against the first two and these are covered in chapter 2. Baxter & Campbell. Katila & Laapotti. (b) time-period for calculating accident frequency. Errors are a type of driving mistake involving failures of observation and misjudgement. with some authors emphasizing methodological risks (af Wählberg. af Wählberg (2003) outlined three significant methodological deficiencies that have plagued the study of traffic accident predictors. while recognising the distinction. The prevalence of self-report measures in traffic safety research. accident histories and behavioural trends reported by participants really valid? Or are they prone to the influences of confabulation.Concerns with research of this nature also frequently centre around the question of self-reported data. 2002.
in which behaviour in traffic was measured in this research and the dimensions offered by Reason et al is discussed in chapter 5. 11 .
or as “negligent” (“Malaysia Records Highest Single-Day Death Toll”. as a social “menace”(Abdul Kareem. 1989). “laid-back” and “considerate”. The high rate of roadway accidents and deaths has been described in scholarly and popular print or internet media in extreme terms. 2007). Recently. A succession of online weblogs and internet sites authored by tourists and local writers alike have condemned Malaysian drivers as dangerous.1. Over 6. the Minister of Health characterised Malaysian roads as “worse than a war zone”. they indicated “angry”. 2005). 2006). in aggregate. Malaysian drivers have been consistently characterized as “confrontational”. 2007). Nation-wide statistics seem to underscore the popular concern over safety issues.000 fatalities were recorded (Ministry of Transport Malaysia. industrialisation and motorisation. “friendly”. inconsiderate and aggressive.CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 2. 2007). A developing country in Southeast Asia. economic expansion. “patient”.1 2. and as a “major public health problem” (Subramaniam. to a rapid increase 12 . “impatient”. “discourteous” (Davin Arul. Malaysia has experienced remarkable increases in population. “bullies” and “selfish”. 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. 2005). often labelled as “tragic” (Koh. “ugly motorists” (“Rude Drivers”. 2005). “obnoxious” and “cowardly” (“Cowardly Malaysian Drivers”. In newspaper reports. 2007). pointing out that annual fatalities exceed the total deaths among American combat personnel over four years of fighting in Iraq (Zolkepli.252 motor vehicle accidents in Malaysia. a sample of 348 first-year university students indicated. “peaceful”. Downe and Loke (2004) reported that. there were 341. 2003). These are thought to have contributed. in order of frequency.1 Human Factors and the Motor Vehicle Safety Problem in Malaysia Roadway Crashes in Malaysia and Public Perceptions of Causality In 2006. but when asked to “describe what Malaysian drivers are like”. “selfish” (“Our Roads are Filled”. “reckless”.
Abdul Rahman.286 9. 2005). 2005).653 2004 326. Mohd Zulkiflee. higher than any other age grouping or combination of consecutive age groupings. one- third of all crashes in Malaysia involve automobile users or motorcyclists within the 16.287 9.218 2005 6.425 2003 6.815 2005 328.228 9.891 8.200 9.091 37. Table 2.7111 2003 298.395 2006 6.741 38. Generally.000 vehicles in 2006.645 54. The number of road fatalities has decreased slightly from 6.304 in 1994 to 6. from 189.252 Motor Vehicle Casualties 2002 Fatalities Severe Injuries Minor Injuries Total 35.252 in 2006 (Ministry of Transport Malaysia. Studies 13 .552 37. Radin Umar. 2003.264 2006 341.2).885 35.415 52. 2002-2006 Motor Vehicle Crashes 2002 Total 279.287 in 2006.425 5. & Wong.109 in 1996 to a total of 341.in the number of road traffic crashes (Abdul Kareem.20 deaths per 10. 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.000 vehicles in 1996 to 3.012 19.000 vehicles (Law. in Malaysia.417 47. but still lags behind frequencies in developed countries which generally fall below 3 deaths per 10.1 summarises the five-year incidence of crashes and injuries. In Malaysia. 2005).236 49.to 25-year-old age group (see table 2. Subramaniam & Law. Table 2.040 2004 6.1: Malaysian Roadway Crashes and Casualties. 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.253 source: Royal Malaysian Police (2007) The road accident death rate in Malaysia dropped from 8.98 deaths per 10. 2007). This suggests that studies. the number of crashes has increased 80% over the past ten years.
06 608 3.45 30 0.22 150 0.023 5.50 979 4.41 302 1.4 billion to RM5.68 3.551 12.10 3.of university-aged drivers are critical to understanding behavioural and situational factors that predict the most commonly occurring class of crashes (Stevenson.205 11.76 22.56 3.418 100 19.049 15.81 1.005 15.21 3. 2002.81 2.038 13.6 million a day on motor claims (Abdul Kareem.63 160 0.341 12. Morrison & Ryan.99 164 0. with one road accident victim admitted to hospital every six minutes (Bernama.77 3.08 541 2.67 206 0.23 2.54 708 3.7 billion. It has been reported that. or about 2.08 1.90 159 0. Palamara.26 463 2.65 121 0.92 1.48 105 0.16 90 0.31 3.378 11. 2003).08 2.315 17.97 1.64 135 0.178 15.29 708 3. has resulted in considerable economic loss for the country. 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. Table 2. 2001.37 337 1.593 11.15 3. 2005).11 2. 14 .85 2.110 10. Some Ministry of Health estimates of medical costs alone have been as high as RM5.803 9.216 10.4% of the Gross Domestic Product (Asian Development Bank.389 6.84 1.48 323 1.72 554 2.80 203 0.620 7.709 8.416 6.05 2.94 1.15 572 2.329 100 source:Royal Malaysian Police (2000.025 9.08 585 2.67 billion. 2006).82 1.27 458 2.431 7.997 14.448 17.07 2.05 1.40 1. and particularly among younger drivers.034 4.61 99 0.086 9.92 2.953 17.47 280 1. Recent international analyses have placed the total economic burden at around RM7 billion yearly.2: Numbers of Automobile Drivers and Motorcyclists Involved in Road Crashes by Age Group 2000 2001 2002 2003 Number % Number % Number % Number % 37 0.15 43 0.94 2.820 13.68 128 0.91 984 4.71 543 2.85 147 0. in 1999 alone.29 2.81 3.309 10. 2001).49 450 2.947 10.05 2.07 2.94 625 3.180 10.65 2.921 100 20. or an average of RM4.967 100 19.469 15. general insurers paid RM1.
What else can we do. In spite of numerous road safety campaigns the number of accident cases have been increasing. In 1999. 2005). There is no way to A popular measure the grief of those who have lost their loved ones. and that alone justifies making concerted efforts to address the issue … The economic costs in property damages are huge. Criticisms of road configuration. which is actually a nightmare. 1999).Yet. 2006). (Bernama. signs and lighting have been levied in certain quarters 15 . Some seven years later. lane definition. But it is nothing compared to bringing down the number of road deaths. traffic congestion. but miniscule compared to the expenses of medical care and rehabilitation. if people want to die? (Lim. Public interest and political frustration has given rise to extensive speculation over the possible causes of the problem. or the pain of the maimed. physician and journalist has commented that: The human toll is unquantifiable. 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. 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. The economic consequences can be estimated. economic figures and accident statistics provide only partial indications of the impact of the highway safety problem on Malaysian society. The loss of potential income of the dead and maimed in turn dwarfs those medical outlays (Bakri Musa. 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.
Maybe these drivers just never realised how simple it is to avoid accidents (Looi.215 deaths among motorcar drivers and passengers. 2006). 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. the Royal Malaysian Police (2007) reported 3. 1997). 2007). as compared with 1. The relatively high population of motorcycle riders. approximately 45 per cent of all registered vehicles in 2006 (Road Transport Department Malaysia. for instance.693 deaths among motorcycle operators and pillion riders. Researchers.(Abdul Rahman et al. They don’t even stop to look left and right or look in the rear view mirror. 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 . Those countries have had a motoring culture for nearly a century but our road-users are relatively newer to motoring (Sadiq. Generally. 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. 2005). unlike in other countries. most accounts have come around to commenting on driver demographic and behavioural characteristics as significant factors in motor vehicle crashes (Che Ali. is often mentioned as a factor. given greater risks of accident. newspaper columnists. They are also bad in giving ample time to others and this is an example of non-defensive driving. serious injury and death (Per and Al Haji. Who they are. 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. though. Krishnan & Radin Umar. 2005). In 2006. In a recent newspaper interview. 2007). 2001. how they think.
17 . In a separate study. rather than personality factors. reasons and social contexts of motorcycle use (Reeder. Radin Umar. due to fewer trips and reduced traffic exposures as a result of slower economic activity. 1996). risky behaviour (Chang & Yeh. Law. Musa. This is. Conducting time-series regression analyses of police data. In the same study. (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. injuries and fatalities. with a 27% and 38% drop in the rate of motorcycle casualties and motorcycle fatalities. For instance. since studies in other parts of the world have found that individual differences play a significant role in determining rider training outcomes. Radin Umar and Kulanthayan (1999) found that the same MSP had significantly improved motorcycle riders’ perception and understanding of safety issues. Bartle & Truman. Zulkaurnain and Kulanthayan (2005) examined the impact of economic variables on motorcycle-related crashes.general understanding of the causes and potential prevention strategies related to the country’s traffic safety problem. was personality or demographic factors of motorcyclist samples investigated. Ward. however. 2. The research that has been undertaken has tended to focus largely on the contribution of broader economic and social variables.1. Law et al. 2007) and crash Type And liability (Clarke. respectively. In none of the studies of the MSP. Mohd Nasir. conspicuity and excessive speeding. Chalmers & Langley. perhaps. they reported that the Asian-wide economic recession significantly contributed to a reduction in traffic fatalities. causal factors underlying crash and injury rates on Malaysian roadways have remained largely understudied. 2007). Ahmad Hariza. or else on the evaluation of specific safety interventions. MSP interventions had been aimed at modifying motorcycle riders’ awareness and attitudes of safety issues related to helmet use.2 Studies of Causal Factors in Malaysian Roadway Crashes Notwithstanding this public outcry. a needed focus in the analysis of programme effects.
they are accident prone. these conflicting aims of speed and safety seemed to exacerbate them. generalising to all driving environments and situations. however. the factor that made the high speeds possible. motivated largely by the government’s fear of unregulated public assembly. Describing the expressway as a “stunning infrastructural achievement” (p. 110). a capacity that makes them distinct as a society” (p. since 1994. resulted in a myriad of problems. road engineers devoted their efforts to creating a public artery in which speed and limited stoppage were design priorities. including speeding and falling asleep at the wheel (“N-S Highway”. 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. This. “many Malaysians claim that as drivers. 18 . According to Williamson.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. Although the expressway was meant to avoid both traffic and accidents. 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. He argued that. 121-122). 1996). The very monotony of the road surface. he argued that national leadership intended it to be both a symbol of progress. 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. has linked peninsular communities. 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.122).
1991). 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. The majority of accidents are not caused by problems of the vehicle. etc. This has included the examination of age and gender. Human factors are far more important than engineering factors. “human behaviour makes a direct contribution to crash risk through the extent of knowledge and understanding of traffic systems. 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. roadway engineering has a much greater influence than automotive engineering (p. levels of driving experience and. Åberg. 784).2. by far. experiential. the largest opportunities for harm reduction: A clear hierarchy of factors can be specified. Christ. driver experience and skill and the relationship between risk and factors such as speed choice and alcohol consumption” (p. Among engineering factors.1 The Professional Background Human Factors in Roadway Crashes: A Vexing Research Challenge Attention to the demographic. West and French. 1993. According to the Commission for Global Road Safety (2006). but rather 19 . driver behaviour (what the driver chooses to do) has much greater influence on safety than driver performance (what the driver can do). bad road conditions. Among human factors. Evans (1996) further argued that changes in driver behaviour offer. personality characteristics (Elander.2. Because at least one driver is involved in every traffic crash. Panosch and Bukasa (2004) argued that: Road safety is less a technical but rather a human factors problem. 62).2 2. 1993). particularly. personality and behavioural characteristics of drivers has not been exclusive to the Malaysian scene.
organisational climate (Caird & Kline. 377). 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. unclear. Further. in reviewing early findings on human factors in this field. Haddon (1963). 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. The lack of progress in trying to identify psychological factors that cause. 1997. 2004) and other contextual variables. and (c) the failure to differentiate between culpable and non-culpable crashes. empirical findings to date about the relationship between driver characteristics. However. personality and traffic safety have been regarded by many as debatable. (b) the choice of time periods for calculating the frequency of crash-related outcomes. Ranney. While the system-centered approach aims at creating those road conditions that reduce the chance of accidents in advance. 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. conflicting or of relatively little importance (Iversen & Rundmo. psychological factors may play different roles according to driver age (Dumais et al. or at least predict. weak. prior accident experience (Lin et al. Lajunen & Summala. He conducted a meta-analysis of some 136 previous studies researching the effects of at least one psychological predictor of 20 . 2005). to a large degree. 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. as well as on the attitudes and behaviour of single drivers (p. 2002. 2004).by the behaviour of drivers. the individual-centered approach directly focuses on traffic relevant performance and personality aspects. 641). 1994).
1965) but did not really gain momentum until the 1980s (Risser. motivation and behavioural performance as potential underlying causal factors in driver behaviour (Jonah. driving behaviour and crash-related outcomes include: the use of self-reported crash data. 1993). information processing. 2003). Underwood & Milton.2 The Emergence of Traffic Psychology as a Scientific Discipline 2. 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. 1996. 2002. Novaco (2000) argued that: The field of transportation has always had a rich potential for psychology. 2003). Other methodological factors that may cloud the relationship between psycho-social variables. 482). 321). the picture that emerges is indeed grave. accuracy of witness recall of crash details (Crombag. Wagenaar & van Koppen. It would seem that very few of the studies on accident predictors are actually possible to interpret in any straightforward way.2. 1997a). the extent of exposure of drivers to the driving task (af Wahlberg. especially considering the salience of transportation in the routines of daily life. the lack of replication of many studies. there has been an interest in driver personality. 2.1 An Applied Perspective Ever since Tillman and Hobbs (1949) stated that “a man drives as he lives” (p. and the influence of car and driver stereotypes on attributions of crash blameworthiness (Davies & Patel. 21 . psychologists have given scant attention to this topic. 1961. Nevertheless.2. and we are left with a very vague knowledge of what psychological variables can actually predict accidents (p. 2005). Preston & Harris.2.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. the use of inconsistent crash definitions.
traffic psychology has drawn from multidisciplinary perspectives.2. predict and provide measures to modify road user behaviour at the levels identified with. but that complex traffic 22 . 246). Huguenin (2005) defines traffic psychology as “the psychological intervention. 4) and describes it as an “interdisciplinary. 4). Indeed.654-655. anthropology and sociology. or the psychological support for intervention. Groeger (2002) argued that there is “no psychology which is specific to. in a Spanish survey.2 A Multidisciplinary Approach From the outset. “the task of traffic psychology is to understand. According to Rothengatter (2001). This includes the research that serves this purpose” (p.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. conferences and coordination of professional affiliations ever since (Groeger. To wit. ergonomics. traffic and transportation.” (p. as a general objective to minimise the harmful effects of traffic participation” (p. Temes and Hermida (2001) found. medicine. psychology. integrative and international viewpoint based on application in order to address changing situations and objectives” (p. Ochando. attitudes about the origin and destination of the trip and resources for choosing alternative travel modes and schedules. transportation planning.2. 3). that individuals tend to combine their interests in traffic psychology with some other area of specialisation such as educational psychology. eoncompassing engineering. 2002). These interrelationshps provide a vast terrain for psychological research (pp. or peculiar to. 2. in the field of traffic.) 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.
the design of vehicle automation and a deeper understanding of why drivers behave as they do” (p. Garner and Zwi. and that “ergonomics has much to offer in the design of driver education and training programmes. 2004. 1997. Ergonomics has made a contribution. as well. a paradigm that has been applied increasingly to driving safety questions in developing countries (Dharmaratne & Ameratunga. 2002). In a recent special edition. in particular. the design of driver interfaces and driver assistance systems with motor vehicles. Stanton (2007) noted that. Spielberger and Frank (1992) made similar comments with regard to the contribution of health psychology through the use of public health models and methodologies.behaviour is a very important and worthwhile test-bed for psychology and psychological theory and. surrounding environments and 23 . Peden & Hyder. Johnston. Much of the ergonomic research carried out to date has been focused on adapting motor vehicle conveyances. the road infrastructure and other road users. emphasising the primacy of attitudes and attributions. 2000). commented that: From the perspective of the driver. there have been 103 papers published in the Ergonomics journal alone. 1995. In the broadest sense. which she described as the two main planks of social cognition. both by providing a better understanding of human-machine interaction. Parker (2004) pointed to the role played by social psychology in the area of road safety. 2003. which are sometimes expressed in road markings and road signs (p. It also includes the rules of the highway code Saad (2002) governing the use of the road infrastructure and interactions with other users. and of cognitive control over vehicle and highway systems involved (Bridger. Hyder & Peden. the road environment comprises the vehicle. 24). Wilson. ergonomics is concerned with identifying and designing technical and organisational means for facilitating the driver’s interaction with the road environment. Odero. 1158). 2007. the study of cognitive processes. over the past ten years.
According to Barjonet & Tortosa (2001). in which the goal is to manage automation and dynamic function allocations. 2006.3. traffic psychologists frequently engage in theory-building. 2001). 26). Jannssen. and “Generation Three” ergonomics. 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. Walker.3 2. which focuses on symbiotic technologies that amplify human physical and cognitive capabilities. Neerincx & Schriebers. 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. Theories and Models In attempting to understand. particularly the notions of mental load.1 Theories of Driving Behaviour Concepts. “This school of though. 2004). These applications are consistent with the paradigms Boff (2006) has described as “Generation Two” ergonomics. a paradigm that Boff (2006) described as “Generation One” ergonomics. 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. 2. This involves the coherent grouping of general propositions for use as principles in explaining various classes of driving phenomena. 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. which assumes a necessary communication between person and machine led to a dialogue between the various designers of car interiors. Concepts are the building blocks for theory and may be defined as: 24 . error and cognitive modelling. 1997. Noy.tasks to human capabilities and limitations. Stanton & Young. though. predict and modify road user behaviour. Increasingly.
each ordering driving reality from its own particular set of empirical observations. In traffic psychology. or both. or accident-causing behaviours. Ranney (1994) pointed out that it has never been clear. which is then followed by a process of generalisation (Schneider. in traffic psychology. Ericsson & Bourne Jr. p. Healy. 2005. “theory” is a term used interchangeably with the word “model”. Concepts can be linked together to form a theory. this may be due to 25 . 2005).A word or set of words that expresses a general idea concerning the nature of something or the relations between things. often in mathematical form. 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. but for the purposes of this thesis. On the other hand. 8) Any set of systematically interrelated concepts or hypotheses that purports to explain and predict phenomena (Robbins. A-18) Often. 2. To a degree. 1995). 1969). Reasons for this are likely several. there is no generally accepted theory which elucidates principles from which a broad. Concepts are formed by a process of mental abstraction. generalisable understanding of the driving process can be deduced. 2000. often providing a category for the classification of phenomena (Theodorson & Theodorson.. which attempts to provide a generalised working construct that can account for empirical data or relationships” (Chaplin. whether theories should explain everyday driving. p. the latter is defined more narrowly as “a set of assumptions or postulates. many models have been proposed.2 Traffic Psychology: Slow Progress in Theory-Building Theory development in traffic psychology has not progressed well (Summala. Many of the theories that have been proposed have failed to generate testable hypotheses.3. 1985).
Instead. … Just because we as investigators have an understanding of safety as a goal. not all people act exactly alike and this is a function of their differing values. five areas of theory attempt to explain and predict driving behaviour. These may be classified as: theories of individual differences. 2004. Notwithstanding these difficulties. feel in control. but it is also a reflection that the driving task is a highly sophisticated multi-factorial process involving perceptual. 2. avoid obstacles. it is highly improbable that a single theoretical stance is likely to be sufficient to account for behaviour in traffic. taskcapability frameworks and attitude-behaviour models (Keskinen et al. social. Groeger and Rothengatter (1998) argued that. attitudes. 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. perceptions. minimise delay and driving time.3. enjoy driving. For over ninety years.3 The Individual Differences Approach Placed in similar situations. I believe it is but one of the goals a driver has. risk adaptation theories. etc. it does not mean that the driver had safety as a primary goal. or ever had sufficient knowledge of possible outcomes on which to base a deliberate action (p. and most of the time is not especially influential. the driver’s aspirations are to reach destinations.the imprecise definition of concepts. Rothengatter. 2005). 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. cognitive.. 26 . motives and personalities (Robbins. 189). hierarchical theories of driver adaptation. and emotional determinants. given the complexity of human behaviour. 2002).
There have been theories of crash causation that have focused on particular groups of 27 . or “Big Five” personality model (Costa & McRae. thrill and adventure seeking and tended to avoid socially stimulating situations when compared with violators. 1980) and other safety outcomes. Of the five factors examined – extraversion. Similar studies of driver risk-taking and other individual differences have been largely absent with Asian populations and non-existent in Malaysia. the search for individual differences relevant to crash involvement continues to yield a large body of literature. the extraversion variable has been associated with a higher frequency of traffic offences (Renner & Anderle. Drawing from a large pool of data that included personality measures and both traffic and work-related statistics for 34 nations. McRae &Costa. poorer perception of traffic signs (Loo.Trimpop and Kirkcaldy (1997). for instance. anxiety and driving anger. 1990). but not occupational 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. found that a sample of young Canadian automobile drivers. 1995. without driving violations had lower scores on measures of risk-taking behaviour. Ulleberg (2001) found two high-risk groups. Lajunen (2001) reported that countries with high extraversion scores had more traffic fatalities than those with moderate or low extraversion scores. irresponsibility and driving related aggression. 2000). 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). In a large number of studies of specific samples from various countries. aged 16 to 29 years. crash frequency (Pestonjee & Singh. while the second high-risk group reported high sensation-seking. conscientiousness. 1979). However. In an attempt to identify subtypes of young Norwegian drivers. neuroticism. the first of which was characterised by low levels of altruism and anxiety and high levels of sensation-seeking. According to Rothengatter (2002). extraversion was found to predict traffic accidents. “these findings have yet to be embodied in a general theory of differential crash risk. aggression.
152). could be modelled almost exactly by the Poisson distribution but then that. it should be a reasonably simple matter to find 28 .finding. If each individual has a unique λ-value. but persists today. In 1917.1 Accident Proneness One concept that sought to integrate individual differences within a predictive theory relates to the “accident-prone personality”. 1993. weight and perhaps even intelligence. the British government established the British Industrial Fatigue Research Board. p. 290). or higher conative or cognitive function” (Cresswell & Froggat. that individual is more likely at all times to incur an accident than his colleagues even though exposed to equal risk. According to Haight (2004). found first that the frequency of accidents. occupational and otherwise. Research by board statisticians. personality. The designation of a high-λ individual as “accident prone” implied that. the average number of accidents. differed from person to person (Greenwood & Yule. but none have attempted a more general integration” (Elander. in certain cases. 2. 1984). just as one can meaure height.3. an idea that has had an uneven level of acceptance by ergonomists and traffic psychologists through the years. in response to concern over the number of accidental deaths and injuries in World War I production industries (Blackler & Shimmin. 1962. and that this is due to some characteristic or summation of characteristics associated with corporeal dexterity. during and following the war years. It provided a challenge to the psychology profession to devise a way to measure it. λ. West & French. 1920). ‘Accident proneness’ had a nice ring to it. his or her accident proneness. p. The individual values of each worker’s λ became known as the degree of accident proneness.3. The difficulty was that no one knew how to determine its value for a given individual. sensori-motor skill. “irrespective of environment.
but very low correlations between accident frequency at work. but did not take into consideration whether. None of the experiments. made an assumption that. The theory of the accident-prone individual also came under attack on a conceptual basis. with a series of tests constructed by Greenwood and Woods (1919). a certain percentage would experience a higher accident frequency than would other groups year after year. it was pointed out are highly sensitive to the length of the survey period. The accident-prone concept. 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. subjects reported significant. 1939) and many others. 1997). perhaps physiological. “Because crashes are so infrequent. inadequate or irrelevant. that high-λ group would be comprised of the same individuals or of an entirely new cohort (Haight. by devising clever tests. 2004). Farmer and Chambers (1926. 294). at home. A study by Salminen and Heiskanen (1997) provided empirical support for this position. with shorter periods giving sharper contrasts (Moore. 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. noting that. 1991. produced a positive. in a Finnish telephone survey. 1929. p. Early work on the concept attempted to do just that. inappropriate. motivated largely by a desire to select lorry drivers in Europe who were less likely to become involved in costly roadway crashes (Barjonet & Tortosa. in traffic or when playing 29 . Scores on the λ dimension. 2004). Johnson (1946). 422). more probably psychological (p.out what that value is. 1956). as well. 195). with extensive critiques that concluded statistical analyses were almost all invalid. replicable result that correlated substantially with the accident experience of individuals (Haight. 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. in successive years. Arbous and Kerrich (1951) and much later McKenna (1983) systematically destroyed the supportive literature. however. in any sample.
“it is still difficult to identify the accident prone individuals that compose this group. moving away from the main conceptual criticism of traditional 30 . It is seen as preferable to earlier formulations because it places more emphasis on contributing factors outside the person. Ultimately. Only 15% of the studies included in their analysis had been conducted on road user crash experience. but the authors reported that the heterogeneous nature of sub-groups did not permit comparisons.3. 2. 1998). roadway.sports. no stable personality characteristics that can be identified with accident-proneness have been discovered. The concept itself is ill-defined.3. screened for operational and prevalence rates related to accident proneness within work. While their stated conclusion was that an accident prone group definitely existed. 8-9). pp. the consensus position became that: Accident proneness as a concept has little use in practical accident prevention. Visser. in no case did correlations between traffic crashes and other types of accidents exceed r =. sports and family settings. Stolk. Despite the low repute in which many have regarded the accident proneness concept. and assumes that individuals may vary along a continuum with regard to factors that affect their risk of crash (Elander et al.2 Differential Accident Involvement McKenna (1983) suggested that the accident proneness concept should be replaced by the less historically loaded term “differential accident involvement”.05. it denotes an area of study rather than a theory. it is still generating research and controversy (Vavrik. 562). therefore. 1993). 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. because individuals can experience multiple accidents because of chance alone and also because of a higher exposure to risk independent of personal factors” (p. Pijl. Alternative explanations must be found for persons experiencing multiple accidents (Lindsey. This concept does not prejudge the issue of causation. So.. 1980. Neeleman and Rosmalen (2007) have published a meta-review of 79 studies.
in fact. 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. following their review of the literature. That is.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. Wilde (1982. Dewar (2002b) noted that the notion of differential liability allows for the observation that some individuals do. substantially. crash barriers.. concluded that differential crash risk is not readily accounted for by previous crash rates. people strive to maintain a target level of risk all the time and. 2. For example. in a study of driving on icy roads. Elander et al. suddenly confronted with uneven pavement.accident proneness (Chmiel. but avoids the assumption of a stable phenomenon that accounts for more accidents in all situations. After the relatively easy engineering measures were implemented to reduce the seriousness of the consequences of driver behaviour. researchers began to turn their attention to not-so-easy measures for changing driver behaviour.3. A driver who enters a construction zone. compulsory seatbelts and vehicle design improvements reduced motor vehicle crash fatalities. large earth-moving 31 . 2000). experience more accidents than others.1 Risk Homeostasis Theory (RHT) In an attempt to explain these findings. However. The introduction of divided highways.4.3. 2. when they perceive a discrepancy between the observed level of risk and the desired target level of risk. albeit not crash occurrence. and that transient factors probably interact with stable traits of the individual in their causation. 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. 1988) proposed that a control mechanism operates to keep overall risk per unit time constant.
14). 1997). given that human behaviour will continue to be motivated by internal homeostatic processes. When others (Haight. Wilde’s theory was couched at a societal level. Sagberg. in turn. Michon. flat. Collectively. is if the level of target risk is reduced. Wilde (1994) reframed the concept of target risk as an individual variable based on four perceived utilities.vehicles and warning flags. 1989. at least until the target risk level was reached. 2001. a driver motoring along a wide. Fosser & Sætermo. 2008. RHT proponents argued that drivers were adapting behaviourally to the effects of ABS by driving less safely and that this. according to the theory. for example. and not on the specific measures taken in other sectors of the control system. reduced the predicted safety benefits of such systems (Wilde. 1994) argued that this made the theory essentially untestable. Ranney. postulating that the number of accidents in any given country would only depend on the accident rate which the population is willing to tolerate. The central implication of RHT is that safety interventions need to be values-oriented and aimed at lowering the level of 32 .” (Fuller. 1986. would perceive a level of risk above his target and would tend to reduce speed and increase vigilance. 1988. Huguenin (2001) noted that RHT has spawned a considerable number of studies. many of which have attempted to observe and comment on individual behavioural change after the risk variable is manipulated. That is. Conversely. 1994. Initially. RHT research of this nature has been used to argue that most engineering interventions and roadway regulations have little or no benefit (Smiley. 2002) and that driver education programmes need to be extensively revamped (Wilde. according to the theory. “the aggregate target risk in a community is what produces the accident toll and the only way in which this toll can be reduced. 2002). 2005). In two separate studies. McHugh & Pender. p. observers posing as passengers rated German taxicab drivers in vehicles equipped with anti-lock braking systems (ABS) as driving more aggressively. Wilde. performing more dangerous manouevers and driving with significantly shorter headway distances than those driving without ABS (Aschenbrenner & Biehl. 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.
a tenet for which no convincing support has been yet generated (Michon. “It is unclear whether risk homeostasis occurs at the level of the individual. it has been argued people are not sufficiently sensitive to changes in low risk probabilities to react behaviourally as RHT predicts (Fuller et al. 2004). but that the RHT neither adequately explains nor predicts the circumstances under which it does. p. and not on the available technology” (Wilde. 2008. Robertson and Pless (2002) made the case forcefully that: … some drivers may sometimes slow down in rain. however. General consensus is that behavioural adaptation to vehicle and environmental conditions often does occur (Rothengatter. Lichtenstein. 53).. 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. “Costs and benefits are central to the model. 2002). “The extent of risk taking with respect to safety and health in a given society ultimately depends on values that prevail in that society.target risk that people are willing to tolerate. psychologically weighing at every moment the perceived and targeted risk levels inherent in every environment. Rothengatter. 2001. 2002). 1989. Considerable criticism revolves around the imprecise nature of the theory itself. Also..” (Vaa. Criticisms have been aimed at Wilde’s theory on empirical as well as conceptual grounds. the community. the notion of target risk implies that drivers are constant “comparers”. Fischoff. (p. 1151). or the nation” (Brown & Noy. More than any other driving theory. To the contrary. Corrigan & Coombs. but they are not defined in psychological terms. 2004). pay sufficient attention to risk. 1977). 1994. Slovic. p. Evans 33 . 223). The notion that people have a constant point of acceptable risk. In a review of research offered as support of the RHT. 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. Wilde’s RHT has generated controversy and opposition (Keskinen et al.
3. Rothengatter (2002) has questioned how drivers can determine that a threshold has been exceeded if they do not constantly assess risk. Summala (1986) suggested that estimating time-to-collision. 1987. and 34 . some degree of risk during the performance of this task. zero-risk theory still retains some of its conceptual shortcomings. 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. 2004. 81). p. 92). is a very basic human skill that can be carried out in the absence of extensive conscious processing. While overcoming many of the criticisms levied at RHT with regard to the concepts of target risk and the risk discrepancy comparative process. after a similar review. increasing safety margins” (Brown & Noy. Only when the subjective risk reaches a level that was not anticipated will the drivers change their behaviour. 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. Michon (1989) noted that most studies attempting to support the RHT deal with data only at the aggregate level.(1986) concluded that “risk homeostasis theory should be rejected because there is no convincing evidence supporting it and much evidence refuting it” (p. Summala’s zero-risk model of driver behaviour (Summala & Näätänen. 1988) proposed that drivers do not constantly assess risk while driving.2 Zero Risk Theory Another risk-based theory. 2. experience ‘zero-risk’) when they drive by anticipating. Summala. drivers compare the distance from hazards or time-tocollision to a subjective safety margin threshold and take action only when the threshold is exceeded. At this point. O’Neill and Williams (1998). In other words.4. they experience uncomfortable feelings of fear and abruptly change behaviour. a necessary and highly controversial assumption in Wilde’s theory. drivers avoid ‘feeling fear’ (hence. for example. 26). Rather. In addition. Fuller (2005) has argued that the theory’s premise that safe margins are learned creates an implausible requirement to recognise. or expecting.
A major element in the zero risk theory was the influence of motivation. very little if any research has been carried out with respect to intrinsic motivation. in which he introduced a “task cube” to explain the driving process. Reeder et al. it may not manifest itself as a less cautious speed or headway choice but rather as a conscious. 1999). 2002. used to explain drivers’ tendencies to approach as closely as possible to the risk threshold. Hataaka. such as time pressure.1). Van der Hulst. and when confronted with various environmental conditions or psychological processes.3. 1998. their behaviour becomes less adaptive to prevailing circumstances (Delhomme & Meyer. 35 . would vary depending on the combination of factors from the three dimensions. On the other hand. much of which arises from personality. 1997) refined his earlier theory into a hierarchical model of driver behavioural adaptation. do appear to affect drivers’ willingness to accept risk levels that approach thresholds and. If behavioural adaptation were to take place in response to the presence of a supplementary restraint system (SRS). pre-meditated decision not to wear seatbelts. what is a virtually infinite number of roads and traffic scenarios. Summala argued that behavioural adaptation. In an attempt to deal with this and to expand on the role of extrinsic and intrinsic motivators. and specific driver actions. 1996. Summala (1996. as a result. The cube presented three dimensions of driver behaviour: a functional hierarchy. Glad & Hernetkoskis. 2. Keskinen. level of psychological processing and a functional taxonomy of driving actions (see Figure 2.5 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. age and social variables. Meijman & Roghengatter.learn how to respond safety to. Gregersen. A large number of studies show that external motives. for instance.
seemingly concurrently. (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. a property absent within the task cube concept. Headway control Obstacle avoidance Crossing management Passing and other maneuvers FUNCTIONAL TAXONOMY Figure 2.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. Automated) Navigation Speed and time control Guidance Vehicle control Lane keeping etc. at the same time. Rothengatter (2002) questioned the concept of a hierarchy. but that is not 36 . 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.1: Task Cube (from Summala. 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. criticised the model for being overly complicated and resembling “more a description or a list of important variables than a solid model” (p. Even though it is true that the performance on one task can bear consequences for the performance for the other. for example. 15). 1996) Keskinen et al.
2005) integrated competing components of the RHT (Wilde. However. unexpected changes in task demand (decreased visibility. high speeds. drivers are able to manage the interface between demands and capabilities (see Figure 2.2: Task-Capability Theory (after Fuller..sufficient reason to presume they are two distinct levels of the same task rather than two different tasks (p. 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 2.6 Task Capability Interface (TCI) Theory In perhaps the most ambitious of the leading driving behaviour theories. 2000) 37 .1). Loss of control occurs at the point where capability is less than that required to carry out the task safely.3. 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. this becomes more difficult when factors external to the driving task (e. 1988) and the zero risk theory (Näätänen & Summala. Most of the time. 1982. Fuller argued that loss of control occurs when task demands exceed drivers’ capabilities.g. 252). 2. Fuller (2000. either by modifying task demand or by altering their capability. affective states).
2.1 Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) An attitude is a relatively stable and enduring predisposition to behave or react in a certain way toward persons. It generally refers to the thoughts and feelings that impel us to behave in one way and not in another” (Parker. such that it is not capability but perceived capability that interfaces with task demand. generally referring to a positive or negative 38 . Intention is the cognitive representation of an individual’s readiness to engage in a given behaviour. 1985. Since 1985. providing an account of the way in which attitudes. the notion of matching competence with task demand promises to be very useful in understanding driver behaviour. Intention is determined by the summed effects of: (a) attitudes toward the behaviour. 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. 1975) and the subsequent theory of planned behaviour (TPB: Ajzen. 2004. Generally. objects. Langdridge (2004) describes the theory of reasoned action as one of the most important theories in attitude-behaviour research. institutions or issues (Chaplin. Two limitations have been noted.3. 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. subjective norms and behavioural intentions can be used to predict behaviour. time pressure). neither of which was originally intended as a way of explaining driver behaviour. largely due to the focus that has been provided by the theory of reasoned action (TRA. 1985. and Keskinen et al. p.7 Attitude-behaviour Theories 2. however. people’s behaviour is determined by their intention to perform the behaviour. for the most part. p. traffic psychology has seen a resurgence of interest in the role played by attitudes. emotional state. Rothengatter (2002) has stressed that the perception of capability is often influenced by external factors (impairment. been regarded as potentially more productive than earlier risk-based theories. According to the TRA. Fishbein & Ajzen.Fuller’s theory has. and is considered to be the immediate antecedent of behaviour. (2004) have argued that it is deserving of more attention than it has received to date. 40). 1991).6. 126).3.
39 . however (Sharma & Kanekar. subjective norms (“do others feel this is a good thing for me to do?”). 24). which can usually be performed (or not performed) at will.2 Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) Complications hindered the application of the TRA in circumstances where behaviours were not fully under volitional control. such that every intended behaviour is a goal whose attainment is subject to some degree of uncertainty. 2007). 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”). p.judgement with respect to behavioural performance (“accelerating to pass through a cross-junction against an amber light is bad/good”). According to the TPB. he incorporated the concept of “perceived behavioural control” (PBC). 1985. To deal with this uncertainty.7. Hartwick and Warshaw (1988) found that the theory had strong predictive utility. are sometimes subject to the influence of factors beyond one’s control. “Even very mundane activities. 2. and perceived control (“do I really believe that I can do this?”). and a meta-analysis carried out by Sheppard. denoting the subjective degree of control which individuals perceive themselves having over the performance of a behaviour.2). then. Ajzen and Fishbein (2000) argued that intention is the best predictor of behaviour. see Figure 2. This extended framework was introduced as the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB.3.” (Azjen. behavioural intention is the result of attitudes (“do I feel like this is a good thing to do?”).
Its inclusion as a predictor of behaviour is premised on the notion that. it will directly influence behaviour (Armitage & Christian. PBC is considered a determinant of both the individual’s intentions and the individual’s behaviour. 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.3: Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen.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. speed on a major road or overtake dangerously. greater perceived control (i. on the performance of a wide range of behaviours. to the extent to which PBC reflects an individual’s level of actual control. The TPB has spawned a huge body of research. creating a proxy effect that increases the likelihood that behaviour will be successfully performed. p.e. 2002. stronger feelings that “I can do it”) will heighten an individual’s confidence level. Further. or sense of self-efficacy. 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. 1989) Within the theory. A belief that the described violations were not all that serious (attitudes). 2003). 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. 40 . when intention is held constant. In one study. including driving and “it has to be admitted that the theory of planned behaviour has stood up well. 253)..
2. roadway configuration and crossing design were weighted. A large number of studies have reported epidemiological characteristics of drivers. 2002). pedestrians and road environments in a range of 41 . Attitude toward speeding. vehicles. they found that real GDP per capita was related to the number of crashes.4. (2005) in their Malaysian study (see sect.In another study. 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. 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.4 2. while Rautela and Pant (2007) modelled crash risk on mountain roads in India using geographical information system (GIS) data. Austin and Carson (2002). This might be seen as evidence of the proxy effect earlier described by Armitage and Christian (2002). based on data extracted from police record forms. Gross Domestic Product per capita and alcohol consumption. for instance. Wállen Warner and Åberg (2006) used structural equation modelling to predict drivers’ everyday speeding behaviour using the TPB as a frame of reference.1.1 Descriptive Models of Driver Behaviour Statistical Models If traffic psychology lacks a general unified theory of driving behaviour. 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. it was not significant (Scuffham & Langley. to predict weather-related crashes in England and Wales. Similar to later findings by Law et al. but after controlling for distance travelled. subjective norms and PBC were all significant determinants of self-reported speeding. Edwards (1996) developed a spatial model. there has been no shortage of empirically-based models that show statistical relationships between specific variables related to given situations.2. Scuffham (2003) used a different approach to model the changes in seasonal patterns of fatal crashes in New Zealand according to unemployment rate.2).
2. and have proposed expanding the matrix to better provide for the analysis of inter-relationships between each of the four basic elements. R.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). within specific situational contexts. Law. Nguntra. 1999). Mahasakpan. however. 2. concealing the interactions that underlie the behaviour of real traffic systems (Noy.locations and settings (e. Haddon (1970) proposed a framework in which each of these elements could be examined as part of an analytical matrix (see Figure 2. 1997) 42 .4). 1997. Seow & Lim. the road (R) and the environment (E). One way of accomplishing this may be through the creation of models that stress the mediational role played by certain V.2 Process Models 2. Richardson & Downe. E and especially H factors.4. Swaddiwudhipong. 1998. 2000). This model has been instrumental in stimulating research designs and accident interventions for the last thirty yeasrs (Williams. More recently. Koonchote & Tantiratna.4: The Haddon Matrix (Noy. 1994). the vehicle (V).4. some researchers have argued that the Haddon Matrix is limited by the way it considers each element independently.. PRE-CRASH CRASH POST-CRASH BASIC ELEMENTS OF A HIGHWAY EVENT Human (H) Vehicle (V) Road (R) Environment (E) Figure 2.g.
on the other hand.g. relevant factors are grouped as occurring within either the distal context or the proximal context of the accident (see Figure 2. when one observes a correlation between a behavioural measure and crash risk. By contrast. there are four possible explanations: the behavioural measure may directly influence crash risk. it may influence crash risk through some other. speeding. as well. Personality factors within the 43 . driving experience) and psychological characteristics (e. are affected by specific or collective factors from the distal context and. age. 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.2. contribute directly to crash outcomes. substance abuse) that.. reckless lane transitions or overtaking. it may happen to correlate with some other factor that influences crash risk but play no role itself. on one hand.2. sensation seeking. extraversion.5). or crash risk may influence the behavioural measure (p. more proximal variable. gender. aggression). arguing that: Correlational studies suffer from the inescapable problem that causality cannot be established.4. Factors within the distal context include not only road. vehicle and environmental conditions related to accident causation but a range of driver demographic (e. 283).. Therefore. 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. (1993) discussed the problem of choosing predictor variables in studies of behavioural and personality influences on road-traffic crash risk.g. Within the generic model..2 A Contextual Mediated Model of Personality and Behavioural Predictors of Motor Vehicle Crashes Elander et al.g. the proximal context is made up of driver behaviours and attitudes (e.
hostility and psychoticism) – both on three proximal elements – aberrant driving behaviour. choice of preferred speed and dysfunctional drinking habits – and on the frequency of self-reported accidents.g.5: Contextual Mediated Model of Personality.distal context were assumed to be capable of creating generalized tendencies that increased risks of accidents within behavioural variables measured within the proximal context.g. risk taking. sensation seeking. Variables within the distal context would be expected to affect accident frequency indirectly and through their relationships with measures of proximal behaviour factors. DISTAL CONTEXT Road and vehicle condition Demographic characteristics Culture-specific factors. Behavioural Predictors and Motor Vehicle Crashes (from Sümer. PROXIMAL CONTEXT Safety skills Aberrant driving behaviors Violations Errors Speeding Drinking and driving Dysfunctional drinking e. it would be expected that relationships between the distal and proximal contexts would be stronger than those between the proximal context and crash outcomes. As such. Sümer examined the effect of three distal elements – sensation seeking. such that direct effects of distal factors would be most likely insignificant or weak. 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. aggression and psychological symptoms (anxiety. cultural driving habits and beliefs Relatively stable personality characteristics. depression. 2003) 44 . e. psychological symptoms. aggression Attributions regarding CRASH OUTCOMES accidents Fatalism Enforcement Figure 2.
process or transformation exists through which one variable influences another (Frazier. In Figure 2. 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. then it can be concluded that complete mediation occurs. while path a represents the effect of X on some mediator variable. 2006). the variable X is called the initial or predictor variable and it causes the variable Y. If. 2004) and a distinction can be drawn between partial mediation and complete mediation (Wei. 2003).6(ii) illustrates the basic causal chain involved in mediation.2. 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.2. Mediation can be said to occur when some mechanism. Figure 2. mediators are variables that represent constructs proposed to explain the association between two variables (Hoyle & Robinson. 2004). 45 . In Sümer’s (2003) generic contextual mediated model. such that path c′ is zero. Heppner & Mallinckrodt. In the case where X no longer affects Y after M has been controlled. called the outcome. M. driver propensities to commit errors or violations. moderating or mediating effects. for instance. Tix and Barron. Also termed intervening variables. driver impairment and so on) were hypothesised to mediate the effect of distal variables on the frequency or likelihood of crash outcomes.4.6(i). 1986). proximal variables (including safety skill levels. which in turn exerts an effect on Y through path b (Baron & Kenny. then the significance level of path c would be reduced to insignificance or a less significant level (path c’). in which there are two causal paths feeding into the outcome variable: path c′ depicts the direct effect of X on Y.3 Core Concepts in the Contextual Mediated Model: Moderation and Mediation Inter-variable relationships within the contextual mediated model can have direct.
or testing the moderating effect. a moderating variable is one that has a strong contingent effect on the relationship between independent and dependent variable (Sekaran. 1986). Only if the interaction (path c) is significant.6: Inter-variable Relationships in Mediation Models In contrast.(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. variable (see Figure 2. these are not directly relevant conceptually to testing the moderator hypothesis. or dependent. and the interaction or product of these two (path c).7): the impact of a predictor. or independent variable (path a). Baron and Kenny have further added that although the predictor and moderator can have significant effects on the outcome variable. there are three causal paths that can effect the outcome. 2003). can the moderator hypothesis be concluded as supported (Baron & Kenny. the impact of a moderator (path b). 46 .
4. more relevant to the model he proposed.2. the effects of the proximal variables on the number of crashes experienced within a three-year period was examined. Further. sensationseeking and risk-taking (novelty. and non-professional students who were mostly students. Using structured equation modelling. intensity) and aggression (physical aggression. hostility. he found that. choice of speed and alcohol use (antisocial drinking. Sümer also find that aberrant driving behaviour. while psychological factors did not predict speed choice.7: Inter-variable Relationships in Moderation Model 2. dangerous drinking).4 Studies of Driving Behaviour Using the Contextual Mediated Model In his initial study.Predictor Variable X a Moderator Z b Y Outcome Variable c Predictor X Moderator Figure 2. verbal aggression. In turn. they did have a significant association with both dysfunctional alcohol use and aberrant driving behaviours. His sample of 321 participants combined both professional drivers. A number of questions may be raised about Sümer’s (2003) analysis. However. mostly from taxi and heavy trucking. Sümer (2003) identified three classes of distal variables: psychological symptoms (depression. errors). He examined their effects on three proximal variables: aberrant driving behaviour (violations. given wide 47 . psychoticism). hostility. anxiety. No attempt was made to differentiate between these two groups. a proximal variable significantly mediated the relationship between the three distal variables and the frequency of crashes. anger).
Arthur. McRae &Costa. 1995. extraversion (interpersonal warmth. 2005. in that the standard multivariate correlation methods applied as part of his LISREL analysis assumed a normal distribution of crash frequency scores. 1920). Watson. Greenwood & Yule. including the three-year time-frame over which drivers were asked to report crash occurrence. Here. 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. 1998). 1990) to a similar analysis.variation in the number of kilometres driven annually by participants (SD = 14. responsibility. Notwithstanding these methodological considerations. Edward. 1919. conscientiousness (dependability. Sümer’s decision to use self-report data is subject to the usual validity considerations raised by several authors (af Wahlberg. The proximal factor was again aberrant driving behaviour (errors. It is questionable whether crash details can be recalled accurately for up to 36 months and requires the assumption that the psychological characteristics. sensation seeking). Bell. broad-mindedness). tends to fit a Poisson distribution or. al. applied the five factor. Tubré & Tubré. Results indicated that all five of the personality factors had indirect effects on crash risk through their effects on 48 .. 2002. Finally. while it has been accepted since the early accident proneness studies of the IFRB that crash frequency. Day. or “Big Five”. as recommended by Elander et al. violations) and the outcome measure was expanded to include the self-reported number of crashes and traffic offences committed over a three-year period. it was somewhat surprising that no attempt was made to control for differing levels of traffic exposure. personality model (Costa & McRae. Lajunen and Özkan (2005). 1993). Sümer. a negative-binomial distribution (Greenwood & Woods. the distal factors were: neuroticism (a tendency to experience negative affect and anxiety). In a subsequent study. (1993) and others.739). Sümer’s model construction might also be questioned. in most cases. Elander et. lapses. 2003. 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. agreeableness (helpfulness. self-discipline) and openness (adventurousness. sensation seeking patterns. for high-λ individuals. trust).
Sümer. 225). reported that driver anger. but weaker significant effects on self-reported accident involvement. some researchers have worked with models that are conceptually consistent with the contextual mediated model. perceived threat and gender on distress levels were partially or fully mediated by individuals’ feelings of coping self-efficacy. Bilgic. Both studies were concluded to have demonstrated support for the use of the contextual mediated model. air force and gendarmerie. material loss. anxiety. Sümer. psychotic tendencies and psychosomatic complaints among a large sample of noncommissioned officers in the Turkish army. yielding support for the contextual mediated model. Berument and Gunes (2005). including perceived control. 49 . for instance used the concept to examine predictors of psychological distress following the 1999 earthquake in Turkey. prior to the present one.2. phobia. optimism. for instance. Iverson and Rundmo (2002). using a similar research design. navy. self esteem. sensation seeking and normlessness (all of which which might be classified as distal. They found that the effect of proximal variables. have acted on those recommendations. moderators and bidirectional associations between personality and accident involvement to better understand the underlying mechanisms” (p. hostility. while the risky driving variables had strong and significant effects on accident involvement. Sümer and Erol (2005) found that a contextual mediated model was successful in showing relationships between distal and proximal predictors of depression. proximal behavioural variables mediated personality factors. within Sümer’s contextual mediated model) had direct effects on measures of more proximal risky driving tendencies. In other words. Although no other studies of driving behaviour. The authors recommended that “the contextual model should be refined considering other potential mediators.4.5 Use of the Contextual Mediated Model in Other Research Sümer’s model has been applied outside the traffic psychology domain. 2. In another study. Karanci.aberrant driving behaviours.
uncertainty avoidance) temperamental factors (e.g.5..g. Weinstein & Solomon. Retting. Odero et al. in a study of safety training methods and personality factors in Malaysian rubber and palm oil plantations. Yet. 2002. 1995).8: Proposed Contextual Mediated Model for Safety Research in Agriculture (from Downe..Downe (2007). 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 2.8).. but young drivers are more likely to sustain crash-related injuries and to die in vehicular crashes (Massie. 2003.1 Age Young drivers are significantly over-represented among those injured or killed in road traffic crashes (Ballesteros & Dischinger. heterogeneity in group composition: Part of this may be due to 50 . Type A. 2003).1 Distal Variables in the Present Study Demographic Variables 2. 2007) 2. proposed the use of a contextual mediated model for further research on agricultural safety (see Figure 2.5 2. 1997.5. 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.1. Campbell & Williams. they have been less well studied than other groups and the general understanding of age effects is not clear. Not only are they the most likely age group to be involved in crashes. Williams & Shabanova.
Graziano and Bonino (2006) have argued that. drive while fatigued. less emotionally mature. irresponsibility and driving related aggression. tobacco smoking. overtake dangerously. are more likely to engage in alcohol use when driving and are less likely to use seatbelts when compared to other drivers (Lerner. Younger drivers tend to have a riskier driving style than others. less experienced with the use of alcohol and has different social and motivational needs that may contribute to risk taking on the road. However. Ulleberg (2004) found that drivers reporting higher preference for risk-taking were also characterised by low levels of altruism and anxiety. not all young new drivers are alike (Dewar. in which they believed that they were better drivers and luckier in avoiding crashes. for these difficulties. 2002a. Foster and O’Neill (2005) studied self-rated driving attributes of 16. follow too closely. The former is less experienced at driving. 2002a. 221). at least in part. 2001. p. The factors of driving style and driving skill may account. 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. the contrary appears to be true.The “young” category typically ranges from 16 to 25. Harré. 2007). Jehle. Jonah. Vassallo et al. but there are a great many differences between a 17-year-old and a 23-year-old driver. In fact. 1986). Moscati. this is a reflection of lifestyle. This was consistent with many other studies in which young drivers tended to overestimate their own skills and under-estimate crash risk (Dewar. Connery & Stiller. McDonald (1994) reported 51 .. comfort eating and time spent in non-organised activities with friends. and by high levels of sensation-seeking. Bina. in many cases. Matthews & Moran. Billittier. specifically more likely to drive too fast. The problems encountered by novice drivers are often attributed to age and inexperience together. Several reasons have been proposed for high age-related crash risk levels.to 29-year old drivers in New Zealand and found a marked crash-risk optimism. 1997b.
Similarly. and 55 per cent had seen them exhibit behaviour described as “road rage” (Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and State Farm Insurance. age was hypothesized to interact with emotional states such as hopelessness and aggression. 1999. Ulleberg.that young drivers are less skilful in vehicle control tasks than older drivers. managing velocity and regulating acceleration. 76 per cent had seen peers drive while very upset stressed. They have generally lower skill levels in acquiring and integrating information. indirectly. 52 . Stevenson et al. In a nation-wide survey of American teens. Vissers & Jessurun. particularly with respect to controlling deviations. and have poor information processing and attention-switching skills. since safe driving among younger drivers has been shown to be more prone to the effects of emotional states. 74 per cent had seen tem drive while very happy or excited (strong positive emotions). angry or sad (strong negative emotions). Since previous research had highlighted the association between age. 2002). and that young drivers. on crash and injury occurrence. particularly under conditions of heightened emotionality. (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. behaviour in traffic would become less safe and crash occurrence would be more likely. 2007). This means that “young drivers must devote a greater proportion of their attentional resources to conscious decision making and monitoring their driving. Justification of age-related hypotheses. capable of distracting attention from driving and increasing crash occurrence. it was hypothesised in the present study that. as age decreased. risky driving and crash frequency (Lourens. Since many of the violations commonly committed by younger drivers – speeding. are like to perceive the driving task with overconfidence and inadequate attention to risk. so they have little spare attentional capacity” (p. Young drivers may also be more prone to drive under the influence of strong emotional states.39). age was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. In the present study. they have cognitive schemata that are inaccurate and relatively undetailed.
Monárrez-Espino. men have been shown to have a higher rate of crashes than women.. Elliott. 2. Williams and Shabanova (2003) found that young American males were significantly more likely than young females to be responsible for crash deaths. Shope.. Dewar (2002b) stated that “some of the reasons for this are obvious – men drive greater distances. p. more often at hazardous times (e.1. it was also hypothesised that. darkness)” (p. found that men had twice as high a risk as women of being involved in a motor vehicle crash during the late night hours. There appear to be differences in the types of crashes experienced. reported that crash incidence for men in the United States was nearly double that of women. Kuhn and Layde (2001) found. 129).5. male drivers incur their first crash earlier in their driving careers and are more likely to be held to blame for the incident. Chipman. with respect to both driving behaviour and to crash involvement. 2004. Tavris.2 Gender A large number of studies have found differences between males and females. Smiley and Lee-Gosselin (1992). for instance. and behaviours predictive of fatalities. in addition to having a higher number of crashes. it 53 . self-reported injury would also increase. that males were significantly more likely to be involved in a loss-of-control accident. Åkerstedt and Kecklund (2001). as age decreased. for instance. However. MacGregor. Marked differences also occur between the genders in terms of the number of fatalities. Hasselberg and Laflamme (2006) analysed Swedish police records and found the same ratio. “In all studies and analyses. and so on – were associated with greater risk of injury. rush hour) and in hazardous conditions (e.g. for instance. without exception. Raghunathan and Little (2001) noted that. This gender difference is most marked in the population under 25 years. Laapotti and Keskinen (1998) showed that when male drivers lost control of their motorcar.failure to use seat-belts.g. Waller. but is also evident among older drivers” (Social Issues Research Centre [SIRC]. as well.4). 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.
1997.usually led to a single-vehicle crash. 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. to date. Laapotti and Keskinen (2004a) indicated that. for instance. they did not differ from female drivers in reported driving 54 . 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. as marked changes in the roles of women in society have profound implications for the design of transportation systems (Waller. Dobson. Lenard. Neighbors and Donovan (2007). which typically took place during evenings and nights. reported more traffic citations and injuries. state of Washington. in a sample taken in the U. Ball. Flyte & Garner. While there is much of value in such an approach. 2001). Brown. 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. At the same time. (a) the number of female drivers is increasing. 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. (b) females drive increasingly more. worldwide. Woodcock. 525526). but for female drivers the loss of control usually resulted in a collision with another car. Male drivers drove too fast and under the influence of alcohol more often in loss-of-control crashes. This is important. found that while male drivers. Lonczak. Welsh. and (c) female drivers are involved in more motor vehicle crashes than ever before. Female drivers’ loss-of-control crashes usually took place under slippery road conditions and were more likely due to deficient vehicle handling skills.S.
Laapotti and Keskinen (2004b) provided evidence in support of this view. Linderholm and Järmark (1998) reviewed studies dating from 1970 to 1984 and compared them to results obtained between 1985 and 1997. on the other hand. 55 . In the present study. Forward. Turner & McClure. 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. alcohol consumption and for risky driving. on crash and injury occurrence. indirectly. as per the traditional pattern. though. Keskinen and Rajalin (2003) reported that Finnish females in 2001 drove less than males. In a study of male and female drivers in Finland. committed fewer traffic offences and had a more positive attitude toward traffic safety and rules than males. and loss-of-control incidents. showing that male drivers were. McKenna. Female drivers. crash frequency and risky or aggressive driving behaviour (Monárrez-Espino. control of traffic situations. (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.anger. 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. had proportionally more crashes connected to inadequate vehicle manoeuvring. it was hypothesised that males and females would differ on measures of behaviour in traffic. commenting that “despite the fact that there has been a massive shift in the population of women drivers. were less frequently involved in crash situations. In other research. Justification of gender-related hypotheses. et al. Since previous research had highlighted the association between males. 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. Lourens et al. (1998) and Laapotti and Keskinen (2004). In a subsequent report. Waylen and Burke (1998) disagreed. 2006. 2003). Laapotti.. 11). involved in proportionally more crashes connected to speeding. just as they had in 1978. gender was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. In a study of Dutch drivers. evaluated their driving skill lower.
Being a non-wealthy Catholic country was associated with higher fatality rates than being a wealthy Catholic country. more frequent histories of speeding offences and more extreme alcohol use. being a wealthy Catholic country was associated with more traffic fatalities than were wealthy. this has been the result of a change in reporting protocols within the U. White and Hispanic drivers regarding red light violations. Lajunen. he found that 60% of drivers had positioned belts or shoulder straps in a manner that appeared to 56 . On the other hand. Lezotte and Lowenstein (2000) compared Hispanic and non-Hispanic white motorists in the state of Colorado. Corry. Very little cross-cultural research related to traffic safety has been carried out in Southeast Asia. Hauswald (1999) studied the incidence of covert non-compliance with seat belt regulations among Malaysian taxi drivers. To a large degree. Conducting curb-side inspections of taxicabs in Kuala Lumpur. Despite the fact that countries’ regulatory frameworks were becoming increasingly similar. Marine.1. Schlundt. Summala and Hartley (1998). lower rates of safety belt use. Melinder (2007) compared 15 Western European countries with regard to the relation between different sociocultural factors.3 Ethnicity A growing number of studies have examined the effect of ethnic differences on driving behaviour and crash outcomes.S. Haliburton. reported few differences between Australians and Finns. 2005).2. But. Garrett. Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS). nonCatholic countries. Harper. Romano. Tippetts and Voas (2005) found no differences between African-American. Melinder concluded that the type of religion and wealth were important distal factors. In one of the few studies reported.5. traffic safety regulations and traffic fatalities. Levine. Goldweig and Warren. that expanded the standards for collection of data on race and ethnicity in 1999 (Briggs. finding that the former group had higher fatality rates. for instance. differences in fatalities persisted. A few studies have endeavoured to compare national driving cultures in terms of crash risk.
shame-driven. in fact. cultural differences can be more subtle. respect for knowledge. However. Strong relationship orientation. Table 2. gender was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. 1999). 2000. Indirect communication. respect for elders. ethnic-Chinese and ethnic-Indian (Williamson. religion. respect for elders. few significant value differences between ethnic groups. 2005). 1999). In the present study. While religious affiliation. prosperity.3: Key Value Clusters for Each Malaysian Ethnic Group Key Value Orientations Man’s relationship with God. prosperity and integrity.. hierarchical. cooperation. Strong relationship orientation. Karma. face saving. Indian-Malaysian Pre-determination. harmony with nature.have them restrained but had not fastened the latch. peace. on crash and injury occurrence. regional distribution and socioeconomic status differs considerably between the three groups (Gomez. family honour. Fontaine and Richardson (2005) found that 82% of values were shared by all three ethnic groups. The Malaysian population is comprised of three distinct ethnic groups: Malay. Abdullah and Peterson (2003) have outlined value orientations for each ethnic group (see Table 2.2). humility.. indirectly. brotherhood/sisterhood. In a study of 324 employees sampled from a cross-section of Malaysian industries. polite behaviour. Conscious of what other people say about us. there was no statistical differences between ethnic groups in the frequency of this practice. Education. courtesy. Justification of ethnic difference hypotheses. Malay Differences have not always been consistent. hard work. it was hypothesised that ethnicity would have a significant effect on 57 . piety. respect for elders. Spirituality. Fatalistic. filial piety. Based on studies that have demonstrated ethnic differences in driving behaviour (Harper et al. Chinese-Malaysian Pre-determined future. family ties. Family centeredness. dependence on family for direction in social and career decisions. They concluded that there were. Roman et al.
166). Lajunen & Summala. etc. Laapotti.behaviour in traffic.5. they are less likely to make errors and commit violations that result in crashes (e. Allied to this. Groeger (2000) reviewed the reasons for this: … the weight of practice more experienced drivers have makes much of what they do routine. passenger distractions different vehicles. increased experience usually.g. although not always. 2. A large number of studies have shown that. inexperienced drivers may (a) not know the correct manoeuvre so they try a different manoeuvre which turns out to be unsafe. 2002).. 2001). 1971). and as such. directionality of the effect was not predicted. (b) not know how to carry out a particular manoeuvre correctly. On the other hand. as drivers become more experienced. (c) not have had enough practice in carrying out the manoeuvre correctly. allows many otherwise incompatible tasks to be performed together. 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 . As experience grows. the motorist is less likely to encounter situations very different from those they have encountered before (p. Keskinen. and indicating that those recording higher mileage per year have fewer accidents per mile (Pelz & Schuman. such as driving at different times of the day or days of the week.5. or (d) not have had enough experience of dealing safety with the effects of human factors on their performance (Fuller. journey lengths. Given the absence of relevant prior research on Malaysian cultural groups.2.1 Experience Driver experience makes a difference in crash risk.2 Driver Characteristics 2. implies the driver has had a broader variety of driving experiences. in a given road and traffic scenario. Hatakka and Katila. 1995. with different weather conditions.
2001). 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. Yet. 2004). as well as knowledge of risk elements and a cognitive map of control equipment in the vehicle and how it behaves. 1996. Internal models have connections to motivational and emotional systems of the driver. and can be organised in a hierarchy that reflects the key purposes. When drivers tap into models at the base of cognitive hierarchy. environment.by Keskinen. they take actions based on whether they are perceived to reflect lifestyle priorities and values. experience effects have not been controlled (Rothengatter. 2000) The effects of driving experience and age are closely linked. When using those at the top of the hierarchy. but also through verbal and pictorial description or by imagining the course of traffic events (Keskinen et al. as young drivers generally have less experience than their older counterparts. Hataaka and Katila (1992). Experience can be gained through personal participation in traffic as a driver and through observing the behaviour of others.9). as individuals acquire experience. Hatakka. or most important facets of driving at different levels (see Figure 2. Internal models contain knowledge of route. and sometimes confounded by gender differences. in many studies of age and gender differences. they tend to priortise conscious control of the vehicle over other elements of the driving experience.9: Hierarchical Levels of Driving Behaviour (after Keskinen. It assumes that. social context company MASTERING TRAFFIC SITUATIONS Adapting to the demands of the present situation VEHICLE MANOEUVRING Controlling speed. direction and position Figure 2. including start and destination point and corresponding visual scenes. 59 . 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.
many studies have focused on the effects of experience. (2001) used the cognitive framework to explain the differing effects of experience. Driving experience was considered a distal variable that would have an 60 .Laapotti et al. was used in this study. 1954).. While motivational and differing skill levels are also important predictors of professional drivers’ crash risk. 2004). 2007). the number of years since a driving licence was first obtained. They found that young drivers failed in applying both lower and higher models of the hierarchy than did middle-aged drivers. Burns and Wilde (1995) found no relationship between collision history and personality when they studied sampled male taxi drivers in a small Canadian city. on the other hand. explained because adult identity is still under construction so life goals and living skills are still under development. Young novice drivers. Ghiselli & Brown.g. Peltzer and Renner (2003). found that risk taking within a sample of 130 drivers of minibus taxis in the Pietersburg area of the Republic of South Africa.and medium-severity traffic violation penalties as unjust than are non-professional drivers (Rosenbloom & Shahar. 1948. One way to understand experience effects is to study occupations for which driving is an important work component. all of which were seen to reflect deficient self-control and lifestyle management abilities. 1949. Female novice 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. A simple measure of driving experience. such as problems in vehicle handling skills. for instance. was inversely correlated with driving experience and numbers of accidents witnessed. Studies of crash predictors among professional drivers have been undertaken for over fifty years (e. and that taxicab drivers are more likely to regard low. showed more problems than males connected to the lower cognitive levels of the driving hierarchy. taking risks and consuming alcohol or drugs. showed more problems connected to showing off driving skills to peers. Brown & Ghiselli. frequently showing that they are lest frequently involved in motor vehicle crashes than other classes of drivers. and especially young male drivers. Justification of driver experience hypotheses. Mintz. age and gender on motor vehicle crash risk.
on crash and injury occurrence. In individual differences research. it is accepted that the more one travels. and the traffic conditions to which they are exposed. All of these will affect the likelihood of crash involvement. Rothengatter. 1986. 1984). 1995. for instance. First. Elander et al. 2001.2 Driving Frequency and Traffic Exposure Many authors have discussed the effect of traffic exposure on crash risk and outcomes (Evans. (1993) noted that: People vary in the time they spend on the road. 1984. Wilde. the miles they drive. Pelz & Schuman. Åkerstedt and Kecklund (2001). indirectly. technical or legal changes relating to road safety. 1971). 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. 282). the concept is much less well developed. McKenna. Based on research indicating that more experienced drivers tend to have fewer crashes (Lajunen & Summala. Generally. Duncan & Brown. and the problem of taking adequate account of individuals’ exposure to risk is only beginning to be properly addressed (p. showed that the risk of crash involvement is five to ten times higher during late night 61 . Second. with greater experience associated with safer self-reported behaviour. 2002a). driving occurs (Dewar. it was hypothesised that driving experience would have a significant effect on behaviour in traffic scores. 1993).2.effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. the more one is going to be exposed to traffic situations in which a crash could occur. there may be considerable random or systematic error in subjective reports about distance travelled (Elander et al. and type of route where. but measuring exposure is not always as simple a matter as computing asking for an estimate of distance travelled per unit time (Evans. 1991).5.. crash risk is affected greatly by the time of day when. 2.
. 2006. it was hypothesised that higher levels of driving frequency would result in less risky behaviour in traffic. Lourens et al. there is little evidence that drivers are capable of reporting different categories of time or route conditions. with the highest incidence being between 6:00 pm and midnight. however. (1999) have argued that. This was taken to be representative of traffic exposure. as defined by Elander et al. Justification of exposure hypotheses. Cairns. 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. 2007). (1993). Odero et al. in countries like the USA. 62 . Ferguson.. In the present study. Williams & Shabanova. 2003). Teoh & MCartt. In keeping with recommendations made by Elander et al. and found that approximately one-third of all traffic injuries occurred during the night. (1997) reviewed published and unpublished reports on roadway crashes in developing countries from 1966 to 1994. 2007. Bina et al. Mercer (1989) showed that. Towner and Ward. 2007. Yet.hours than during the forenoon. 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). although much research does not (e. After correcting for the number of kilometres driven. young male drivers were strongly over-presented in terms of both crash frequency and traffic-related fines. female drivers came out higher in number of crashes and in some types of traffic violations. on crash and injury occurrence. a simple measure of driving frequency was used as a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. Because of earlier trends reported by Evans (1984) and McKenna et al. Evans (1991) and others. Canada and Germany where a legal penalty point system is in place to track drivers’ violations and involvement in road crashes..g. the resulting ‘driver records’ in combination with exposure data turn out to be the best predictors of future crashes. indirectly. Christie. without correcting for annual mileage. nor are there valid category weightings that would allow the prediction of risk.
Levenson (1975. 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. 15). she assumed that the three resulting dimensions were conceptually independent. 1975. Levenson constructed a scale has been used widely in studies of locus of control (e. In contrast. Hyman.5. people are thought to vary on a continuum between the two extremes of external and internal locus of control.g.3.3. according to the strength of their tendencies toward making attributions of internal or external control. Rotter’s (1966) original I-E conceptualisation of the locus of control construct viewed it as a unidimensional. 1990). such that it could be possible for an individual to score high on all three (see Figure 2. and second. or externals . Stanley & Burrows.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. 63 . people who attribute behaviour to an internal locus of control. 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. 2006.2. 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. one to reflect the influence of fate or chance (C) and the second to reflect the influence of powerful others (P). 1991. 1981) extended this concept in two ways: first..10). 1999). view most events as dependent on chance or controlled by powers beyond human reach.1.3 Psychological Variables 2.1 Locus of Control 2. she separated the externality dimension into two.5. Holder & Levi. Originally conceptualised by Rotter (1966. Based on this multidimensional conceptualisation.5. 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. or internals.
these results supported the idea that internals would be more cautious in their control efforts while externals would engage in riskier behaviour.10: Contrast between Rotter’s Unidimensional and Levenson’s Multidimensional Conceptualisations of Locus of Control 2. Liverant and Scodel (1960) studied betting preferences using a simple dice-throwing task.3.2 Locus of Control and Driving Behaviour Very early studies examined a link between locus of control and risk taking. luck. E Unidimensional Model I Externalizers Individuals believe that what happens is determined by fate. They found that subjects with high internal control seemed to prefer intermediate probability bets or extremely safe bets over so-called long shots. 64 . They also tended to bet more on safe outcomes than did the more externally oriented subjects.1. Sinha & Watson. Multidimensional Model Low Internality High Low Externality . 1989. 2007) and has given rise to a number of other instruments measuring multi-dimensional locus of control. 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.Luckner.Chance High Low Externality – Powerful Others High Figure 2. According to Phares (1976).5.
Dixey (1999) found relationships between road crashes and fatalist attitudes in Nigeria. those who see themselves as playing little or no part in the unfolding of evens will act in a less cautious manner. s/he will be more likely to take precautionary measures such as wearing a seat belt and being vigilant to roadway cues. Guastello and Guastello (1986) used the Rotter (1966) locus of control scale and their own transitional instrument in a study of American college students. but results have been inconsistent. 65 . In a subsequent study. If an individual views herself or himself as being responsible for both positive and negative outcomes.More recent studies have examined the relationship between an external locus of control and risky behaviour within driving or workplace behaviour. as Cronbach’s alpha values for the scales of their transitional instrument were below accepted criteria and scale content. 1987). however. Iversen and Rundmo (2002) also failed to find an association with risky driving or crash involvement. believing that fate will achieve its goals no matter what the individual does (p. 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. Other authors explained an apparent link between external locus of control and crash risk on a motivational basis (Montag & Comrey. On the other hand. 39). however. 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. 1999). 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. French & Chan. which focused heavily on situational scenarios. According to Brown and Noy (2004). Serious methodological problems may have plagued this study. A great many studies have investigated the effects of locus of control on driving behaviour. only partially represented the original locus of control concept.
although scores on externality dimensions did not relate significantly to any of those dependent variables. 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. In an important study. hostility was associated with worse DDB to a greater extent among drivers scoring low on internality than among drivers scoring high on internality. Hoyt (1973) reported that internals reported wearing seat belts more often and experienced highway travel as more interesting and involving. On the other hand. an internal locus of control was found to be associated with lower levels of crash involvement and with higher levels of cognitive ability. 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). Gidron. (p. In a similar study investigating personality attributes and driving behaviour. They found that. This study provided support for the view that the effects of personality traits on driving 66 . The same driving skill scores were positively correlated with an internal locus of control. cognitive. offences. it strongly moderated the relationship between hostility and DDB. personality and demographic/biographical predictors of vehicular involvement. Özkan and Lajunen (2005) found that internals reported a higher number of total crashes.Although externals reported more risk taking this trend was not significant. In a meta-analysis of information-processing. driving skills were negatively correlated with externality scores. aggressive and ordinary traffic violations and driving errors. Arthur et al. 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. (1991) argued that these equivocal results were due to overly simple research designs which tended to investigate direct effects of locus of control. leading the authors to conclude that “if a relationship exists. although internality was unrelated to DDB. In a much earlier study. 1260). That is. it may not be of sufficient magnitude to be of value.
Italy. 122). India. Noting that Chinese culture.1. Life situations may be viewed as being largely determined by circumstances outside personal control (p. Israel. indicated that. More recent research has continued to find differences in locus of control between cultures and between sub-groups within cultures. Shybut and Lotsof (1969) sampled three groups of high school students (Hong Kong Chinese. reinforcement and sociocultural processes created fertile ground for cross-cultural studies using the locus of control construct. Japanese students had significantly higher external scores than in all other countries. (1991).5. France. Crittendon (1991) found that female university students in Taiwan were more 67 . In very early research. is based on the notion that … luck.behaviour can be better understood by adopting a more holistic approach in which interactions. Hsieh. Their results. Parsons and Schneider (1974) administered Rotter’s (1969) I-E scale to 120 male and female students in Canada. which is considered to be full of ambiguity. after correction for differences in socioeconomic status. Richardson and Downe (2000) and others.3 Locus of Control and Ethnicity Dyal (1984) argued that post-War geopolitical expansion and a growing interest in the role of attributions. Germany. with situation-centred Confucian foundations. chance and fate are taken for granted in life. complexity and unpredictability. and the USA. as hypothesised. moderating and mediating relationships are investigated. Japan. 2. US-born Chinese and Caucasian Americans). This point had also been argued earlier by Arthur et al. Hong Kong Chinese students were more externally controlled on Rotter’s (1969) I-E scale. Noy (1997).3. Canada and Japan. while externality scores for Indian students were significantly lower than those in France. whereas Americans scored high on internal control and Chinese-Americans were somewhere in-between.
externally-controlled and more self-effacing than either American females or Taiwanese males. Chinese of Malay extraction. 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. In very early research. 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. due largely to high scores on items measuring political ideology and social system control. Cheung. Chinese and Indian ethnic groups were found. Chinese and Indian populations. Howard and Lim (2006) have offered research evidence related to cross-cultural differences in locus of control within Malay. No published accounts of research conducted in Malaysia with regard to locus of control differences among members of Malay. 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. Using an English version of the Cross-Cultural Chinese Personality Assessment Inventory (CPAI-2). skill and ability. where no significant differences were found between those of Indian. To the author’s knowledge. a finding Carment interpreted as reflecting greater dependency on and conformity within the somewhat indulgent and closely-connected Indian family structure. 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. ingratiation and bribery found in India requires effort. only Cheung. although there were no differences in internality nor externality involving powerful others. Indian students were more external than Canadians on personal control factors. 68 . This was very true for the locus of control variable. all internal characteristics. but all three groups differed from the sample drawn in China. At the same time.
locus of control was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and.5. 1995. anticipate a negative outcome to any attempts that may be made to attain the individual’s major objectives or goals (Beck. indirectly. 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 . 1987. Träskman-Bendz & Alsén. Gilbody.9% could be classified as having an intentional suicidal component. 2005). Niméus. Hopelessness has not been previously studied as a predictor either of driving behaviour or of crash risk. 1975). Pentilla and Lonnqvist (1997) studied all fatal car crashes in Finland from 1987 to 1991 and found that 5. 1973).3.Justification of hypotheses about locus of control. Beresford & Neilly. 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. while the two dimensions of externality would have positive associations. but there are two conceptual arguments for doing so. 2. Sinha & Watson. it was hypothesised that locus of control would moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic. on crash and injury occurrence. 2007. 2007). it was hypothesised that internality would have a negative association with unsafe behaviour in traffic. McMillan. et al. given the large number of studies indicating ethnic differences in locus of control (Crittendon. Given the strong research evidence suggesting an association between internal locus of control and less risky driving behaviour (Lajunen & Summala. Montag & Comrey. Personality traits closely aligned with given mood states might well be expected to have an impact on the performance on driving tasks. 1991. Fox & Klerman. Özkan & Lajunen. (2003).2 Hopelessness Rothengatter (2002) and Groeger (1997) have both noted the paucity of research on affect and driver behaviour. Weissman. without objective basis. Ohberg. First. 1975. hopelessness has been consistently shown to be a predictor of suicidal intent (Beck. Finally. In the present study. Kovacs and Weissman. 1997.
mental disorders and alcohol misuse. have proposed that potentially self-destructive behaviours. 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. In the present study. Prociuk. 1998. Hernetkoski and Keskinen (1998). hopelessness has been associated with personality and behavioural factors that have been shown to be good predictors of driver behaviour and crash risk. whose crashes had resulted from extreme risks. Several authors.involved head-on collisions between two vehicles with a large weight disparity and victims had often suffered from life-event stress. 1976. investigated the relationship between hopelessness. assertiveness and positive emotion. Very early on. and negatively predicted by extraversion. Firestone & Seiden. chance or fate not only expressed greater pessimism about the future but were more likely to report depressive states. They also classified a group of drivers whose highly negligent actions. in which hopelessness plays a significant part. 1962). locus of control and depression with university students in western Canada. luck. and crash risk (Ohberg et al. 1997. found that the most commonly reported mental state among Finnish drivers dying in crashes classified as suicidal had been “depression” and “hopeless”. Mendel. hopelessness was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. usually when impaired by alcohol or drug use. Henderson. Justification of hopelessness hypotheses. 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. Breen and Lussier (1976). Chioqueta and Stiles (2005) showed that hopelessness in Norwegian university students was positively predicted by high scores in neuroticism and depression. finding that persons who perceived reinforcements to be a function of powerful others. in fact. indirectly. including risky driving.. 1974). Second. Based on earlier findings about the relationship between depressive-suicidal states. 1990. in a more detailed study. it was 70 . 1962). Selzer & Payne. on crash and injury occurrence. for instance.
Novaco (1991) proposed that driver aggression is produced when environmental triggers interact with a variety of predisposing factors. 71 . 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. Tzamalouka.3 Aggression Since the 1980s. 2000. O’Connell (2002) has described the use of alcohol. In a largely unrelated study. Lynch & Oetting. learned cognitive scripts.hypothesised that participants scoring high on a measure of hopelessness would be likely to engage in behaviour in traffic that was less cautious. Although uncertainty persists as to whether road aggression is actually increasing.3. 2002. Malta & Blanchard. 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. learned disinhibitory cues. and deindividuation. Mizell. Chliaoutaks. Koumaki. 1999) have argued that there has been a marked increase in the frequency of aggressive incidents and anger-related crashes.. 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. Chapman. sparked by a number of highly publicised accounts of road rage and improved techniques for measuring anger and aggression in drivers. which acts to counter the influence of normative moral codes and to increase people’s impulsive responses to stimuli as one such disinhibitory cue. While media reports and some authors (James & Nahl. Wells-Parker et al. Barton and Malta. Richards. 2003. Underwood. Wright & Crundall. Demakakos. Deffenbacher. 2. Bakou. 2000. 2002). there is no shortage of evidence to suggest a consistent and reliable association between aggressive driving and motor vehicle crashes (Blanchard. & Darviri.5. 1999. including subjective feelings of stress. Filetti. this concept became the basis for what is now known as the frustration-aggression hypothesis of aggressive driving. 2006). attention to the issue of aggressive driving has grown exponentially. physiological arousal. It was hypothesised here that hopelessness would moderate the manner in which locus of control affected behaviour in traffic.
Schwebel et al. the display of aggression (p. 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. raised the point that: It seems to me possible that the peculiar cocktail of personal challenge. lack of control over events.which creates a sense of anonymity and diminished personal responsibility. Bettencourt. cultural driving norms and situational conditions. to better cope with stress and achieve behavioural change. (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. through the use of self-statements. as another. 1976. They reported that trait aggressiveness and trait irritability influenced aggressive behaviour under both provoking and neutral conditions but that other personality variables. Groeger (2000). More recently. Houston. though. Crowson. Talley. Meichenbaum (1977) pioneered the use of cognitive restructuring. stress induced by time pressure. Shinar (1998) argued that the frustration-aggression hypothesis provided an appropriate model for aggressive driving. such as TAPB. threat to own safety and self-eesteem. Kurylo and Poirier (1997) created the Hostile Automatic Thoughts Scale to reflect the frequency 72 . but needed to be expanded to account for the influence of personality factors such as Type A personality behaviour (TAPB). angry thinking and trait anger influenced aggressive behaviour only under conditions in which the individual was provoked. Ellis. it may equally be that the people involved would be aggressive in situations beyond driving – with driving being an opportunity for. rather than a cause of. and frustration of goals that comprises the driving task in the modern world. does indeed have all the ingredients that might give rise to increased levels of anger and hostility. However. 1962). Snyder. Benjamin and Valentine (2006) conducted a meta-analysis of studies assessing personality variables and aggressive behaviour. 163).
impatience. Later still. They found that perjorative labelling and vengeful or retaliatory thoughts correlated highly with self-reported aggressive driving. In the present study. Magnavita. 2002. hostility and difficulty achieving states of relaxation (Ben-Zur. and specific content. Rice. Karlberg. of hostile automatic thought would moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic. Carbone. Frueh & Snyder. Thurman. James & Nahl. it was hypothesised that aggression would have a negative effect on behaviour in traffic.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. Lynch. Deffenbacher. 2000. Petrilli. 1999. that the total amount. Originally identified by Friedman and Rosenman (1974). 73 . on crash and injury occurrence.with which individuals make cognitive statements reflecting aggressive sentiments. 2006). McKee. 1999). 1999. Elofsson & Krakau.6 2. consistent with earlier research by Deffenbacher et al. Justification of aggression-related hypotheses. Kumashiro & Kume.. aggression. 1981. competitiveness. aggression was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. Bettencourt et al. indirectly. TAPB is characterised by a sense of time urgency. Dewar (2002b) noted that TAPB has been one of the variables most consistently linked to driving performance. al. Williams & Haney. Undén. 2001).6. It was also hypothesised. 2. 1985). Oetting and Swaim (2003) used the same approach to examine angry cognitions made by drivers under varying conditions of provocation. Those authors used the instrument to assess hostility and negative affect within a population of veterans diagnosed with combat-related posttraumatic stress disorder (Crowson. Sani. Based on the extensive research on the association between aggression and unsafe driving behaviour (Galovski et. 1998. insecurity about status. (2003). Kamada. Sato. Miyake. Blumenthal. 2006. Narda.
(2003) with respect to data collection time periods. Nabi. 1979) and number of accidents. In none of these studies. the Jenkins Activity Survey (Jenkins. 1989. Perry (1986) fond significant simple correations between scores on a commonly used measure of TAPB. particularly in driving situations that require prudence. socio-professional category. Karlberg et al. Although their research design accounted for the influence of potential confounds. Elander and French (1993) found that TAPB had a strong association with excessive driving speed. where Type A drivers were 4. however. Zzanski & Rosenman. violations and self-reported driving impatience in a sample of 54 American students. Other authors have examined which of the behavioural dimensions of TAPB has the strongest impact on driving outcomes. category of vehicle. for instance. did control for the effects of a range of potential confounding variables – annual mileage.DeLorenzo and Sacco (1997). West. age. similarly. 1990). was driving frequency. They found a robust association between scores on a measure of TAPB and later serious crashes.2 times more likely to have an accident than others. focused on the time urgency component 74 . (1998). alcohol consumption. Raikkonen. tested drivers on a TABP questionnaire in 1993 and then tracked their driving behaviour to record crash history from 1994 to 2001. Consoli. Nabi et al. Chiron. 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. Lafont and Lagarde (2005). 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. it may have been flawed by methodological deficiencies discussed by af Wählberg (2003) and by Elander et al. Chastang. but not with accident risk. however. In a correlational study of British drivers. and drivers’ attitudes toward traffic regulations – when examining the association between motor vehicle crashes and Type A scores in a prospective study of 20. driving style. traffic exposure or driver gender controlled as variables.000 employees of a French oil and gas company. Although there is some evidence as to the long-term stability of TAPB (Keltikangas-Jarninen. studied police officers in Italy. gender.
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. Gender. on the other hand. Papacostas and Synodinos concluded that: Type A/B behaviour is consistently related to only one of the four driving factors obtained by the BIT. driving exposure and the place where they had learned to drive all had direct effects on Type A results. At the same time. with higher BIT scores reflecting a stronger Type A orientation. Glass. they examined the influence of TAPB on a number of driving outcomes. ethnicity.6. specifically measuring the effects of drivers’ usurpation of right-of-way (lane violations and reluctance to yield). as measured by the student version of the SJAS. only externally-focused frustration was consistently correlated with Type A behaviour. 1977). all four BIT factors significantly predicted participants’ self-reported driving characteristics. namely “externally-focused frustration”. 2. emphasising the four individual dimensions of behaviour in traffic rather than the composite BIT total score. then use of the Type A/B 75 . Papacostas and Synodinos (1988) reported several further analyses of their original data.of TAPB that had the most significant influence on driving risks. Miles and Johnson (2003). 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. freeway urgency (excessive speed choice). In a subsequent study. 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). 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. Using an instrument with items at extreme ends of the Type A/B continuum. Of the four BIT factors.
locus of control. including gender. ethnicity. thought to be critical in the relationship between TAPB and motor vehicle crashes. and “destination-activity orientation” which is possibly a cause of inattentive driving (p. They argued that it would be preferable. gender and other demographic factors were shown to affect BIT subscales. on one hand would have an effect on crash and injury occurrence and. although ethnicity. it will not be sensitive to “usurpation of right-of-way” which is related to aggressive driving. At the present time. “freeway urgency’’ which manifests itself in speeding and frequent lane changing. In neither of their studies. 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. though. Specifically. Justification of BIT-related hypotheses. participants’ behaviour in traffic was considered a proximal variable that. Similarly. 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. To the author’s knowledge. on the other hand. 13). driving experience. the extent to which other personality factors influence the four components comprising behaviour in traffic was not investigated. that are measured by the BIT scale. no further use of BIT scale has been reported in studies of driving safety. In the present study. would be influenced by drivers’ psycho-social characteristics.construct as the basis of further investigation into the question of highway safety will provide only an incomplete picture. did Papacostas and Synodinos (1985. hopelessness. aggression and the amount and content of 76 . 1988) attempt to relate scores on their BIT scale to crash frequency or injury.
1986. 1993) and.hostile automatic thought. externally-focused frustration. 2005. Nabi et al. it was hypothesised that drivers’ scores on measures of usurpation of right-of-way. it was hypothesised here that BIT total scores would have a positive effect on both crash and injury occurrence. 2003.. Miles & Johnson. since Papacostas and Synodinos (1988) found that all four component factors of BIT were related to driving characteristics. 1985). freeway urgency and destination-activity orientation would each have positive effects on both crash and injury occurrence. 77 . Further. West et al.. since the composite BIT score has been shown to be an accurate reflection of over-all Type A behaviour (Synodinos & Papacostas. Many studies have suggested that drivers’ TABP is a factor in motor vehicle crashes (Perry.
with the addition of a third psychological variable. the present research attempted to support the notion that variables in the distal context (psychological factors) contributed to crashes and injuries. driving and psychological variables were linked to each other and to self-reported driving behaviour.1). using automobile drivers as the units of analysis. 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. aggression (see Figure 3. each study explored the extent to which demographic. Then. In Study 1C.2). the research model was developed and tested in studies 1A.CHAPTER 3 METHOD OF INVESTIGATION 3. 78 . In Study 1B. each of which sought to replicate and expand the previous one. Study 1A investigated the effects of demographic (driver age.1 Conceptualisation and the Research Framework Based on the discussion in the previous chapter. 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. 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. with the addition of a fourth psychological variable. 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.3). hostile automatic thoughts (see Figure 3. 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.
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
hopelessness was measured as a unidimensional construct. 1988) and tends to manifest itself under antagonistic conditions (Novaco. Galovski et al (2006) and others have noted that the definitions of anger. but not chance. 3.2. motoric and verbal components (Sharkin.5 Aggression Spielberger et al (1995). such that an individual might simultaneously believe that oneself and powerful others control an outcome. hostility and aggression are often inconsistent. anger was defined as a negative internal state of physiological arousal and cognition that involves interactions between physiological. a thought process that expects nothing.2. affective. 1999). For the purposes of the present research. a future directed information-processing bias or schema which functions to distort individuals’ subjective experience of external reality (Velting. 25). According to Farran et al (1995): Hopelessness constitutes an essential experience of the human condition. Lester and Trexler (1974). In the present research. and a behavioural process in which the person attempts little or takes inappropriate action (p. For each of the five studies undertaken.each of these dimensions independently and at the same time. It functions as a feeling of despair and discouragement. 3. overlapping and ambiguous. It has been accepted for a long time that aggression finds its 85 . externality related to chance (C) and externality related to the influence of powerful others (P) was obtained. aggression is regarded here as referring to the hostile behaviour that occurs as a result of it. consistent with the way the variable has been described by Beck (1987a) and Beck.4 Hopelessness Hopelessness has been defined as a cognitive or motivational state characterised by negative expectancies. While Beck (1999) and others have reserved the term anger for the feeling that accompanies such an internal state. cognitive. a separate score for internality (I). Weissman. 1994).
Vallières. In the present research. Ellis (1962) and Meichenbaum (1977). were also investigated.expression in a range of behavioural manifestations (Buss & Durkee. 1997) – on the behaviour in traffic of drivers in Study 1C. 3. and. Oetting. but it has only relatively recently been considered in light of driving aggression (Deffenbacher et al. Specifically. The effects of participants’ total aggression. hitting or interpersonal violence. (c) overt anger – the tendency to experience high levels of emotional arousal and a perceived loss of control. (e) indirect aggression – the tendency to express aggressive impulses in actions that avoid direct confrontation. The present research examined the effects of a set of cognitive statements – described as hostile automatic thoughts (Snyder et al. emotional lability and temperamental gesturing. taken as a sum of measures of each of the foregoing. social alienation and paranoia. (d) hostility – including attitudes of bitterness. frustration. the three forms of hostile automatic thoughts were defined as: 86 . through fighting. the following variables were examined: (a) physical aggression – the tendency to use physical force when expressing anger or aggression. (b) verbal aggression – the tendency to be unduly argumentative and to use quarrelsome and hostile speech in dealing with others in antagonistic situations. Lynch & Morris.2. Deffenbacher. 2003. expressed through the presence of irritability.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). 1957. 2005). generally to the point where the needs or feelings of others cannot be taken into consideration. 1996). Bergeron & Vallerand.
g.(a) physical aggression – cognitive self-talk that contained content indicating an intent or desire to violently attack. motorcyclists and taxicab drivers sampled in the five successive studies undertaken. (c) externally-focused frustration – consisting of emotional reactions to the actions of other drivers on the road (e.2. characterised by excessive impatience. not allowing others to merge or overtake. and. 1998).. 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.. (b) freeway urgency – including an expressed preference for freeway driving. the BIT score. hit or kill another individual. (b) derogation of others – cognitive self-talk that contained content which belittled. A global measure of selfreported driving tendencies. competitiveness. was defined as indicative of Type A Behaviour Pattern (TABP). being irritated by slow drivers) and of directive behaviours toward 87 . and an expressed preference for operating powerful vehicles. degraded or wished to be rid of another individual. frequent lane changing. (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. hostility and time pressure (Karlberg et al.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. 3. driving consistently in the fast lane and travelling above the speed limit.
3. in Study 1A.1 Research Design of the Study Study 1A Specifically. (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. to the extent of inattention conditions. a “1” was scored if the participant reported a crash and a “0” was scored if the participant did not report a crash. 3.g. urging others to move faster or out of the way by sounding the horn).2.them (e. 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. 88 .2. gender and ethnicity) and two psychological variables (locus of control and hopelessness) on BIT was tested. to contemporaneous roadway and traffic 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. the influence of driving experience. travel frequency. 3. and. In the resulting measure of this variable. within the preceding twelve months and provided details about the nature of the crash.9 Injury Occurrence Participants also indicated whether they had been forced to seek medical treatment for an injury incurred during the reported crash. the interrelationships between the demographic variables. three demographic variables (driver age. Then. while driving.3 3. In the resulting measure of this variable..8 Crash Occurrence Participants reported whether or not they had experienced a motor vehicle crash. Then.
Figure 3.psychological variables (locus of control and hopelessness) and BIT were examined. and (b) the moderating effect of locus of control on the relation between aggression and BIT. 3. the moderating effect of hopelessness on the relationship between locus of control and BIT was tested. travel frequency. the mediating effect of BIT on the relationship between psychological factors and crash occurrence and injury occurrence was tested. hopelessness. travel frequency. the influence of driving characteristics.2 Study 1B While again controlling the effects of driving experience and drivers’ self- reported travel frequency.1 illustrates the research design for Study 1A. In Study 1B. hopelessness and aggression) on BIT was tested. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) on BIT was tested. three demographic variables (driver age. Finally. In this study. (b) the moderating effect of locus 89 . the interrelationships between the demographic variables. the mediating effect of the BIT on the relations between psychological variables and crash occurrence and injury occurrence was tested. the influence of driving characteristics. two moderating effects were tested: (a) the moderating effects of hopelessness on the relationship between locus of control and BIT. Then. the interrelationships between the demographic variables. the psychological variables and BIT were examined.3 Study 1C In Study 1C. 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 illustrates the research design for Study 1B. the psychological variables and BIT were examined. In this study. 3. the extent to which self-reported BIT predicted crash and injury occurrence in automobile drivers was assessed. Figure 3. three moderating effects were measured: (a) the moderating effect of hopelessness on the relationship between locus of control and BIT. gender and ethnicity) and three psychological variables (locus of control. three demographic variables (driver age. Finally. Then.3. Then. Then. gender and ethnicity) and four psychological variables (locus of control.3.
90 . and (b) taxi experience. the moderating effect of locus of control on the relationship between aggression and BIT was assessed. the interrelationships between the demographic variables. Figure 3. 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. three demographic variables (driver age and ethnicity) and two psychological variables (locus of control and aggression) on BIT was tested. and (c) the moderating effect of hostile automatic thoughts on the relationship between aggression and BIT.5 Study 3 The final study used a sample of on-duty taxicab drivers. 3.4 illustrates the research design for Study 3. the psychological variables and BIT were examined. Finally. Figure 3. Variables and analyses in Study 2 were the same as those carried out in Study 1A. the mediating effect of the BIT on the relations between psychological variables and crash occurrence and injury occurrence was tested.of control on the relationship between aggression and BIT. Finally. 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. 3. Two measures of experience were included: (a) driving experience.1 illustrates the research design for Study 2. Then.3 illustrates the research design for Study 1C.3. or the length of time they had held a valid automobile operator’s licence. the influence of experience.3. the mediating effect of the BIT on the relations between psychological variables and crash occurrence and injury occurrence was tested. In Study 3. This was justified for three reasons. using a sample that indicated motorcycles as their primary mode of transportation. or the length of time they had been licensed to operate a taxicab. Then. Figure 3.4 Study 2 The research design for Study 1A was replicated. In Study 3. First.
Gender was not included as a demographic variable in Study 3 because all taxicab drivers in the sample were male.1: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.3:Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.2. 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.2: Travel frequency will have a negative influence on total BIT score H2.4:Destination-Activity orientation will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.2. instruments employed to measure hopelessness and hostile automatic thoughts used language and response formats not conducive to verbal administration procedures.2 :Freeway urgency will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H126.96.36.199 Formulation of Hypotheses Based on the conceptualisation and research framework.2: Freeway urgency will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.4: 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. limitations were imposed on administration time by driver willingness to participate and by research cost considerations.2.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.1.1: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.1: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.3: Taxicab experience will have a negative influence on total BIT score 91 . a risk that would have been unethical to impose both on the drivers and on the research assistants who were collecting the data. the following fifteen hypotheses and sixty sub-hypotheses were formulated: Table 3.3: Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.1. 3. Second.1: Driver experience will have a negative influence on total BIT score H2.1: Research Hypotheses STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 H1: Behaviour in traffic will have a positive influence on motor vehicle crash outcomes H1.1. potentially raising questions of reliability and validity.2: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.
1: Age will influence Locus of Control: Internality H4.1: Hopelessness will moderate the Internality-BIT relationship H9.1: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Internality H4.2: Age will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.1.2: Externality-Chance will have a positive influence on Hopelessness H6.4: Aggression will have a positive influence on Destination-Activity Orientation 92 .3.4: Hopelessness will have positive influence on Destination-Activity Orientation H8: Locus of Control will influence behaviour in traffic H188.8.131.52: Gender will influence Aggression H10.2: Hopelessness will moderate the Externality(Chance)-BIT relationship H9.2: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Freeway Urgency H7.3: Externality-Powerful-Others will have a positive influence on total BIT score H9: Hopelessness will moderate the locus of control-BIT Relationship H9.2: Ethnicity will influence Aggression H10.1 (continued) STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 3 H3: Demographic variables will influence behaviour in traffic H3.Table 3.3: 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: Aggression will have a positive influence on Usurpation of Right-of Way H184.108.40.206: Internality will have a negative influence on total BIT score H8.3: Hopelessness will moderate the Externality(Powerful-Other)-BIT relationship H10: Demographic variables will influence aggression H10.3: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H4.3: Externality-Powerful-Others will have a positive influence on Hopelessness H7: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on behaviour in traffic H7.1: Internality will have a negative influence on Hopelessness H6.2: Ethnicity will influence total BIT score H3.3: Ethnicity will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H4.3: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Externally-focused Frustration H7.2.3: Age will have a negative influence on Hopelessness H6.2.1: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Usurpation of Right-of Way H7.1: Gender will influence total BIT score H3.2: Ethnicity will influence Hopelessness H5.3: Age will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others Y Y Y Y Y Y H5: Demographic variables will influence hopelessness H5.1: Ethnicity will influence Locus of Control: Internality H4.1: Gender will influence Hopelessness H5.2: Gender will influences Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.2: Aggression will have a positive influence on Freeway Urgency H11.2: Externality-Chance will have a positive influence on total BIT score H8.3.2: Ethnicity will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.3: Aggression will have a positive influence on Externally-focused Frustration H11.3: 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.
1: Gender will have a positive influence on hostile automatic thoughts H13.1 (continued) STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 3 Y Y Y H12: Locus of control will moderate the aggression-BIT relationship H12. using the same procedures as in Study 1. 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.3: Thoughts of Revenge will have a positive influence on total BIT score H15: Hostile automatic thoughts will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H15. registered in a freshman course offered within the Faculty of Management.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. within a 14-month period.2: Thoughts of the Derogation of Others will have a positive influence on BIT H14. Data were collected during three consecutive trimesters.5.3: Thoughts of Revenge will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation Note: Y=YES 3.1: Thoughts of Physical aggression will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation H15.Table 3.1: Thoughts of Physical Aggression will have a positive influence on total BIT H14.2: Thoughts of Derogation-of-Others will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation H15. All participants had a valid driving licence but had indicated that a motorcycle was the mode of transportation most of the 93 . those from the second round of data collection were included in Study 1B. and those from the third round of data collection were included in Study 1C. with psychological tests and inventories administered to groups of students during lecture sessions.1: Internality will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12.2: Ethnicity will influence hostile automatic thoughts H13.2: Externality(Chance) will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12.3: Age will have a negative influence on hostile automatic thoughts H14: Hostile automatic thoughts will have a positive influence on Behaviour in Traffic H14.5 3. Participants from the first round of data collection were included in Study 1A.1 Methods of Data Collection and Analysis The Sample Participants in Study 1 were undergraduate students at a private university in peninsular Malaysia. Participants in Study 2 were undergraduate students at the same private university.
Participants in Study 3 received the meter or negotiated fare for the trip.5. by postal mail. Stokals & Campbell. In all cases. participation was voluntary and confidentiality was assured. This sample was combined from all three rounds of classroom data collection. 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.2 Research Instruments 3. 3. consistent with of a Type A Behaviour Pattern (TAPB) when driving (see Appendix A). while participants were driving. although results were used to demonstrate teaching points related to the syllabus at a point later in the trimester. Participants were recruited during a curb-side introduction of the study by one of a group of four research assistants. all of whom possessed a valid driving licence and a commercial permit for the operation of a taxicab. in the case of Study 3 participants.g. Novaco. 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.2. Data collection took place within the taxicab. Participants were provided with an opportunity to receive a debriefing report about the results of the study by e-mail and/or.time when they travelled.5. I try to urge its driver to move 94 . Drawing from the earlier Driving Habits Questionnaire (DHQ. 1978). Stokols. For inclusion in the study.. Participants in Study 3 were taxicab drivers in the Kuala Lumpur area. Synodinos and Papacostas (1985) developed 26 pairs of two-alternative items.1 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) Scale This 52-item measures time-urgent behaviour. Participants in Studies 1 and 2 were not remunerated. with one of the items in each pair written to measure a TABP response and the other a contradictory statement (e. during a point to point trip. “ When a traffic light turns green and the car in front of me doesn’t get going immediately.
” “While travelling to work (or to school).” “I get extremely irritated when I am travelling behind a slow moving vehicle.” “I often blow my horn at someone as a way of expressing my frustration.” “On a clear highway. Table 3. I usually think about what I have to do when I get there. I usually drive a few kilometres above the speed limit. Papacostas and Synodinos (1988) provided additional psychometric parameters of the BIT scale. Destination-activity orientation 8 Total 52 95 . I usually feel like pushing them off the road. Their analysis revealed four dimensions. based on a principal components analysis of earlier-reported data. then the item of the pair representing the opposite end of the continuum was placed in Form B and vice versa.on” versus “When a traffic light turns green and the car in front of me doesn’t get going immediately.” “I usually get upset at drivers who do not signal their driving intentions.2: Dimensions of the BIT scale Factor I.” “When a motor vehicle cuts in front of me. with a coefficient alpha of . I just wait for a while until it moves”) for a total of 52 item stems. Externally-focused frustration 6 IV. Six of the items are answered on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree”. Synodinos and Papacostas reported that Form A and Form B (which correlated . In a later study. Usurpation of right-ofway No.” “I often find myself checking the time while driving to work. 20 items are answered on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from “most like me” to “least like me”. as indicated in table 3.91) were found to be internally consistent. I try to move that lane as soon as possible.80. Items were presented in two alternate forms (Form A and Form B).2. Freeway urgency 14 III. Items in Form A and Form B are presented in random order.” II. of items 24 Sample items “When I am in a traffic jam and the lane next to mine starts to move. such that if the TABP alternative of an item pair was placed in Form A. to school or to an appointment with someone. On each form.
I will not be given leadership responsibility without appealing to those in positions of power”.2 Levenson Locus of Control Scale This widely-used questionnaire is based on Levenson’s (1981) multidimensional view of locus of control.5.Certain items in the original American version were re-worded to make them relevant to the Malaysian context and driving jargon. 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. 3. The phrase “cross-junction” was added to items pertaining to behaviour at intersections.2. References to the faster. References to the “gas pedal” were replaced by “accelerator”. High scores on the internality (I) scale indicate that respondents expect to have a high degree of control over their own lives. References to “miles per hour” were changed to “kilometres per hour”. it’s usually because I worked hard for it”. A sample item is “When I get what I want. 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”. ranging from +3 (“agree strongly”) to –3 (“disagree strongly”). 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. passing lane were changed from “left lane” to “right lane” and the word “pass” was replaced with “overtake”. Participants scored all 24 items on a 6-point scale. A sample item is “Although I might have good ability. 96 . High scores on the externality-chance (C) scale indicate that respondents expect expect chance forces or luck to have control over their lives.
Participants indicate a response on a five-point Likert-type scale (1 = “not at all like me”.” “When people annoy me. Item scores are summed to yield a total score ranging from 0 to 20. 1974).3). Durham.3: The Five Subscales of the Aggression Questionnaire Subscale Physical Aggression (PHY) Verbal Aggression (VER) Anger (ANG) Hostility (HOS) Indirect Aggression (IND) Total No.2.” “If I’m angry enough. if endorsed. and five subscales measure physical aggression.” “At times I feel like a bomb ready to explode. Beck et al. Tanaka et al. 1996).5. 1982. 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”.” “At times I feel I have gotten a raw deal out of life.” “I often find myself disagreeing with people.5.” “I let my anger show when I do not get what I want. 5 = “completely like me”) that best represent how well the item describe them. Table 3. 1993. I may tell them what I think of them.” “I get into fights more than most people.” “I sometimes feel that people are laughing at me behind my back. anger. Eleven items are keyed true to indicate pessimism about the future. High internal consistency has been reported across a range of samples (Benzein & Berg.” 97 . or 0. of items 8 5 7 8 6 34 Sample Items: “At times I can’t control the urge to hit someone. High scores are taken to indicate a generally pessimistic view of the future and a high degree of hopelessness. Of the 20 true-false statements. I might give him or her the silent treatment. 2005. I may mess up someone’s work. 9 are keyed false to indicate optimism about the future. A total aggression score can be calculated from summed item responses. if not. 3. Each of the 20 statements is scored 1.2. a sample item of which is “I look forward to the future with hope and enthusiasm”. hostility and indirect aggression (see Table 3.3.” “When someone really irritates me.4 Aggression Questionnaire (AQ) This questionnaire is a 34-item scale measuring constructs related to the expression of aggression. verbal aggression.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.
2000) and discriminant validity (Archer & Haigh.94 for the total aggression scores and ranging from . Shapiro. 1996).5 Hostile Automatic Thoughts (HAT) This 30-item self-report index measures the frequency of recurring hostile thoughts. of Items 11 10 9 30 Sample Items “If I could get away with it. Cascardi & Pythress. 1997. Previous studies have established high levels of concurrent validity (Harris. . Questions included details about the participant’s licensing and driving background.” “I just want to hurt this person as bad as s/he hurt me. Table 3. 3. 5 = “all the time”).6 Personal Information Form (PIF) Participants also completed a 4-page questionnaire recording personal information. gender. with coefficient alpha values of .High internal consistency has been reported with a coefficient alpha of .2.” 3. Williams. 2000). (1997) reported high internal consistency for all three sub-scales. Three factors – physical aggression.88 for the five subscales (Buss & Warren. Boyd.91 for physical aggression. 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. 98 .” “I want to get back at this person.4: The Three Subscales of the Hostile Automatic Thoughts (HAT) Scale Factor Physical aggression Derogation of others Revenge Total No. ethnicity and history of motor vehicle crashes and injuries. High scores on a sub-scale indicated that type of hostile thinking had occurred to the participant frequently.71 to .4).92. age. I’d kill this person!” “I’d like to knock his/her teeth out” “What an idiot!” “This person is a loser.5. 1997.5. Snyder et al.88 and .” Participants responded on a 5point Likert-type scale (1 = “not at all”.2. derogation of others and revenge – were identified and are included as subscales (see table 3. derogation of others and revenge respectively.
BIT scale. (e) put down the first response that came into their mind. the instruments were presented in the following order: (a) the PIF was the first one in the package. (b) give honest answers that described themselves rather than putting the “best things to say”. After the briefing period. Levenson and BIT scale.6. BHS. 99 . BIT scale and AQ. A brief written description of the purpose of the research and general instructions (see Appendix B) was distributed.1 Procedure Studies 1 and 2 Data collection took place within a classroom or lecture hall during a regularly- scheduled class periods. Participants were informed about the study and invited to participate on a voluntary basis. Levenson.6 3. packages of research instruments were distributed as follows: Study 1A: PIF. (d) read instructions for each questionnaire very carefully and complete them in the order they were distributed. and (f) not spend too much time on any one answer. between the two forms of the BIT. (d) the remaining instruments used in that particular study were presented. upon request. (c) not discuss answers with others as they were completing the questionnaires. In studies 1 and 2. Study 1C: PIF. BHS. with an e-mail summary of results. in random order. Participants were assured of confidentiality and were de-briefed. (b) the second instrument was either Form A or Form B of the BIT scale.3. (c) the last instrument in the package was the opposite for of the BIT from the one presented second. Instructions advised the participants to (a) answer all questions on each questionnaire. Levenson. 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. AQ and HAT. Study 1B: PIF.
This section provides a brief example of each one and details its use in the present research. rel. 2002). Taxis were flagged down at roadside. Reliability coefficients of all instruments were calculated using SPSS. 2004). as well. linear and multiple regression analyses and logistic regression analyses were used to test the hypotheses. 100 . rel. data collection was confined to times between 8:00 am and 9:00 pm.7 Analysis of the Data Data collected were entered and processed using Statistical Package for the Social Science (SPSS for Windows. with the remaining instruments administered in random order.5. Over the course of the trip. 3. aged 22 to 24 years. AQ and Levenson scales.5.0. 13. 8. with the team of research assistants meeting regularly three times each week to calibrate administration procedures. the research assistant informed the taxicab driver about the study. Specific statistical tests have been summarised in Table 3. Data collection took place in taxicabs. All four research assistants spoke fluent English and Bahasa Malaysia.2 Study 3 For study 3. Confirmatory Factor Analyses (CFA) were performed on the BIT. BIT. analyses of variance (ANOVA). AQ and HAT to determine validity using LInear Structural RElations software (LISREL. The PIF was always administered first. Structural equation models and path analyses were estimated using the same version of LISREL. Two to four times daily. each research assistant hired a taxicab to drive to some location elsewhere in the Kuala Lumpur area. as well as at least two additional Malaysian languages. At initial contact. Independent-sample t-tests. four female final-year undergraduate students.6. For safety reasons. Levenson Locus of Control scale.3. with prior research experience were retained to assist in the study. provided assurance of confidentiality and secured participation. Single-word substitutions in items were made in English or the driver’s first language if comprehension difficulties arose. research assistants verbally administered the PIF. approached at a taxi stand or booked over the telephone.
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 Hopelessness Independent Sample t-Test Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance The Direct Effect of Locus of Control on Hopelessness H6.2: “Frequency of traveling” influence the level of BIT H2.1: “Length of having driving licence” influence the level of BIT H2.Table 3.1: Gender influence the level of Hopelessness H5.1: Hopelessness influence the level of Usurpation of Right-of Way H7.4: 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 H7.3: Age influence the Locus of Control Independent Sample tTest Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance The Direct Effect of Demographic Factors on Hopelessness H5.2: 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 H2.2: Ethnicity influence the Locus of Control H4.2: Externality (Chance) is positively related to Hopelessness H6.2: Ethnicity background influence the level of 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: Gender influence the Locus of Control H4.1: Gender influence the level of BIT H3.1: The level of BIT influence the crash occurrence H1.1: Internality is negatively related to hopelessness H6.3: Externality (Powerful-Other) is positively related to Hopelessness Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression The Direct Effect of Hopelessness on BIT H7.5: Statistical Methods for Hypothesis Testing Data Analysis Methods The Direct Effect of BIT on Accident Involvement H1.
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: Externality(Chance) moderates the Aggression-BIT relation H12.2: Ethnicity influences hostile automatic thoughts H13.1: The higher the Internality.Table 3.3: Aggression influence the level of Externally-focused Frustration H11. the higher the BIT level H8. the lower the BIT level H8.1: Internality moderates the Aggression-BIT relation H12.2: Hopelessness moderates the Externality(Chance)-BIT relation H9.1: Aggression influence the level of Usurpation of Right-of Way H11.3: 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 H13.4: 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 H12.3: Hopelessness moderates the Externality (Powerful-Other)-BIT relation Multiple Linear Regression The Direct Effect of Demographic Factors on Aggression H10.3: Age has a negative influence on hostile automatic thoughts Independent Sample t-Test Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance 102 .1: Hopelessness moderates the Internality-BIT relation Multiple Linear Regression H9.3: Age influences the level of Aggression Independent Sample t-Test Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance The Direct Effect of Aggression on BIT H11.5 (continued) Data Analysis Methods The Direct Effect of Locus of Control on BIT H8.2: The higher Externality (Chance).3: The higher Externality (Powerful-Other).1: Gender influences the level of Aggression H10.2: Ethnicity background influences the level of Aggression H10.2: Aggression influence the level of Freeway Urgency H11.1: Gender has a positive influence on hostile automatic thoughts H13.
1: Thoughts of Physical Aggression will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation H15.3: 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 H15.2: 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. When significant differences were observed. ANOVA was used to determine whether participants’ scores on psychological variables (BIT.Table 3. hopelessness.2 One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) ANOVA is used to compare means for more than two groups. In the present research. locus of control. 3. 2000). In the present study. post hoc analyses were carried out using the Scheffé method (Klockars & Hancock. 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 H14.7. locus of control.1 Independent-sample t-tests Generally. 103 . aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) differed for drivers with different ethnic backgrounds.1: Thoughts of Physical Aggression have a positive influence on BIT H14. hopelessness.7. t-tests were used to determine whether participants’ scores on psychological variables (BIT.2: Thoughts of Derogation-of-Others have a positive influence on BIT H14.
the direction of the relationship (positive or negative).4 Linear Regression Analysis This analysis is used to determine if a relationship exists between a dependent variable and an independent variable and. In the present research. 104 . In the present research. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) and behaviour in traffic (BIT). GLM univariate analysis of variance was used to determine whether there was an interaction effect between ethnic background and psychological factors (locus of control. 3. linear regression was applied to examine the relationship between psychological variables (locus of control. Also. In the present research. It is useful for analysis of variance models with one or more factor variables or covariates and a single dependent variable.7. the moderating effects of the variables were tested using hierarchical regression methods. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) on behaviour in traffic (BIT).5 Multiple Regression Analysis This analysis aims to examine if there is a relationship between the dependent variable and independent variables. second. to test whether hopelessness moderated the P-BIT relationship. 3. externality-chance (C) and externalitypowerful-others (P) have an effect on hopelessness. hopelessness. the products of P x hopelessness scores were added into the regression equation. Application of multiple regression analysis involves more than one single independent variable.7. R-square and coefficient values were then estimated to determine the significance of the moderating effect of 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. hopelessness. if so. For instance.7. first P scores were entered into the regression equation. multiple regression analysis was used to test whether internality (I).3.
Since driver experience and travel frequency were expected to have an influence on the outcome variables.7 Structural Equation Modelling. Linear or multiple regression seek to measure the degree of influence that variables will have on a dependent variable. In the present research. these variables were controlled as covariates in the logistic regression equation. 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).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. “1” was scored if a crash injury had occurred and “0” if no crash injury had occurred. and (b) examine the interrelationships among variables included in the research design. In the present research. Goodness-of-fit indicates how 105 . Path coefficients were calculated to demonstrate correlates of unsafe driving according to their contextual proximity to crash and injury occurrence. The validity of this measurement model was dependent on its goodness-of-fit and on the construct validity of its component variables. 710). the purpose of which was to distinguish the distal and proximal contextual factors related to crash outcomes. SEM was carried out. logistic regression. to (a) assess the validity of the instruments.3.7. 3. each of the two outcome variables (crash occurrence and injury occurrence) was framed as a binary variable.7. The result was a measurement model described as a contextual-mediated model. “1” was scored if a crash had occurred and “0” if no crash had occurred. 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. using LISREL. That is. on the other hand. seeks to determine the odds that an event will or will not occur. as well as between several latent constructs” (p.
including: (1) two absolute indexes. Absolute fit measures are a direct measure of how well the model specified by the researcher reproduces the researcher’s data. additional measures were used to compare the relative fit of two models under consideration. If a researcher’s theory were perfect. Incremental fit measures assess how well a specified model fits relative to some alternative baseline model. In the present research. the model fit compares the theory to reality as represented by the data. than anyone would want to report” (Maryuma. The closer the values of these two matrices are to each other. 2006..well the measurement model reproduces the covariance matrix among indicator items That is. Thus. 1998). but a wide array of tests of the overall fit of SEM models – “more. the χ2/df ratio the goodness-of-fit index (GFI). the better the model is said to fit. The fundamental measure of fit is the chi-square (χ2) statistic (Byrne. p. the adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI) and the expected cross- 106 . in fact. the estimated covariance matrix is compared mathematically to the actual observed covariance matrix to provide an estimate of model fit. 745). the estimated covariance matrix (∑k) and the actual covariance matrix (S) would be the same. Once a researcher’s theory is used to specify a model from which the parameters are estimated. For Study 1C. (1988). According to Marsh et al. the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) and the root mean square residual (RMR). (Hair et al. the absolute fit measures included the χ2 statistic. Incremental fit measures included the comparative fit index (CFI). these can be classified as absolute fit indexes and relative or incremental fit indexes. 1998) – presently exists.
the normed fit index (NFI). an insignificant p-value is expected. 3. when the ratio of χ2 to df yields a value of less than 3. RMSEA values can range from zero to 1. 1998). the closer the fit between the hypothesized model (established under the null hypothesis). the parsimony goodness-of-fit index (PGFI).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. Hair et al. (2006) have highlighted that for sample size greater than 250 (with a number of observed variables less than 12).1 Chi-Square (χ2). 107 .7. 2006). and a measure of parsimony fit. pp.7. one incremental index.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. 2006).0. 112). 3. fit the population covariance matrix if it were available” (Byrne.7.7. an insignificant p-value can result in good fit. with unknown but optimally chosen parameter values.7. 3. 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.10 indicate poor fit..7. 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.00 in which values greater than . the higher the probability associated with χ2. Carmines and McIver (1981) have noted that. For a sample size less than 250 (and with number of observed variables that is less than 12).validation index (ECVI). Thus. the ratio indicates a good fit. However. 1998.
00 being indicative of good fit.00. the normed fit index (NFI. The AGFI penalises more complex models and favours those with a minimum number of free paths. Since the CFI is insensitive to model complexity. 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.00 with value more than . Bentler & Bonnet. Thus..7. with higher values indicating better fit.00. but AGFI values are typically lower than GFI values in proportion to model complexity. 3. it is known as one of the most widely used indices (Hair et al. and a model with perfect fit would produce an NFI of 220.127.116.11 Normed Fit Index (NFI) One of the original incremental measures of fit.6 Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index (AGFI) An adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI. 2006).00 with value closes to 1.5 Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) and Comparative Fit Index (CFI) The GFI can range from zero to 1.90 is usually associated with a model that fits well.7. The index ranges between zero and 1. 3.00.10 usually suggests a poor fit of the data for the model.7. Values range from zero to 1. CFI is an improved version of the normed fit index. Tanaka & Huba. 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. an RMR greater than .7. 3.Root mean square residual (RMR) is another badness-of-fit measure. The index can range from zero to 1. 108 .
7 Expected Cross-Validation Index (ECVI) The expected cross-validation index (ECVI. 750). “a PGFI taken alone is not a useful indicator of a single model’s fit. 3. Although values range from zero to 1. in this case. Mulaik & Brett.7. James. The parsimony goodness-of-fit index (PGFI. means a model with fewer estimated parameter paths (Hair et al. 109 . considering its fit relative to its complexity. a PGFI value is meant only to be used in comparing it to another model’s PGFI value” (Hair et al.00. 1982) uses the parsimony ratio to adjust the GFI in order to compare two models. 2006.7..7. the model with the higher ECVI value is generally regarded as presenting a better fit.. Browne & Cudeck.3. it is most commonly used when comparing the performance of one model to another. Values range between zero and 1. Like other parsimony fit indices. 1994).8 Parsimony Goodness-of-Fit Index (PGFI) A third class of measures is sometimes recognised as the parsimony indices. A parsimony fit measure is improved by a better fit and/or a simpler model which. and the model with the higher PGFI is considered preferable.7. It should be noted that. In such cases. The ECVI also takes into account the number of estimated parameters for a given model.00. 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. it takes into account the actual sample size and the difference that could be expected in another sample. 2006). designed specifically to provide information about which model among a competing set of models is best. 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. p. based on the combination of fit and parsimony represented by the index.
When p-values for the Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic are greater than our α=. the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to assess whether there was a significant departure from normality in the distribution of variable scores. 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). p. 37). Many parametric statistics assume that variables are distributed approximately normally and SPSS calculates values for skewness and kurtosis to assist in determing 110 .3. it is said to be positively skewed.05. “It is conventional to speak of a distribution as leptokurtic if is more peaked than … the normal distribution. In this case. Kurtosis refers to the flatness or peakedness of one distribution in relation to another. If the opposite holds. and platykurtic if it is less peaked. the distribution of test scores to the normal distribution. in this case.9 Skewness and Kurtosis Skewness refers to the symmetry or asymmetry of a frequency distribution. which means that it falls between leptokurtic and platykurtic distributions” (Ferguson. The normal distribution is spoken of as mesokurtic.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 larger frequencies being concentrated toward the high end of the variable and the smaller frequencies toward the low end. 3. the distribution is said to be negatively skewed (Ferguson. 1976.7. 2000). 1976). It determines whether the scores in the sample can reasonably thought to have come from a population having the theoretical distribution (Siegel.7. then it is possible to conclude the the data do not violate the normality assumption (Carver & Nash.
2005. Barrett & Morgan. the variable is at least approximately normal (Leech. 111 .normality of variable distributions. 1997). Marcoulides & Hershberger. A commonly used guideline is that. if skewness and kurtosis less than ±1.
Thirteen of the participants did not complete all the questionnaires and two participants completing questionnaires reported that they did not have driving licences.9% 14.1).CHAPTER 4 ANALYSIS OF THE DATA This chapter presents the results of the research.9% 977 100% 100% Female Total 112 . Then.55). with results of these tests reported in this chapter.1% 34.4% 146 14. Ages of participants ranged from 18 to 29 years. Gender and Ethnicity Participants were 992 undergraduate students at an English-language Malaysian university. A contextual mediated model showing interrelationships between variables is introduced. descriptive statistics are presented and the results of hypothesis testing are reported.3% 8. Thus 977 participants were included in the analysis.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 33.1 4. It begins with a discussion of reliability and validity tests of the instruments.6% 12.5% 57.6% 15.4% 269 27. with a mean age of 20. The contextual mediated model was tested using (1) regression analysis (SPPS) and (2) structural equation modelling (LISREL).1% 562 57.6% 82 15.5% MalaysianIndian 64 14.13 years (SD = 1.5% 6.9% 23. 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 4.1% 536 100% 54.5% Ethnicity MalaysianChinese 229 51.4% 333 62.5% 27.1% 121 22.1 Description of the Samples Age.9% Total 441 100% 45. Table 4. 4.1.
range from 18 to 25). Thus.Female participants (approximately 55 per cent) slightly out-numbered males.1) showed that most of the drivers were female Malaysian-Chinese.5 per cent) and Malaysian-Indian (14.25 years (SD = 1. Malaysian-Chinese represented the highest number of participants (57. with a mean age of 19.9 per cent). A crosstabulation between gender and ethnicity (see Table 4. In Study 1B. In Study 3.35.89 years (SD = 1. with a mean age of 20. followed by Malay (27. 122 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode of transportation to be the motorcycle comprised the sample. 252 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode of transportation to be the automobile comprised the sample. 149 taxicab drivers participated.68.53.01 years (SD = 1.43 years (SD = 1. In Study 1C. 113 . with a mean age of 20. 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. In Study 2.63. with a mean age of 20. range from 18 to 29). In Study 1A. range of 18 to 26). 302 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode of transportation to be the automobile comprised the sample. 301 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode of transportation to be the automobile comprised the sample. range from 18 to 27).5 per cent).
Gender and Ethnicity of Participants in Studies 1.65.19 years (SD = 11.2 Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 1 Although participants in Studies 1A. Johor or Perak made up 53. they hailed from across the country (see table 4.01 20.3% of the sample. The mean age was 43.53 1.5 114 .responses from 133 taxicab drivers were included in data analysis.35 1.2: Age.43 19.63 11. Descriptive data for each sample are provided in Table 4.19 S.5 8. Participants from East Malaysia comprised 5.9 2. 2 and 3 Gender STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 3 N 301 302 252 122 133 Mean Age 20.3 11. SD = standard deviation 4. 1.65 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 . Table 4.3: 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. Kuala Lumpur.68 1.25 43.2 7.89 20.2.1 6.1. range from 23 to 73).3).D. 1B and 1C were all students at a single Malaysian university.4% of the sample. Table 4. Participants who had received their driving licenses in Selangor.7 4.
5 1. Table 4.7 100 4.2 3.4 4.1.7 11. but again they held licenses from various states (see table 4.3 Geographic Distribution of the Sample in Study 2 Participants in Study 2 were all students at a single Malaysian university.0 10.8 11. Perak or Penang made up 50. Participants who had received their driving licenses in Selangor.6 100 4.2 17.9 7.Penang Perak Perlis Sabah Sarawak Selangor Terengganu 67 102 6 27 19 147 31 855 7.2 2.1 9.8 5.1% of the sample. As the sample was 115 .4 0. Participants from East Malaysia comprised 4.9 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 % 13.8 9.4).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.0 7.6 1.5 14.6 2.9% of the sample.1.7 3.
70 or greater is generally considered acceptable (Nunnally.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. 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. 116 .intended to be representative of Kuala Lumpur taxicab drivers. 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. In the present research.2 4. 4. reliability was measured using Cronbach’s coefficient alpha. the higher is the internal consistency of the measure. no attempt was made to determine the geographic location in which drivers had originally received noncommercial drivers’ licenses. The closer Cronbach’s Alpha is to 1. 1978). A Cronbach’s Alpha of .5). This statistic reflects the consistency of respondents’ answers compared to all the items in a measure (Sekaran.2. 2000). 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.
738 .784 .733 .730 .781 .714 .810 .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 .711 .720 .808 .701 Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable 117 .747 . of Item α Study 2 (N=122) Motorcycle Drivers (student sample) Study 3 (N=133) Taxicab Drivers α .782 .772 α .782 .768 Not Applicable Not Applicable .720 .783 .881 α .726 Not Applicable Not Applicable α .783 .727 .739 .718 .904 .742 .788 .740 .702 .737 .749 .703 .910 .741 .754 .830 .Table 4.890 .734 .824 .817 .774 .808 .786 .827 .701 .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.798 .715 .715 .707 .727 .735 .756 .906 .740 .811 .887 .
80 or above).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 .916 .804 Study 1C . more than . 1998). The root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) index measures the error of approximation in the population and determines whether the model.801 . 1998.804 .903 .803 .805 .80.2. fits the population correlation matrix or covariance matrix.3 Validity Test Results In the present research.10 indicate poor fit (MacCallum et al. 1985).958 . with minimal error variance caused by wording. ordering or other test construction factors” (p. RMSEA values less than . we may be fairly certain that the measures are reasonably reliable.4.876 . with unknown but optimally chosen parameter values.929 .807 .800 . 1998).806 . Reliability coefficients in all studies where both forms were used are acceptable since Form A and Form B were highly correlated. it was also possible to measure reliability as a coefficient of correlation between Form A and Form B (Synodinos &Papacostas. The results of parallel-form reliability for the BIT instrument in different studies are shown in Table 4. In Study 3. depending on which is used (Byrne. confirmatory factor analyses using LISREL (Jöreskog & Sörbom. values ranging from .804 .953 .807 Study 1B .2 Parallel-Form Reliability In the case of the BIT scale. 205).05 indicate good fit.2. 118 . 1998). 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.6. Byrne. Sekaran (2003) notes that “if two comparable forms are highly correlated (. and those greater than .808 Study 2 .10 indicate a mediocre fit.811 .857 . Table 4.802 4. only Form A was used.08 to . 2002) was used to establish evidence of construct validity for various measures.
00 .047 . 4.00 1.061 .024 .99 .Jöreskog and Sörbom (1993) reported that.074 . drivers’ behaviour in traffic was measured by the four component factors of the BIT scale: usurpation of right-of-way.000 .92 .99 .070 . If the value of CFI exceeds . it is generally considered an acceptable fit to the data (Bentler.00 .00 1.00 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 .98 1. 1992).097 . A third statistic.00 1. This reflects that the model fits worse than no model at all.00 1.98 Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation. and both GFI and CFI were more than .089 .99 .048 .098 .7.00 1.90.077 .98 1. parameter values for all four of these factors were within acceptable ranges.000 .97 1.98 .92 .97 1. As shown in Table 4.2. Table 4.054 .00 1.96 1.3.00 . the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) is estimated to indicate whether complete covariation in the data is achieved. indicating good fits. GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index. CFI= Comparative Fit Index 119 . RMSEA values in each case were less than .97 .000 .000 .00 . externally-focused frustration.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 1.91 .000 .91 . and destination-activity orientation.99 .93 .95 1.98 .1 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the BIT Scale In the present research.96 . it is possible to have negative GFI.100. the higher the goodness-of-fit).99 .00.00 1.000 . although the GFI index ranges from zero to 1.92 1.00 .90.00 1. freeway urgency.96 .000 .00 .097 .000 .96 .00 (the closer to 1.
CFI= Comparative Fit Index 4.3 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).071 .98 . under the assumption that locus of control is a multidimensional phenomenon.100.96 .97 .3.95 .97 .085 .081 .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) .95 .92 . anger (ANG).096 .2. CFA revealed that parameter values for I.93 . Five component factors of aggression were measured: physical aggression (PHY).91 . RMSEA values were less than .091 . externality-chance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P).99 .000 . C and P scales were all within acceptable ranges. indicating good fits (See Table 4.96 .96 .99 . verbal aggression (VER).96 . GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index. and both GFI and CFI were more than .98 .085 .92 . Each component of the locus of control was measured separately.059 .98 Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation.073 .2.98 Study 2 RMSEA Study 3 CFI RMSEA GFI GFI CFI Locus of Control Internality Externality (Chance) Externality (Powerful-Other) . hostility (HOS) and indirect aggression 120 .93 .90.91 .052 .98 .058 . Table 4.3.083 .93 .93 .081 .95 1.93 .00 .8.93 .91 .030 .063 .92 .4.93 .2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Levenson Locus of Control Scale Locus of control was measured across three dimensions: internality (I).
99 .94 . CFA revealed that parameter values for all five aggression subscales were within acceptable ranges.10).98 .98 .97 .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 .97 .96 .90.088 .95 .088 . CFA revealed that parameter values for all three measurement scales were within acceptable ranges.058 .4 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the HAT Scale The HAT was only used in Study 1C (with automobile drivers sampled from a student population). A total aggression score was arrived at by summing the five subscale scores. derogation of others and revenge. Table 4.93 .92 .081 .92 .98 .2. indicating good fit (see Table 4.100.9).98 .083 .97 .047 .98 .98 .070 .97 . and both GFI and CFI were more than .97 .098 .025 . indicating good fits (See Table 4.97 .97 . GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index.081 .98 .96 . and both GFI and CFI were more than .090 .98 . CFI= Comparative Fit Index 121 .98 .97 .070 .94 .98 .100.089 . RMSEA values were less than .97 .95 . Table 4.096 .96 .073 .98 .98 .96 Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation.97 Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation. Three classes of hostile automatic thoughts were measured: physical aggression.92 .055 . CFI= Comparative Fit Index 4.098 . GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index. RMSEA values were less than .095 .3.97 .(IND).90.10: Summary of LISREL Results on Validity for HAT (Study 1C) RMSEA Hostile Automatic Thought (HAT) Physical Aggression Derogation of Others Revenge GFI CFI .
280) -.256 (.190) 1.140) -.297(.191) 1.091(.020 (.140) -.805(.082 (.140) .179(.875(.239 (.280) .140) -.140) -.260) .120) 1.323 (.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 .351 (.403(.331(.140) .511(.126(. Table 4.410(.241(.11 indicates that variable distribution fell within these limits.719(.192(.140) -.140) -. Skewness and kurtosis values of ± 1 are acceptable (Leech et al.140) -.140) .560(.280) .106) 1.280) -.010 (. 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 1.280) -.064(..140) . In all cases.280) .962 (.034 (.102) 1. 2006).280) .126(.409(.140) .582(.037(.140) -.379(.085) 1.085 (.297 (.280) .052) 1. 1997).280) -.099) 1.186) 1.409(.140) .280) .246(.183) 1.179(. values for the Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic were non-significant (p>.069) 1.099(.146(.091) 1.085 (.453(.3 Normality.226 (.356 (. indicating that the distribution of scores did not depart from normality.105 (.057) 1.091(.280) -.656(.428) .4.280) -.280) .140) -.183) 1.099) 1.080(.195 (.920(. Skewness and Kurtosis Data were studied to determine whether they were normally distributed and therefore capable of satisfying parametric assumptions.099(.408(.022 (.094 (.107 (.085) 1..188(.280) -. but with a non-signficant platykurtic tendency for the locus of control data.280) .280) .140) -.203(. Normality can also be assessed by examining sknewness and kurtosis values (Hair et al.140) .280) -.140) .140) . Marcoulides & Hershberger.280) -.219 (.278(.280) .140) -.154(.280) .064) 1.280) .278(.107) 1. 2005. Table 4.05).332 (.064(.297(.204(.353(.192) 1.11: Normality Tests.560(.
414(.100) .503(.913 (.360) .153) .306) -.884(.219) -.210) .153) -.417) -.210) -.187) 1.911 (305) 1.048(.435) -.306) .147(.366) 1.153) .024 (.847 (.219) .153) .306) .219) .210) .417) -.719(.306) -.276 (.805 (.064) 1.070 (.435) -.153) .443(.159(.297 (.417) -.153) .053(.962(.186(.948(.959 (.359 (.210) .022 (.360) -.256(.147(.265) 1.120(.236(.198(.919 (.359 (.138(.104) 1.979(.062(.153) .099) 1.501(.306) -.131(.267) .417) .324(.210) .497(.219) -.423(.006(.375) 1.978(.219) -.417) -.360) .852(.306) .219) .051) 1.110 (.417) -.247) .279 (.057) 1.259) .Table 4.051) .271(.106(.153) .266 (.210) -.084) 1.153) 983(.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 .952(.463(.130(.209(.567(.435) -.098) 1.681(.354 (.210) .986 (.362(.011 (.135) 1.128 (.113 (.106 (.053(.537(.306) -.451(.417) -.142(.153) .001 (.153) .007(.128) .435) .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 1.138) 1.030(.306) -.338 (.160 (.003 (.106(.435) -.973(306) .629(.807 (.276(.994(.210) .277(.435) -.247) 1.264) .219) .533) .812(.210) .024 (.469) 1.153) .540(.510) 1.022 (.640(.366(.195 (.417) .306) -.153) -.370(.417) .913(.327 (.295(.321) 1.219) .156(.417) -.972(.799(.244(.102) .478(.822 (.210) -.293 (.306) .852(.214) 1.210) .052) 1.317) 1.360) .841(.915(.153) .157) .392(.052) 1.435) -.088 (.426) .154) -.270) 1.940(.713(.962 (.101) 1.153) .417) .098) 1.715(.435) -.567(.306) .223 (.467(.417) -.300(.
column a). column c). Table 4.12. 1B and 1C selfreported that they had been involved in at least one motor vehicle crash over the preceding year (see Table 4.12. However. (3) injuries requiring hospitalisation (see Table 4. 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 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. 124 . column b). if so. injury occurrence was much higher.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. with 44. males were more than twice as likely to report involvement in two or three automobile crashes.13).12. For motorcycle drivers.3 per cent being hospitalised. whether the accident had resulted in (1) no injuries or injuries insufficiently severe to seek medical attention (see Table 4. (2) injuries severe enough to require out-patient treatment at a medical clinic (see Table 4. Male and female automobile drivers reported involvement in one crash with almost the same frequency.
male motorcycle drivers reported higher crash occurrence than female motorcycle drivers. Table 4. 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. involved in two crashes 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 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 .Table 4. Gender and Ethnicity in Study 2 (N=122) Motorcycle drivers Ethnicity No. involved in one crash Total Ethnicity No.13: Crash Occurrence Frequency. involved in one crash Total Ethnicity No. involved in two crash Total Ethnicity No. Gender and Ethnicity in Study 1 (N=855) Automobile Drivers Ethnicity No.14) Regardless of ethnic background.
17 shows means. 126 . Table 4.5 4. it was not correlated with injury occurrence. BHS was not significantly correlated with verbal aggression (VER).05). 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. Also. in Study 1B. standard deviations and relationships between distal.5. standard deviations and relationships between distal. Study 1B. Most of these correlations were significant (p<. All distal and proximal variables were positively correlated except internality (I) which was negatively corrected with other variables. externally-focused frustration. All distal and proximal variables were positively correlated except I which was negatively corrected with other variables.16 shows means. Table 4. Study 1C. Most of these correlations were significant (p<. However. Hopelessness (BHS) was the only independent variable that was not significantly correlated with crash occurrence and injury occurrence. I was significantly correlated with all variables except with VER and hostility.1 Distal and Proximal Variable Data Results of Study 1 Study 1A. 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. All these correlations were significant (p<. and destination-activity orientation. freeway urgency. standard deviations and relationships between distal.4.05).15 shows means. Table 4. All distal and proximal variables were positively correlated except I which was negatively corrected with other variables. crash occurrence and crash injury. Although VER was significantly correlated with crash occurrence.05). proximal and outcome variables within the sample of automobile drivers. proximal and outcome variables within the sample of automobile drivers.
036 .23 2.129* .01 level (2-tailed) 127 .544** -.00 165.533** .231** .566** 1 -.804** .04 26.152** .191** .625** .247** .345** 1 -.22 3.476 .371** .155** .553** -.340** .749** .76 3. 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.2691 6.316** .278** .64 7.027 1 .88 7.482** .342** -.339** .147* -.202** .45 6.5 5.662** 1 .218** .306** .209** 1 .08 2.442 1 -.69 24.D.901** .376** .942** 1 .Table 4.246** .396** .78 .516** 1 -.201** .388** .280** .3455 .57 4.376** .44 4.562** -.239** .381** .513** .405** .186** .211** .52 34.147* .471** .05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .15: Means.331** 1 * Correlation is significant at .97 43.434** .58 .96 19.416** 1 .435** .391** -. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 9.716** .818** 1 .
331** .353** .276** .3079 .172** .55 9 21.147** .039 .452** .167** .372** .411** .48 5.400** .86 6.355** .213** .45 5 87.324** .294** 1 .403** .85 9.445** .157** .531** .496** .148* . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Distal Variables1 1 9.448** .842** 1 .602** 1 .14 4.366** .16: Means.225** .514** .103 -.275** .335** .4624 1 -.172** .414** .067 -.48 3.66 3.430** .438** 1 .463** .051 .542** .505** .272** .669** 1 -.697** 1 .153** .319** .434** .089 -.378** .584** -.028 .816** .341** .97 Outcome Variables2 16 .393** .369** .9 28.254** .310** .176* .586** .731** .254** .140* .05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .5 6 17.268** .200** .355** .97 4 4.9 13 46.461** .25 8 18.342** .279** .60 10 16.921** .028 -.491** .489**.41 3.236** .334** .816** .298** .847** .408** .013 1 .418** .53 19.4960 17 .523** .003 .173* .386** .271** .159 -.56 2 4.150** .312** 1 -.338** .363** .462** .071 .509** .65 Proximal Variables1 11 170.516** .407** 1 -.555** .Table 4.22 4.515** .103 -.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 .00 14 19.380** .376** .240** .178** .9 12 71.286* .331** .337** .763** .688**.84 7.69 8.855** .06 3 2.964** 1 .520** .195** .355** .82 7 13.550** .762** .5695 .491** .50 5.343** .443** .43 12.481** .213** .278** 1 -.358** .380** .587** 1 -.D. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1B (n=302) Mean S.099 .162** .779** 1 -.518** .401** .440**.347** 1 -.84 5.01 level (2-tailed) 128 .382** 1 -.343** .254** .91 15 27.444** .521** .540** .213** .
401** .271** .67 7.395** 1 11 65.85 19.218** .86 -.412** .183** .192**.057 .38 5.7 28.199**.278** .033 .31 3.258** .095 .313** .183** .314** .377** .296** .52 7.277**.199** .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 .293** .151* .228** .076 .251** .434** .356** .592** .270** .69 -.292** .222** .120 .9 -.186** .508** .203** .224** .465** .11 12.069 .151* .181** .379** .483** .311** .292** .183** .58 9.565** .224**.196** .423** .446** .119* 1 21 .221** .357** .97 -. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1C (n=252) Mean S.202** .402** .342** .139** .354** 1 5 88.518** .392** .42 3.110 .343** .254** .345** .31 -.516 .534** 1 18 19.895** 1 13 26.804** .364**.413** .296** .424** 1 12 18.304** .530** .00 -.166** .454** .191** 1 3 .387** .7 -.70 8.230 .291** .91 -.80 17.270** .191** .-181** .D.484** .448** .304** .368** .130** .294** .254** .320** .370** .451** .838** .141* .588** 1 14 20.745** 1 7 13.227** .383** .298** .506** .137* .481** .281** .150* .221** .229** .749** .192** .259** .01 level (2-tailed) S 129 .275** .428** .81 5.281** .17: Means.219** .082 .641** 1 4 4.Table 4.150* .70 3.250** .476** .323** .70 1 2 4.308** .306** .265** 1 19 25.216** .228** .103** .390** .193**.349** 1 16 67.101**.131* .263** .051 .210** .158** .261** .209** .286** .422** 1 9 22.338** .862** .277** 1 8 19.81 -.310** . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Distal Variables1 1 10.03 -.735** .307**.278** .422 -.378** .212** .166** .501 .095 .235** .288** .296** .348** 1 6 16.079 1 Outcome Variables2 20 .526** .268**.264** .340** .306** .03 5.05 -.305** .185** .89 5.109 .189** .252** .366** .174** .545** .531** 1 10 16.189** .17 -.230** .259** .038 .245** .178** .275** .367** .302** .502** .162**.364** .230** .78 8.226** .49 6.324** .373** .106 .9 -.402** .109 .64 -.05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .18 -.98 4.36 -.37 6.003 .081 .210**.148** .385** .747** .202** .016 .404** .725** .167** .075 .277** .241** .615** .456** .235** .343** .549** 1 Proximal Variables1 15 161.246** .355** .856** 1 17 43.17 -.241** .8 -.
18 shows means. Hostility (HOS) was significantly correlated with all other variables except with crash occurrence and crash injury. All distal and proximal variables were positively correlated except internality (I) which was negatively corrected with the BIT total score. externally-focused frustration. However.5. crash occurrence and injury occurrence. all BIT subscales. The BIT subscale measuring destinationactivity orientation was significantly correlated to crash occurrence but not to injury occurrence. 130 . BHS was significantly correlated with total BIT score and with all of the BIT subscales. 1B and 1C. proximal and outcome variables within the sample of motorcycle drivers in Study 2. Similar to observed results in study 1A. 4. freeway urgency. but it was not correlated with crash occurrence or injury occurrence. Of these negative the BIT subscales measuring freeway urgency and externally-focused frustration were significant. and destination-activity orientation.BHS was significantly correlated to the total BIT score and to BIT subscales: usurpation of right-of-way.2 Results of Study 2 Table 4. standard deviations and relationships between distal. it was not correlated with crash occurrence or with crash injury.
5738 8.01 level (2-tailed) 131 .182* -.317** .291** .562** 1 .535** 1 .758** 1 .413** 1 .383** .418** .55 175.150 -.428** .165 .795** 1 * Correlation is significant at .66 5.081 8.374** .4966 1 .580** 1 .409** .111 -.05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .485 11.Table 4.226** .4683 .50 73.240** .14 27.212* . 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. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 3.371** -.323 23.183* 1 .325** .122 7.621 3.876** .614** .500** .D.413** .072 .66 1.30 .167 .025 -.233** .76 48.219** .630** .259** .06 20.192* -.349** .6803 .179 7.18: Means.290** .917 3.750** .334** .251** .264** .035 3.415** .139 .376** .48 5.269** .232** .367** .941** 1 .028 1 .043 .314** .313** 1 .356** .200* -.201* .880 .
3 Results of Study 3 Table 4. 1B. proximal and outcome variables within the sample of taxicab drivers in Study 3. In general. verbal aggression (VER) and anger (ANG) were significantly correlated only with crash occurrence. proximal or outcome variables in Study 3 were weaker than those observed in Studies 1 and 2. nor a weak negative correlation between I and P achieved significance. AQ subscales were significantly and positively correlated with each other. 132 . standard deviations and relationships between distal. 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. As indicated in Table 4.5. neither an observed weak positive correlation between I and C. BIT total scores had a significant positive correlation with crash occurrence but not with injury occurrence. but remaining I correlations with BIT and AQ subscales did not achieve significance. Differing from Studies 1A. In this study. While physical aggression (PHY) and hostility (HOS) were significantly correlated with crash occurrence and injury occurrence. correlations between I and distal. Externality-chance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P) scores were significantly and positively correlated with crash occurrence and injury occurrence. 1C and 2. However.19 shows means.19.4.
177 1 .173* .84 2.05 3.180** .276** .128 .023 -.028 .404 .021 1 * Correlation is significant at .261** .121 .213** .289** 1 .197* .153** 1 .618** 1 .454** .092** .576** .245** .194* .171 .149 .257** .235** .194* 1 .030 .255** .193* -.15 32.161 -.061 .07 8.604** .240** .286* 1 .117 .234** .156 .99 10.152 .35 11.236** .31 8.42 66.749** .070 -.65 75.19: Means.378** 1 .235** .275** .020 .060 -.588** 1 .172** .167** .048 .292** .116 .2000 .82 11.166 .853** .06 2.149 .109 -.338** 1 .072 -.658** .82 5.225** .13 3.018 -.D.3 6.106 .178** .74 15.165 .561** 1 .864** 1 .646** .872** .060 .254** -. 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 12.156 .521** .418** .229** .721** .Table 4.622** .151 -.263** .271** .636** .10 1.114 .05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .182* -.117 .120 .023 .401** -.01 level (2-tailed) 133 .091 .103 .117 .88 1 .371** .51 3.43 8.0301 .268** .147** .072 .095 .150** .373** .240** .45 19.040 .816** .643** .213** .121 .32 7.11 15.091 -.141 .148* .246** .112 -.443** 1 .054 . Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 3 (n=133) Mean S.032 1 .324** .17 20.200* .071 .218* .4 5.12 4.039 .067 .528** 1 .025 -.08 15.32 3.807** .222* .013 .54 11.204* .
01.135.063.01 B=.01 B=. freeway urgency.01.01 B=. p<. p<.01 B=.146.4 was not supported. and externally-focused frustration.3 inclusive.04.1 Hypothesis 1: Behaviour in Traffic Influences Motor Vehicle Crash Outcomes First. results of logistic regression analyses indicated that usurpation of right-of way. p<. p<.1.1.01 and Study 3: B=.095.202.01 B=.01. p<. but not destination-activity orientation. Study 2: B=. p<.229. While controlling driver experience and driving frequency.01 Study 1C B=.238.01 B=.120.1).278.01 B=.4. p<. p<.315. 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=. p<. p<.080.117.6 Hypothesis Testing This section reports the results of analyses to test the hypotheses formulated in chapter 3 (see Table 3.102. p<. p<. p<.01). For the destination-activity factor.01 B=. When the relationships between the four component factors of the BIT scale and the likelihood of a crash outcome were tested. p<.095.01 B=. These results supported H1.01 B=.01 B=. p<.01 134 . Study 1C: B=. p<.1.01 B=. p<.063. p<.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=.01 B=.01 Study 3 B=.172.20). that behaviour in traffic influences crash occurrence.090.6. p<. p<. analyses were conducted to test whether BIT scores influenced crash occurrence.041. 4.01 B=. p<.01 Not Significant Study 2 B=. Table 4. p<.1. p<. These results supported H1. Study 1B: B=.088 p<. were significantly related to crash occurrence (see Table 4.048.1 through H1. H1.01 Study 1B B=.034.180.125.
respectively). p<.01 Study 3 Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant 4.01.6.01 B=. p<. p<.2. p<. p<.095.22.01.120.074.01 Not Significant Study 2 B=.01 B=. externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation were significantly related to traffic crash injury in all studies except Study 3 (See Table 4.2 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.05 Study 1B B=. When the relationships between the likelihood of injury occurrence and the four component factors of the BIT scale were tested.01 B=.21). that behaviour in traffic would influence injury occurrence.019.01 B=. p<. p<. Table 4. Table 4.054.087. p<.01 and Study 2: B=.01 B=.01 B=.038. p<.158. 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=.033 p<.118. 135 .091. freeway urgency.140.165. p<.01 B=. p<. When driver experience and travel frequency were controlled.23 and Table 4. p<. p<.064.21: 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=.24.01 B=.035.075 p<. These results supported H1. Study 1B: B=.Behaviour in traffic also influenced injury occurrence in all studies except Study 3.01 B=. p<. p<.069. 1B and 1C (see Table 4.01 B=.01 B=.035.059.01 Study 1C B=.01). Study 1C: B=. logistic regression analyses indicated that usurpation of right-of way. p<. p<.
98 171.25 5.64 27.32 147.22: 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<.31 161.074* 110 81 37 45 29 181.600** Table 4.35 4.41 167.82 168.92 157.48 171. * p<.77 8.35 24.01 N M SD F 186 88 18 9 161.320** 64 110 41 17 69 173.56 175. N M SD F 221 60 19 2 168.35 33.Table 4.15 161.77 165.73 170.64 26.82 33.16 3.03 25.25 25.88 28.05.35 155.60 185.184** 136 .89 21.52 25.29 21.30 22.98 33.06 19.50 28.44 178.43 20.01.68 26.23: 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<.32 28.
05).01. On the other hand. and those who almost never travelled (p<. 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<.05) and about once every two weeks (p<.01 14.12 154.53 17.01).06 8.73 157.24: 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<.52 3. 137 .Table 4.060** In Study 1A.61 165.12 161.00 16. Drivers who travelled every day had significantly higher total BIT scores when compared to those who travelled several times a week (p<.06 160. * p<.29 15. 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<.14 15.88 167.77 16. In Study 2. the effect of travel frequency on total BIT score was significant.01). In Study 1B. about once every two weeks (p<.05).81 167.00 14.25).01). N M SD F 187 46 16 3 159.345* 67 69 33 45 38 170.05.39 19. motorcycle drivers’ experience was not significantly related to total BIT scores (see Table 4. drivers who travelled everyday had significantly higher total BIT scores when compared to those who travelled several times a week (p<. Drivers who travelled about once or twice a week had significantly higher total BIT when compared to those who almost never travelled (p<. Drivers who travelled everyday had significantly higher total BIT scores when compared to those who almost never travelled (p<.01). In Study 1C.73 24.01).05).
S) Therefore.920 (N.33 78.Table 4.64 24.859 11. However. 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.47 5.82 162.31 2.50 24.31 78.25: 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<.89 20.S) 52 32 7 17 14 182. Not significant N M SD F 77 31 10 4 174.50 184.26).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<.05. taxicab driver experience was not statistically related to total BIT score.63 1.01.97 8.437 (N.56 3.74 77.71 168.05.S. * p<. Not significant N M SD F 3 16 23 91 82.316 1.94 20.81 175.81 161.753* 38 48 27 20 77.81 22.37 9. both driver experience and taxicab experience were tested.80 22. that drivers’ demographic characteristics would significantly influence total BIT scores was supported in studies of automobile drivers. it is concluded that Hypothesis 2.62 10.52 172.68 20. In other words.01. However.09 15.27 14.60 72.55 10.381 10.528** In Study 3. It was found that the driver experience was statistically related to total BIT score (see Table 4.26 10.55 73.65 73. N. * p<. N. the direction of the difference was opposite to what had 138 .58 188.S. Table 4.
In Study 3. ethnicity and age – were investigated. t-tests indicated that mean total BIT scores differed significantly between male and female participants. Hypothesis 2 was partially supported in the study of taxicab drivers. Again. travel frequency actually increased total BIT scores. however. only H2. the lower was the total BIT score. 139 . 1C and 2.been predicted by H2. 4.6.2 was supported in that travel frequency significantly influenced total BIT score but driver experience had no statistically significant effect. Contrary to the subhypothesis.2. 1B. the direction of the effect was consistent with the hypothesised relationship between driver experience and total BIT score. In this case. In Study 2. the observed effect was opposite to what had been predicted by H2. only H2. Contrary to the two sub-hypotheses. 1B. though.1 was confirmed.2. Hypothesis 2 was partially supported in the study of motorcycle drivers. the longer the taxicab operator had been driving.1 and H2. ANOVA indicated that mean total BIT scores in Studies 1A. For ethnicity. 1C and 2 differed between different ethnic groups (see Table 4. In Studies 1A.3 Hypothesis 3: Demographic Variables Influence Behaviour in Traffic The direct effects on total BIT scores of three demographic variables – gender. where male automobile and motorcycle drivers scored significantly higher than female drivers. in that driver experience significantly influenced total BIT score but taxicab experience had no statistically significant effect.27). driver experience and travel frequency actually increased total BIT scores. ANOVA results for age. indicated no significant differences in mean total BIT scores.
and Externality-Powerful-Others (P). In Study 3. t(250) = 2.01 F=. 4. N.9.1 and H3.44.99. p<. it was found that female automobile drivers scored significantly higher levels on the I dimension when compared to male automobile drivers. in that ethnicity significantly influenced total BIT scores. H3.53.2 was confirmed. H3.S.27: Effects of Demographic Factors on total BIT Scores Study 1A Gender Ethnicity Age t=2.562.05 F=11. p<.68. Study 1B t=2. p<. results showed that gender had no influence on the three dimensions of locus of control: Internality (I).01 F=1.01 F=9. Study 1C t=3. however.12.01).3 was not supported.00.4 Hypothesis 4: Demographic Variables Influence Locus of Control The direct effects of the same three demographic variables on locus of control were also investigated.01 F=19. N. Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers scored significantly higher total BIT scores than Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers (p<. For taxicab drivers studied in Study 3. so the null hypothesis could not be rejected and H3. p<.Table 4. age had no statistically significant direct effect on total BIT scores. p<.01 F=8. In Study 1B. male 140 . In all studies.S.05. p<.01 F=2. Malaysian-Indian taxicab drivers had significantly lower total BIT scores than either Malaysian-Chinese taxicab drivers (p<. 1C and Study 2.S.S Study 3 Not Applicable F=3. Study 2 t=3.98. post hoc analyses indicated that MalaysianChinese automobile drivers and motorcyclists scored significantly lower total BIT scores than either Malaysian-Indian or Malay drivers (p<. it is concluded that Hypothesis 3 was partially supported in studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers.S. In Study 1B.74. p<.62. N.81.05 F=4.01 F=1. In Study 1A and Study 2. Externality-Chance (C).05). N.6.05). in that gender and ethnicity significantly influenced total BIT scores. Therefore. p<. p<.66. N. p<.05.2 were confirmed.56. Note: Not significant In Study 1A. In Study 1C.
01). Post hoc analyses showed that Malaysian-Indian motorcycle drivers scored significantly lower than all other ethnicity groups on the I dimension (p<. In Study 1C.01 respectively. F(2. p<. 298) = 3.05) and Malaysian-Indian drivers scored significantly higher on the P dimension than did drivers in all other ethnic groups (p<. In Study 1A. 299) = 3.566. 249) = 3. 1C. In Study 1B. 298) = 3. 2 and 3 the age variable had no significant direct effects on any of the three dimensions of locus of control. F(2. F(2.01. p<. t(120) = 2. For Studies 1A.05 respectively.05 and F(2. post hoc analyses showed that Malaysian-Indian drivers scored significantly higher on the C and P dimensions than did Malaysian-Chinese drivers (p<. p<.490.01).462. ethnic group differences were significant only with respect to mean C and P subscale scores.476. p<.370. Malaysian-Indian drivers had significantly higher scores on the C dimension than did Malay drivers (p<. t(299) = 2. F(2.05. In Study 2. Post hoc analyses indicated that Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers had significantly lower I scores than did either Malaysian-Chinese or Malay drivers (p<.041. 119) = 5.05 respectively. p<. p<.05). 298) = 6. ethnic group differences were significant only with respect to I subscale scores.05 and F(2. ethnic group differences were significant only with respect to P subscale scores.05 and p<.automobile and motorcycle drivers scored significantly higher on the P dimension than did female automobile and motorcycle drivers. E and P scores.503. p<. Post hoc analysis showed that MalaysianIndian automobile drivers scored significantly higher than did Malaysian-Chinese drivers (p<. 1B. 299) = 5.05. F(2.527.941. Consistent with findings in Study 1A. 141 . all ethnic groups had significantly different mean I.05). p<.01 respectively).
Hypothesis 5 was partially supported in Study 2 with the sample of motorcycle drivers. that ethnicity significantly influenced internality. Age was found to have no influence on BHS scores with the sample of motorcycle drivers in Study 2. ethnicity and age on hopelessness were investigated.2 and H18.104.22.168 were supported. were supported. in that gender was observed to significantly influence the externalitypowerful-others scores.3.1. In Studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers. 1B or 1C.1.2 and H4. was not supported in either Study 1 or Study 2. H5. externality-chance and externality-powerfulothers.2. Therefore.3 were not supported. H5. it was found that the gender and ethnicity of motorcycle drivers did have a significant direct effect on hopelessness. ANOVA results found no significant differences in mean BHS scores between ethnic groups or different age groups among automobile drivers in Studies 1A. in Study 2.01). In Study 1. Independent sample t-tests on data from Studies 1A. Malay motorcycle drivers had a significantly higher BHS score when compared to Malaysian-Chinese motorcycle drivers (p<.1. 4. that age influences hopelessness.Therefore.079. based on the results of t-tests and ANOVA.5 Hypothesis 5: Demographic Variables Influence Hopelessness The direct effects of gender.3. Female motorcycle drivers scored significantly lower than male motorcycle drivers. that gender and ethnicity influence hopelessness. t(120) = 2. However.05. In addition.2. 1B and 1C found no significant differences in mean scores of hopelessness (BHS) between male and female automobile drivers. it was observed that age had no significant effect on any of internality. p<.1 and H5.2. 142 .3 was supported. Hypothesis 5 was not supported with respect to automobile drivers in Study 1. externality-chance and externality-powerful-others. H4. Hypothesis 4 was partially supported in studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers. H4.3. so H4.3. H4. H4.
that internality would influence hopelessness. Therefore. In Study 2.01.01 and (B = . I had a significant negative effect on BHS scores (B = -. that externality-chance and externality-powerful-others would influence hopelessness.01 and B = . were supported. that the three locus of control dimensions influence hopelessness. H6. it is concluded that Hypothesis 6 was supported in studies of automobile drivers.4.3. 143 . but C and P had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = . was not supported.01 and B = . In Study 1C. with the sample of motorcycle drivers.371. H6. Hypothesis 6 was partially supported in Study 2. H6.6 Hypothesis 6: Locus of Control Influences Hopelessness In Study 1A. respectively).3. p<.01) but externality-chance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P) had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = . p<. p<.254. p<. p<. no significant effects were observed between I and BHS scores in the sample of motorcycle drivers.01 respectively). 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 4.1.6.01) but C and P had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = .341. 4.1. were supported. H6. In Study 1B.342. respectively).01.6. p<.2 and H6. p<. p<.239.306.354.254. p<.290.01 and B = . p<. p<. with higher levels of internality related to lower levels of hopelessness and higher levels of both externality dimensions associated with higher hopelessness.01.186. I was found to have a significant negative effect on BHS scores (B = -.28).7 Hypothesis 7: Hopelessness Influences Behaviour in Traffic In studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers. internality (I) had a significant negative effect on hopelessness (BHS) (B = -.312.2 and H6.01) but C and P had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = . respectively).
317. p<.01). the higher the hopelessness scores. p<.349. p<.141.05 Study 1C B=.01 B=. externally-focused frustration (B = . p<.01).280. freeway urgency (B = .349. p<.01 B=.275. p<.254.151.01 B=. p<.01 B=.200. that hopelessness would have a significant positive effect on freeway urgency was not supported in Study 1B.278. p<.157. p<. p<.05) but not for freeway urgency.418.01 B=. p<. the higher the hopelessness scores. p<.01 B=. it is concluded that Hypothesis 7.01 B=.05). was supported in Studies 1A.01).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=.254.05 In Study 1A. 144 .317.1.247.01) and destination-activity orientation (B = . externally-focused frustration (B = . H7.287. p<. freeway urgency (B = . p<.01 B=.232. externally-focused frustration (B = . p<.01 B=.01) and destination-activity orientation (B = . p<.191. that hopelessness would have a significant positive direct effect on usurpation of right-of-way. In Study 1B. p<.157. that hopelessness would have a significant positive influence on total BIT scores. the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = .415. p<. p<. p<. p<. p<. p<.247.01 B=.191.05 B=. Therefore. p<.141. In Study 1C. H7. p<.05).01 B=. p<. N.288.2. H7. freeway urgency (B =. p<.01). p<. p<. meaning that H7 was only partially supported for that study.01 Study 1B B=.151.01 B=. p<.151. externallyfocused frustration and destination-activity were supported in both Studies 1 and 2. the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = .05).275.415.05 B=. p<.05 Study 2 B=.280.01). it was observed that the higher the hopelessness scores.153.05) and destinationactivity orientation (B = . with both automobile and motorcycle drivers.099.232. the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = . p<. 1C and 2.153.01). it was observed that the higher the hopelessness (BHS) scores. p<.Table 4.S. In Study 2. externally-focused frustration (B = . B=.05) and destination-activity orientation (B = . the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = .3 and H7.4.151.01).287. p<.01 B=.
H8.29: Direct Effects of Locus of Control on Total BIT Scores Study 1A I C P Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 Study 3 B=-. with internality observed to exert a positive effect on BIT and the two externality dimensions to exert negative effects. N. Hypothesis 8 was partially supported for motorcycle drivers in Study 2. Table 4.336.01 B=.6.01 B=-. N. the lower were mean total BIT scores. but not H8. but not of the motorcycle and taxicab drivers in Studies 2 and 3 (See Table 4.315. results indicated that the higher were subscale scores for P. p<.1. B=. B=. p<. p<.178. the higher were mean total BIT scores automobile drivers in Study 1. that locus of control would influence total BIT scores were supported in Study 1.1.1. p<. With regard to H8. p<.29).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. H8.01 B=.208. that internality would negatively influence total BIT scores was supported.006.339. Hypothesis 8 was partially supported for taxicab drivers in Study 3.1 and H8.01 B=-. N.229.3.S.4.S. 145 . results indicated that the higher were subscale scores for C.01 B=-. motorcycle and taxicab drivers).01 B=.239. p<. p<.S.01 B=.2.388. but not of the sample of taxicab drivers in Study 3. Results of multiple regression analyses (in studies of car.2 and H8. p<.753. the higher were mean total BIT scores of automobile and motorcycle drivers in Studies 1 and 2.168. provided support for hypothesis H8.05 B=. With regard to H8. p<. that the higher the subscale score for I. Therefore.2. p<.625.3.044. where only H8. it is concluded that Hypothesis 8 was supported for automobile drivers in Study 1.3 that externality-powerful-others would influence total BIT scores.01 B=.01 B=. p<.01 B=-. p<. H8.297.077. that internality and externality-chance would influence total BIT scores were supported.01 B=.
909. F=4.704. 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. In Study 1C. p<.01 (see Figure 4.01 and F=8.01 (see Figure 4. 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. F=4.01 respectively (see Figure 4. Scores for the three locus of control dimensions – internality. F=7.710. =8. Mean Score on Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) 175 Ethnicty Malay MalaysianChinese 170 MalaysianIndian 165 160 155 150 low high Internality Figure 4. p<.272.581.2).1: Interaction Effects between Ethnicity and Internality on BIT In Study 1C. 146 . p<.1).1).05. p<. freeway urgency and externally-focused frustration than did Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers with high internal control. 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. results revealed that Malay automobile drivers with high internal control had significantly lower scores on BIT subscales measuring usurpation of right-of-way. p<.Additional analysis: Interaction of ethnicity and locus of control on BIT. Further.
537) and the moderator (hopelessness) showed a significant result.00 66.00 68. 1B and 1C.327. p<. B = . R2=. 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 4.05. Hopelessness moderated the relationship between internality and the total BIT score and between externality-chance and to total BIT score.00 64.Mean Score on Usurpation of Right-of Way Ethnicty 74.034.6. F=4. in Study 2.3). Kurtosis=-. p<. 147 . First.9 Hypothesis 9: Hopelessness Moderates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Behaviour in Traffic For Studies 1A. the results of hierarchical regression indicated that the R2 value changed after the internality x hopelessness interaction was added in the regression model (R2=.444.00 MalaysianIndian 70.2: Interaction Effect between Ethnicity and Externality-Chance on Usurpation of Right-of Way 4.00 Malay MalaysianChinese 72.00 62. Residuals Normality: Skewness=. hopelessness did not moderate the relationship between locus of control and BIT. multiple regression showed mixed results. However.282.05.033.00 low high Externality (Chance) Figure 4.
p<. B = . p<. Kurtosis=-. R2=.4: Moderating Effect of BHS on the Externality (Chance) -BIT Relationship 148 .608.371). 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. F=18.070.4). Effect for drivers with high hopelessness score BIT Level Effect for drivers with low hopelessness score Externality (Chance) Figure 4.459.167.BIT Level Effect for drivers with high hopelessness score Effect for drivers with low hopelessness score Internality Figure 4.01.463. Residuals Normality: Skewness=.01.3: 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=. and the moderator (hopelessness) showed a significant result.
521.05 Study 1C t=2.S t=1.01 t=2. Table 4.Therefore. Hypothesis 9 was partially supported in Study 2. it is concluded that Hypothesis 9 was not supported in Study 1. p<. were supported. N. ethnicity and age exerted direct effects on drivers’ Aggression Questionnaire (AQ) scores. N. that hopelessness would moderate the relationship between externalitychance and total BIT scores. p<.01 t=-.S. In both studies.690.1. p<.032.298. With motorcycle drivers. ANOVA revealed no significant differences between ethnic groups in mean total AQ scores.603. N.6.164. p<. results indicated that male automobile drivers scored significantly higher than female drivers on measures of physical aggression.210.S t=2. mean total AQ scores differed significantly between ethnic groups. p<.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. However. p<.S t=2. that hopelessness would moderate the relationship between internality and total BIT scores.2. Mean total AQ scores differed significantly between male and female participants in Studies 1B and 1C.01 The relationship between ethnic background and aggression was tested for automobile drivers in Studies 1B. p<. p<.690.677.31).603. In Study 1B and Study 3.05 t=4.467. male automobile drivers had significantly higher total AQ scores than did female automobile drivers. N.01 t=2.01 t=4. Hopelessness did not moderate the locus of control-BIT relation for automobile drivers. verbal aggression and indirect aggression (see Table 4.10 Hypothesis 10: Demographic Factors Influence Aggression Analyses tested whether gender.187.05 respectively.01 (see table 4.780.820. t= . however.30). 4. In Study 1C.01. t(300) = 2. 249) = 5. 1C and 3. p<. When mean subscale scores for the five AQ component factors were tested. and H9. and t(250) = 2. p<.480. p<. the H9. Post hoc analysis showed that Malaysian-Chinese 149 . F(2.05 t=.
N.632.S.01 F=2. F=4. N. ANOVA revealed no significant differences between ethnic groups in mean scores in any of the AQ subscale scores. p<.05.01 Study 3 F=1. Similar to the findings in Study 1B. Table 4. Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers had significantly lower IND scores than drivers from other ethnic groups (p<. mean IND scores of Malay. F=. N. Malay automobile drivers scored significantly higher VER scores than drivers from other ethnic groups (p<.01). F=1.01).432.S.S.automobile drivers in Study 1C had significantly lower total AQ scores than did Malay or Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers (p<.155.01).S. The mean indirect aggression (IND) scores of Malay. F(2. In Study 1B. F=2.S F=10. p<. N. p<.S. N.422.01 F=.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. Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers had significantly lower IND scores than drivers from other ethnic groups (p<.432. 299) = 5. p<. Malaysian-Chinese and Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers were significantly different. N. F=1.S.521. F=5. When AQ subscale scores were tested for Study 1B and Study 1C. F(2. N. Malaysian-Chinese and Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers were significantly different. F=1.S.S. 249) = 10.763.629. the mean verbal aggression (VER) scores of Malay.182. p<. 150 . 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. 299) = 4. F=2. p<.526.021.S. F(2. In Study 3.077.398. N. Malaysian-Chinese and Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers were also significantly different. F=1. mixed results were found.01. N. N.804. F=2.01). F=2.57.561. N.S.05 Study 1C F=5.S.041.564. In Study 1C.01. N.904.041. N.S. F=1. p<.S.567.
3 and H11. in studies of both automobile drivers and taxicab drivers. total BIT scores and scores on usurpation of right-of way and freeway urgency subscales were higher.3 and H11. The higher the total aggression scores. H11. only H11. H11. VER and IND subscale scores. however. freeway urgency. freeway urgency. was supported.2. VER and IND) of five component factors among automobile drivers sampled in both Studies 1B and 1C. externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation. were all supported. that aggression would have a direct positive effect on externally-focused frustration and on destination-activity orientation. H10.29).4. 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.2 (that ethnicity would influence aggression level) was supported only in Study 1C and only with respect to total AQ.1 (that gender would influence aggression) was supported with respect to measures of total aggression and to the same three (PHY. respectively. with regard to the taxicab drivers sampled in Study 3. it is concluded that Hypothesis 10 was partially supported. In Study 3. H10. 4.3 (that age would negatively influence aggression) was not supported.32). 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. 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. the higher were automobile drivers’ total BIT scores and scores on the four components.6. 151 . In Studies 1B and 1C. it is concluded that Hypothesis 11. H11. and destination-activity orientation (see Table 4. This means that when taxicab drivers’ aggression scores were higher. However. externally-focused frustration. H10. that aggression would have a positive influence on total BIT scores.Therefore. Therefore. were supported.4.1.
491. Results of regression analyses also showed that anger (ANG) had a significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1B and Study 1C. p<.370. B = . B = . but that this does not apply to taxi drivers. B = . Also. p<.05 (see Figure 4. p<. When the interaction effect of ethnicity and hopelessness was tested on the BIT and its four component factors. p<. the higher the levels of PHY and HOS. p<.01 and B = . p<. Verbal aggression (VER) was found to have no significant influence on total BIT scores.01 Study 1C B=. p<.565.01 respectively.438. B = . p<. p<.01 B=.380. p<. and B = . no interaction effects were found in all studies – Study 1A. 1C.01. N. With both automobile and taxicab drivers. indirect aggression (IND) was also found to have significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1B and Study 1C. respectively. Malay automobile drivers with high VER scores tended to score 152 . and B = .01.370.32: Effect of Aggression on Total BIT Scores and on BIT Component Factors Study 1B B=.263.881.5).461. Study 1C and Study 3. the higher were total BIT scores.01.385. p<. B = .01 B=. Similarly. their total BIT scores tend to be higher.05 B=. Additional analysis: Interaction effects of ethnicity and aggression on BIT.540.520.263. N.Table 4. p<. p<. B=.229. it was found that there was an interaction effect between ethnicity and verbal aggression (VER) on freeway urgency.048.121. but not in Study 3. F=3.S.01 and B = . p<. p<.204.01.01.387. p<. p<. p<.01 respectively. p<.S.01 B=.01 Study 3 B=. 1B. This implies that when automobile drivers have higher levels of ANG and IND.01 B=. p<.505. hostility (HOS) was found to have a significant positive influence on BIT in Study 1B. p<.324.183.428. B = .05 B=. However.235. Linear regression analyses indicated that physical aggression (PHY) had a significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1B. Study 2 and Study 3.01.216. Study 1C and Study 3.01 B=.01 B=.01 B=. 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. p<. but not in Study 3.545.483.01 B=.01 B=. p<. respectively. p<.
271.5: Interaction of Ethnicity and Verbal Aggression on Freeway Urgency 4. B=-.076.01.00 IndianMalaysian 48. Study 1C and Study 3.01.00 46.01.00 Low High Verbal Aggression Figure 4. respectively.362.12 Hypothesis 12: Locus of Control Moderates the Relationship between Aggression and Behaviour in Traffic 4.172. The moderating effect of I was significant.00 42.12.significantly higher on freeway urgency than did Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers with high VER scores.100.00 Malay ChineseMalaysian 50. F=81. R2=. Residuals Normality: Skewness=.00 44. and R2 values changed after the I x AQ interaction was added in the regression models (R2=.961.6.01. Kurtosis=-. p<. In other words. p<. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-. and B=-. R2=.316. R2=.05. Kurtosis=-. for Study 1B. p<.516. F=100.003. aggressive drivers with low internal locus of control would 153 .131.6.929.1 Internality as a Moderator Hierarchical regression analyses revealed that internality (I) moderated the relationship between aggression and total BIT score. p<. p<. 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.297. B=-. Mean Score on Freeway Urgency Ethnicty 52.645.
369.694.757.704. Consistent with the findings from Study 1B. p<. Effect for aggressive drivers with low internality score BIT Level Effect for aggressive drivers with high internality score Aggression Level Figure 4. and the moderating effects of C and P were 154 .088. R2 values changed after both the C x AQ and P x AQ interactions were added in the respective regression models (R2=.271. F=94. In Study 1B. p<. F=71. F=78.507.01. Kurtosis=-.117.01.360. R2=. Residuals Normality: Skewness= -. and the moderating effects of C and P were significant. R2=. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-. p<.01. R2=.015. Kurtosis=. p<.069.6: Moderating Effect of Internality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship 4. 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=. R2=.015. This applied to both automobile drivers and taxicab drivers. Kurtosis=-.431.6). p<.271. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-. R2=.897.794. respectively).12.606.109.387. B = . R2=. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-463.01 respectively.01. the hierarchical regression revealed that externalitychance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P) moderated the relationship between aggression and total BIT score. respectively).2 Externality-chance and Externality-powerful-others as Moderators In Study 1B and Study 1C. Kurtosis=.297.6.297. F=91.01 and B = . p<.have higher BIT scores compared to drivers with high internal locus of control (see figure 4.
7). p<. B = .1. that the internality. p<.01 and B = .3. Effect for aggressive drivers with high externality scores BIT Level Effect for aggressive drivers with low externality scores Aggression Level Figure 4.332. 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. H12. and the moderation effect was not significant.7: Moderating Effects of Externality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship However. and H12. Therefore. externality-chance and externality-powerful-others 155 . H12.2. with the samples of automobile drivers study for student car drivers. it is concluded that the Hypothesis 12 was supported in Studies 1B and 1C. hierarchical regression results showed that neither C nor P moderated the relationship between aggression and total BIT scores for taxicab drivers in Study 3.302. 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.01 respectively. R2 values did not change after either the C x AQ or P x AQ interactions were added in the regression models.significant.
343. 249) = 4.1. p<.314. that internality moderates the relationship between aggression and total BIT scores was supported. There were no significant differences between ethnic groups with respect to hostile statements about the derogation of others.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. p<. with the sample of taxicab drivers.01.05) or Indian-Malaysian automobile drivers (p<. that externality-chance and externality-powerful-others moderates the relationship between aggression and BIT scores were not supported. 156 . 248) = 3. There were also significant differences between ethnic groups on subscale scores measuring statements about physical aggression F(2. H122 and H12.737. 249) = 5. Also.05.01).05).6. p<.279. p<. male automobile drivers scored significantly higher on HAT subscales measuring statements about physical aggression. F(2. No significant differences were observed between age groups with respect to total HAT scores or to scores on any of the three HAT subscales. Hypothesis 12 was only partially supported in Study 3. p<.01.885.01 and revenge: t(249) = 3.05.05). and about revenge F(2. 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<.01 but not on about the derogation of others.3. t(249)=2. ANOVA results showed that ethnic groups differed significantly with respect to mean total HAT scores. 4. Only H12.dimensions of locus of control moderate the relationship between aggression and total BIT scores were supported. On the subscale measuring statements about revenge. Post hoc analysis indicated that Chinese-Malaysian automobile drivers had significantly lower total HAT scores than either Malay or Indian-Malaysian automobile drivers (p<. Chinese-Malaysian automobile drivers had significantly lower scores than IndianMalaysian automobile drivers (p<. t(250) = 3. However.263.
was partially supported.2. H13. derogation of others and revenge) positively influence total BIT scores.2 and H14. 4. that gender and ethnicity respectively would have significant direct effects on hostile automatic thoughts.1 and H13. that hostile automatic thoughts would influence behaviour in traffic. on total BIT score were also tested.01. B = . respectively. were supported. H14. it is concluded that the Hypothesis 14.Therefore.01. the higher the total HAT scores.3. 157 . Linear regression analyses indicated that subscales measuring thoughts about physical aggression. p<. H13. B = . freeway urgency.277. p<. the higher the scores on the three classes of hostile automatic thought. p<. p<.01.364. B = .413.1. was not supported.01. This means that. was supported. linear regression analyses indicated that total HAT scores predicted total BIT scores. The effects of HAT subscales measuring the three classes of hostile automatic thoughts.14 Hypothesis 14: Hostile Automatic Thoughts Influence Behaviour in Traffic In Study 1C. This means that.6. p<. p<.01 and B = . p<.307.224. it is concluded that the Hypothesis 13. H14. the higher were automobile drivers’ total BIT scores and scores on the four components. (that thoughts about physical aggression. the higher were total BIT scores.394.01. that demographic variables would influence hostile automatic thoughts. derogation of others and revenge had a significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1C B =. B = . p<. and also scores measuring the four BIT component factors: usurpation of right-of-way. were supported.01. B = .192. Therefore.379. B = . externally-focused frustration.3. with the sample of automobile drivers studied.01 and destination-activity orientation. that age would influence hostile automatic thoughts.
The R2 value changed after the HAT-Physical Aggression x AQ interaction was added in the regression model (R2=. p<. and the moderating effect of HAT-Physical 158 . p<.8). Effect for aggressive drivers with high HAT score BIT Level Effect for aggressive drivers with low HAT score Aggression Level Figure 4.565. p<.-554. B = .01.809.297. 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. also moderated the relationship between aggression and BIT. R2 values changed after the HAT x AQ interaction was added in the regression model (R2=. F=57.15 Hypothesis 15: Hostile Automatic Thoughts Moderate the Aggression-BIT Relationship Hierarchical regression analysis indicated that HAT scores moderated the relationship between aggression and BIT.6. and the moderating effect of HAT was significant. R2=.013.297. R2=.01.911.002.8: Moderating Effect of Externality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship It was observed that two of the HAT subscales.05. 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. Kurtosis=. F=55. Physical Aggression and Revenge.072). In other words. Normality Residuals: Skewness=.4. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-.085).188. Kurtosis=.
297. R2=.01.294. was not supported.092). and the moderating effect of HAT-Revenge was significant.026. it is concluded that Hypothesis 15. Normality Residuals: Skewness=. were supported. B = . The HAT subscale measuring thoughts about the derogation of others did not moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic. 159 .6.207.246.Aggression was significant.01. H15. Kurtosis=. Therefore. H15. F=59. p<.475.01.2.1 and H15. 4. p<. that hostile statements about physical aggression and revenge respectively moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic. that hostile statements about the derogation of others moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic. that total HAT score would moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic.3. p<. B = .16 Summary of Hypothesis Testing The following table provides summarised results for the hypotheses and subhypotheses in this study (see Table 4.33). was supported. However. The R2 value also changed after the HATRevenge x AQ interaction was added in the regression model (R2=.
S N.S N.2: Taxicab experience will have a negative influence on total BIT score H3: Demographic variables will influence behaviour in traffic H3.S N.S 2 S S S S S S S S S S S P.S 1C P.S N.S N.4: Destination-activity orientation will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H2: Driver characteristics will influence behaviour in traffic H2.S 1B S S S S S S S S S S S S S S P.S S S N.2: Freeway urgency will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.S N.S P.3: Ethnicity influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H4.S P.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: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.2.S 3 P.2: Ethnicity will influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.1: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Internality H4.S S S S S N.S S S N.4:Destination-activity orientation will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.S N.S N.S S S S S S N.3: Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.1.S S S S S N.1.2 :Freeway urgency will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.S P.S N.1: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.S S N.S S N.3: Gender will influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H4.2.S S S S S N.S P.1: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.Table 4.S S S S P.S N.2.S S N.33: Summarised Results of the Hypotheses and Sub-hypotheses STUDY 1A H1: BIT will have a positive influence on motor vehicle crash outcomes H1.3:Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.S S N.S N.S S S N.S N.S.S N.S P.S N.2: Ethnicity will influence total BIT score H3.1: Gender will influence total BIT score H3.S N.1.2.S N.S P.S S S N.S N.2.2: Traveling frequency will have a negative influence on total BIT score H2.1.S S P.S N. S N.2.S 160 .3.1.S S S N.2.1: Ethnicity will influence the Locus of Control: Internality H4.2: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.2: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.S N.1.3: Age will have a negative influence on total BIT score H4: Demographic variables will influence the Locus of Control H4.S S S N.1.1: Driver experience will have a negative influence on total BIT score H2.S N.
2: Ethnic background will influence Aggression H10.S S S S S S S S S S S S S S N.S N.S N. P.S S S S S S S N.3: Age will influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H5: Demographic variables will influence Hopelessness H5.S S N.1: Internality will have a negative influence on total BIT score H8.S S S N.S N.S N.S N.S S S S S S S S S S S S S S N.S N.S N.Table 4.S P.S 2 N.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 H9.2: Hopelessness will moderate the Externality-Chance--BIT relationship H9.3: Age will influence Hopelessness H6: Locus of Control will influence Hopelessness H6.S S S N.S S S S S S S S P. N.4: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Destination-activity Orientation H8: Locus of Control will influence behaviour in traffic H8.S P.3.S N.S N.S S S N.1: Gender will influence Hopelessness H5.S N.S P.S 161 .3.S N.S N.3: Hopelessness will moderate the Externality-Powerful-Others--BIT relationship H10: Demographic variables will influence aggression H10.S N.S P.S N.S N.S N.S P.S STUDY 1C N.S N.S N.1: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Usurpation of right-of way H7.S N.1: Internality will have a negative influence on Hopelessness H6.S= Not Supported.S S S N.2: Externality-Chance will have a positive influence on total BIT H8.2: Externality-Chance will have a positive influence on Hopelessness H6.2: Age will influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.S N.S 1B N.S S N.S P.S N.S N.S S N.1: Hopelessness will moderate the Internality-BIT relation H9.S N.S N. blank=Not Applicable N.1: Gender will influence Aggression H10.S N.2: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Freeway urgency H7.3: Externality-Powerful-Others will have a positive influence on Hopelessness H7: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on behaviour in traffic H7.3: Age will have a negative influence on Aggression S=Supported.S= Partially Supported.S 3 N.3: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Externally-focused frustration H7.S N.S N.S N.S N.S N.33 (Continued) 1A H4.S S S S S P.S N.2: Ethnic background will influence of Hopelessness H5.
Table 4. N.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.S= Partially Supported.S S N.1: Thoughts about Physical Aggression will have a positive influence on total BIT score H14.4: Aggression will have a positive influence on Destination-activity orientation H12: Locus of Control will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12.2: Ethnic background will influence hostile automatic thoughts H13.S= Not Supported.S S S S S P.S S 2 3 P.2: Aggression will have a positive influence on Freeway urgency H11.S S S N.1: Thoughts about Physical Aggression 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.1: Aggression will have a positive influence on usurpation of right-of way H11.3: Thoughts about Revenge will have a positive influence on total BIT score H15: Hostile Automatic Thoughts will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H15.3: Thoughts about Revenge will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship S=Supported.1: Gender will have a positive influence on hostile automatic thoughts H13.S S N.1: Internality will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12.S 162 .2: Thoughts about the Derogation-of-Others will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H15.S S S N.3: Externality-Powerful-Others will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H13: Demographic variables will influence Hostile Automatic Thought s H13.S N. P.2: Externality-Chance will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12.2: Thoughts about the Derogation of Others will have a positive influence on total BIT score H14.S P.33 (Continued) 1A H11: Aggression will have a positive influence on behaviour in traffic H11.3: Aggression will have a positive influence on Externally-focused frustration H11.
F4 F1. F4 F1. P.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. F3. Externality Chance (C).g. Study 2: motorcycle driver.4. externality (Chance) and externality (Powerful-Other) as distal context factors.093 .087 .93 . F2.34.7. P. P. This contextual mediated model was tested six times and the goodness-of-fit indices for these models are indicated in Table 4.97 . Aggression (AQ).00126 . Hopelessness.93 . Model 1C5 had better fit but necessitated dropping one of the component factors. F4 χ2 49.045 . BHS. C. F3. F2.38 100.58 35. Table 4. AQ I. 23 28 33 38 24 33 p-value GFI . C. F2. AQ and Hostile Automatic Thought (HAT).068 . Hostile Automatic Thought (HAT). F3. F2.02 d. C. C. AQ. C. 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. AQ. (2) usurpation of right-of-way. AQ. All proposed models measured: (1) internality.97 63. HAT Proximal Factors F1. F3. two were worthy of further examination. P I.00000 . F4 F1. freeway urgency (F2). F2. P. 2002). BHS. BHS I. F3.060 Note: Internality (I). F3 F1. Hopelessness (BHS). HAT I. freeway urgency. hopelessness or subtracting the latent variables in order to obtain the optimal goodness-of-fit index. externally-focused frustration (F3) and destination-activity orientation (F4) Of the six models tested. P.00111 . e. Three studies (Study 1C: automobile driver. Usurpation of right-of-way (F1). and (3) crash occurrence and injury occurrence as outcome. Externality Powerful-Other (P). F2.80 104. HAT I.102 .f.34: SEM Comparison (Study 1C) Distal Factors 1C1 1C2 1C3 1C4 1C5 1C6 I. C.96 . externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation as proximal context factors.93 .96 RMSEA . 4.52 (Jöreskog and Sörbom.00000 . These models were re-specified by adding different proximal context factors.00000 . F4 F1.05522 . 163 .90 110.1 Study 1C The contextual mediated model in this study was tested with four distal factors – Locus of Control.
RMR=. RMSEA=.5. 5. .32. goodness-of-fit was characterised as excellent (χ2=35.42. 164 .51 and PGFI=.97. Externality (Chance). values for these additional indices were: NFI=. but not as good as for C5. Externality (Powerful-Other). The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that all possible paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant: Internality. Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thought had effects on BIT. retained all four of the BIT component factors and fit indices were acceptable.22 respectively (see Figure 4. To aid this discussion. AGFI=.f. .10).043. Externality (Powerful-Other). goodness-of-fit was characterised as very good (χ2=63. GFI=.28 and .48.97.92) on accident involvement. Externality (Chance). Making a decision to select one of these models over the other raised a number of interesting points. The five distal variables accounted for 70% of the variance in BIT scores.f. d.13. An alternate model.23 respectively (see Figure 4.02.060. For Model C5. d. and PGFI=. CFI=.97. The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=.10).=24. RMSEA=. For Model C6. The five distal variables accounted for 67% of the variance in BIT scores. AGFI=. For Model C5.99) and constituted the best fit of all six of the tested models.destination-activity orientation (F4).043.29 and . CFI=.42.98).92) on accident involvement. subsequent additional analysis was carried out to calculate a range of comparative fit indices.96. GFI=. with path coefficients = -.35. values were: NFI=.14. Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thought had effects on BIT.91. The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=. . RMR=.26. . For Model C6.94. with path coefficients = -. ECVI=.96. .26.=33. which are detailed in sect.045. C6. . of the BIT score. The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that all possible paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant: Internality. ECVI=.3.
BITF2=Freeway Urgency.99 P-value = .97 d.13* Externality (Powerful Other) BIT1 BIT2 BIT3 .79* .f =24 CFI=.22* Hostile Automatic Thought Model Statistics χ2=35. BITF4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4.57* Injury Occurrence . *p<.Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome Internality -. BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration.58* .97 GFI=.29* Aggression (AQ) .51* .005522 N=252 RMSEA=.63* .26* Crash Occurrence Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) .05 BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way.92* Accident Involvement .9: Contextual Mediated Model 1C5 (Three BIT Factors) 165 .32* Externality (Chance) .045 RMR=.043 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.
BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration.00126 N=252 RMSEA=.31* Externality (Chance) . BITF2=Freeway Urgency.50* .043 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.77* .060 RMR=.92* Accident Involvement .13* Externality (Powerful Other) BIT1 BIT2 BIT3 BIT4 .10: Contextual Mediated Model 1C6 (Four BIT Factors) 166 .29* Aggression (AQ) .56* .96 d.02 GFI=.63* .98 P-value = .26* Crash Occurrence Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) .58* Injury Occurrence .39* .Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome Internality -.f =33 CFI=.05 BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way.22* Hostile Automatic Thought Model Statistics χ2=63. *p<. BITF4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4.
Aggression (AQ). Angry (ANG). d.92 . Hostile Automatic Thought-Derogation of others (HAT-D).35). HAT-R PHY.00111 . IND. F4 χ2 108.10.66). 167 . HAT-P. VER.91 . HOS. Hostile Automatic Thought-Physical aggression (HAT-P). using automobile drivers sampled in Study 1C.91 . ANG. CFI=. F2.66 153. The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=.f. HAT-P.94 169. F3. F4 F1. F3. HOS. IND PHY. F3. externally-focused frustration (F3) and destination-activity orientation (F4) As depicted in Figure 4. HOS. Indirect aggression (IND).00000 GFI RMSEA . Hostile Automatic Thought was found to have a direct effect on the AQ (path coefficient=. path coefficients = . HAT-P. 42 61 50 61 61 p-value . RMSEA=.080 . 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). ANG. Usurpation of right-of-way (F1).91 . Verbal aggression (VER). freeway urgency (F2). IND. The results for the goodness-offit indexes are shown as follows: Table 4.35: Different Contextual Models (Study 1C) Distal Factors PHY.91. ANG. HAT-D. IND.084 . The proposed contextual mediated model was tested five times (see Table 4.65 and . F2.66 131. HOS. HAT-D. VER. F2. HAT-D. F2.00000 . HAT-P.081 . F3 F1.078 Note: Physical aggression (PHY). GFI=. F4 F1. ANG. Hostile Automatic Thought-Revenge(HAT-R). HAT-D.084 .13 respectively. HOS.95). VER. HAT-R Proximal Factors F1.73 169. F3 F1.In addition.=61. HAT-R PHY. ANG.078.00000 . the final model has provided a reasonable fit to the data (χ2=153. Hostility (HOS).f.41 d.41. IND. F2. the contextual mediated model was tested using Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thoughts and their latent variables (component factors) as distal context factors. HAT-R PHY.00000 .93 .80) on the accident involvement.
000 N=252 RMSEA=. *p<.62* .91 d.078 RMR=. BIT4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4.13* Model Statistics χ2=153.29* Hostility .65* Crash Occurrence Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) .80* Accident Involvement .63* Indirect Aggression .58* .82* Revenge BIT1=Usurpation of Right-of way.68* Aggression (AQ) BIT1 BIT2 BIT3 BIT4 .95 P-value = .72* .60* Injury Occurrence Physical Aggression .41 GFI=.65* .69* Anger .Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome Physical Aggression . BIT3=Externally-Focused Frustration.11: Contextual Mediated Model Study 1C (Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thoughts) 168 .058 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.83* .05 .f =61 CFI=.61* . BIT2=Freeway Urgency.66* .90* Derogation of Other Hostile Automatic Thought .
C.4. F4 F1. F2. The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=. F3. Compared to the Study 1 for student car drivers. F3 F1. F2.058 .12 d. the participants were motorcycle drivers. BHS F1.2 Study 2 In Study 2.17631 . BHS I. 169 . d.047. The four distal variables accounted for 49% of the variance in BIT.=28.80 respectively (see Figure 4.7. The goodness-of-fit indexes for these models are shown as follow: Table 4. CFI=.12). freeway urgency (F2).66) on the accident involvement. Externality Powerful-Other (P). 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=29.047 .94 .36: Different Contextual Models (Study 2) Distal Factors Proximal Factors χ2 29.95 .33 33. P I. C.062 Note: Internality (I). P.36). Hopelessness (BHS).86 23 28 23 . The proposed contextual mediated model was tested three times (see Table 4. p-value GFI RMSEA I. C. the final model for the student motorcycle drivers did not include hopelessness. F3. The contextual mediated model was tested using locus of control and hopelessness as distal context factors.98). Externality Chance (C). path coefficients = -.12.f.65 and .07580 .94.94 . GFI=. The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that three paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant.06722 . Internality and Externality (Chance) the Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) but not Externality (PowerfulOther). F4 39. F2. Usurpation of right-of-way (F1). RMSEA=. P.f.
BIT2=Freeway Urgency.89* .17631 N=122 RMSEA=.65* Externality (Chance) .047 RMR=.12 GFI=. BIT3=Externally-Focused Frustration. *p<.80* Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) .05 Injury Occurrence Model Statistics χ2=29.83* BIT3 .70* BIT4 .99 P-value = .12: Contextual Mediated Model Study 2 170 . BIT4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4.Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome BIT1 BIT2 .57* Internality -.f =23 CFI=.88* Crash Occurrence .046 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.05 BIT1=Usurpation of Right-of way.66* Accident Involvement Externality (Powerful Other) .95 d.78* .
The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=. The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that two out of four possible paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant. Hopelessness (H).7. F2. RMSEA=.35265 .37: Different Contextual Models (Study 3) Distal Factors I. Usurpation of right-of-way (F1). C.97 .82 28 .=21. Externality Chance (ExC). 171 .03084 .39 21 . This contextual mediated model was tested four times (see Table 4. the participants were taxi drivers.3 Study 3 In Study 3. F3. have effects on the Behaviour in Traffic (BIT). F2.94 . freeway urgency (F2).40) on the accident involvement. path coefficients = -. Externality Powerful-Other (ExPo). The contextual mediated model was tested using locus of control and hopelessness as distal context factors. F2. F4 Crash Occurrence 31. d. The goodness-of-fit indexes for these models are shown as follow: Table 4. P.22 23 .20 and . F4 50. F3.95 . externally-focused frustration (F3) and destination-activity orientation (F4) Model included locus of control.4.39. AQ F1. AQ F1. AQ and only crash occurrence as outcome has provided the best goodness-of-fit to the data (χ2=31. C.061.027 I. C.59 17 . CFI=.f.20 respectively (see Figure 4. AQ F1. F3.93 . I. P.f. but not Externality.37). C.061 Note: Internality (I).079 Injury Occurrence I. P Proximal Factors F1. The four distal variables accounted for 12% of the variance in BIT.06743 .95. F4 Crash Occurrence 18.00524 . F3. 37.068 Injury Occurrence Crash Occurrence. p-value GFI RMSEA Crash Occurrence. F2.95).13). Internality and AQ. GFI=. F4 Outcomes χ2 d.
Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome BIT1 BIT2 .39 GFI=. BIT2=Freeway Urgency.13 .20* Aggression (AQ) Model Statistics χ2=31. BIT4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4.95 P-value = .95 d.39* Internality -.74* -. BIT3=Externally-Focused Frustration.f =21 CFI=.06743 N=133 RMSEA=.61* BIT4 .13: Contextual Mediated Model Study 3 172 .061 RMR=.05 BIT1=Usurpation of Right-of way. *p<.053 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.63* BIT3 .03 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) .40* Crash Occurrence Externality (Powerful Other) .20* Externality (Chance) .
Table 4. Not applicable = mediating effect could only be tested when conditions in Step1. the mediating effect of BIT on hopelessness and crash outcomes relationship could not be estimated. 173 . Therefore. 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. (4) the relationship between hostile automatic thoughts and accident involvement were tested using the four-step procedure proposed by Baron and Kenny (1986).39). 2 and 3 are satisfied. BIT was a complete mediator for the relationship between AQ total score and crash occurrence.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. (2) the relationship between locus of control and accident involvement.38). 4. hopelessness did not significantly influence the crash outcomes (see Table 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.1 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hopelessness and Crash Outcomes In all studies.8. and.8. (3) the relationship between aggression and accident involvement. consistent with path analysis results.4. Step 3=mediator has a significant effect on the dependent variable. 4. Step2=independent variable has a significant effect on the dependent variable.8 Testing Mediational Relationships Using SPSS The mediating effects of BIT on: (1) the relationship between hopelessness and accident involvement.
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 4.4 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Crash Outcomes For automobile drivers.41).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. Exceptions to this were found only with respect to the relationship between P and both crash outcomes in Study 1A. Table 4. in Studies 1A.8. 1B and 1C.BIT was a partial mediator for the relationship between aggression and injury occurrence. behaviour in traffic (BIT) had complete or partial mediating effects on the relationship between the three locus of control dimensions – Internality (I). where the 174 .8.39: 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 4.40). Table 4. Externality-Chance (C) and Externality-PowerfulOthers – and crash outcomes (See Table 4.
For motorcycle drivers in Study 2. For taxicab drivers in Study 3. C or P and the two crash outcomes. With respect to the relationship between I and the crash outcomes and the relationship between P and the crash outcomes. Table 4. BIT had a complete mediating effect on the relationship between C and both crash outcomes.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 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 . no mediating effect of BIT could be estimated since requisite conditions in the second step of the analysis were not satisfied.
Study 1B vs. With respect to the three dimensions of locus of control.01. It was found that there were significant differences in scores for hopelessness. Study 2: t(422)= 8.01. There was no significant difference in scores on the P dimension between automobile drivers and motorcycle drivers. Study 1A vs.1 Differences between Automobile Drivers and Motorcycle Drivers In a subsequent analysis.05. Study 2: t(421)= -4. 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 2.41: 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 Comparison of Automobile Drivers. 1B and 1C scored significantly lower on hopelessness than did motorcycle drivers. Automobile drivers also scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers on C. p <. Study 1A vs.Table 4. p <. Study 1A vs.442. p <. Study 2: t(422)= -2. 176 .665.01.01. Study 2: t(421)= -3.01.663. Study 1C vs. Motorcycle Drivers and Taxicab Drivers 4.9.993. Study 2: t(421)= 7. Automobile drivers in Studies 1A. p <.162. p <.426. Study 2: t(372)= -3. Study 2: t(372)= 8. p <. Study 1C vs.837. automobile drivers scored higher than motorcycle drivers on I.01. scores for distal variables (locus of control and hopelessness). p <. Study 1B vs.
01. Study 1C vs. Study 2: t(372)= -6.577. p <. t(253) = 2.3 Differences between Motorcycle Drivers and Taxicab Drivers Taxicab drivers scored higher than motorcycle drivers on the I locus of control dimension.01. Study 2: t(421)= -7. automobile drivers scored higher than taxicab drivers with respect to crash occurrence.2 Differences between Automobile Drivers and Taxicab Drivers With respect to locus of control. p <.211. Study 2: t(421)= -8. p <. p <. and t(986)= 35.01. Study 1C vs. p <.837. t(986)= 3.614.01. Study 1B vs. 4. t(986)= 37. Also. and on all four BIT subscales: “usurpation of right-of way”.433. p <. t(986)= 30. p <.200. p <.01. There were no significant differences scores on either C or P between the automobile drivers and taxicab drivers.01. t(986)= 34.01. Study 2: t(422)= -4.01. t(986)= 6.9.402. Study 1C vs. p <. Automobile drivers scored higher that taxicab drivers on total BIT scores.01. t(253)= 8.261. Automobile drivers scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers in injury occurrence. p <. “externally-focused frustration” and “destination-activity orientation”. Study 2: t(422)= -6.9. p <. 4. There were no differences between motorcycle drivers and taxicab drivers on the P dimension. t(986)= 5. respectively. Motorcycle drivers scored higher than taxicab drivers on C. p <. p <. Study 2: t(421)= -3.747.01. “freeway urgency”. p <. p <. Study 1A vs. Automobile drivers scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers in crash occurrence. p <.01. Study 2: t(372)= -7.Automobile drivers scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers with respect to the total BIT score. p <.704. and to injury occurrence.861. t(986)= 7. Study 1B vs.01.01.01. Study 2: t(372)= -5.801.687.775.926.484.01.977. p <.01. Study 1A vs. 177 .186. taxicab drivers scored higher than automobile drivers on the I dimension.01. Study 1A vs.01.
p <.016. Also. t(253)= 39. t(253)= 8. t(253)= 11.01and to injury occurrence. 178 . p <.01.977.982.881. and t(253)= 37. t(253)= 35. drivers scored higher with respect to crash occurrence.01. p <.01. “freeway urgency”.567. “externally-focused frustration” and “destination-activity orientation”. p <.01. p <. respectively. p <.737. p <.Motorcycle drivers had higher total BIT scores than taxicab drivers. t(253)= 8.01.946.01. t(253)= 31. and all four BIT subscales: “usurpation of right-of way”.
. human factors that conceptually might be expected to have a strong influence over driving behaviour and crash occurrence end up. freeway urgency.1). (1993). exerting weaker influence or more equivocal results than anticipated (Dewar.CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION 5.4. multi-factorial perspective. Papacostas and Synodinos (1988) investigated four dimensions of driving behaviour conceptually related to the Type A behaviour pattern (TABP). The present research applied Sümer’s concept of a contextual mediated model. 1995. 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. ethnic and driver experience differences with respect to 179 .1 A Contextual Mediated Model for Understanding Factors Influencing Unsafe Driving Traffic psychologists. in which the roles played by variables in mediating and moderating effects of personality factors are more closely examined than in the past. age and personality may be the most important factors in crash causation (Bridger. al. They found gender. including gender. While it has been generally assumed and frequently stated that driver characteristics. not directly on driving behaviour and crash outcomes but rather on some intervening variable located more proximally to the event (see sect. Composite BIT scores were comprised of measures of usurpation of right-ofway. externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation. 1993. Elander et al. 2. in which a set of personality and demographic factors are thought to exert effects.2. 2002b). Evans. Parker (2004) and others have stressed the importance of examining crash causation from a broader. Elander et. upon examination. researchers have been frequently frustrated when attempting to quantify the effects of psycho-social variables on either driving behaviour or crash outcomes. In an earlier study. 1991). Often.
were significantly more likely to have been injured while driving. A rich variety of individual factors exists which. 1991). aggression and hostile automatic thoughts on crash and injury occurrence. is that factors interact with each other. the proximal variable. This was true with respect to both the composite BIT score and individual scores of each of the four component factors. but did not examine the effects of BIT scores on crash outcomes. except with taxicab drivers. The matrix proposed by Haddon (1972) is one example. alter the outcome or probability of occurrence of crashes and these have been classified into broad categories using different schemes (Evans.total BIT score and component scores. Every aspect of the traffic system is in some way connected to every other aspect. As a result. though. In the present research. BIT scores are considered proximal to the crash event. BIT composite scores are also expected to mediate the effects of locus of control. All too often. One recurrent complexity that arises when trying to understand traffic safety. particularly between psychological variables and crash outcomes. Since high BIT scores indicated driving behaviour consistent with TABP. In other words. which somewhat complicates our attempt to stay true to our title: “Cause and Prevention of Roadway Crashes”. for automobile drivers and motorcyclists. the term “cause” conveys the notion of a single causative element. Type A individuals were significantly more likely to have found themselves involved in traffic crashes and. In the contextual mediated model. in the deterministic sense in which it is used in the physical sciences or engineering. But findings were more complex than that. significantly predicted selfreported crash occurrence in all replications and with all classes of drivers studied. hopelessness. it predicted self-reported injury occurrence in all cases. 180 . and did so in all cases but hopelessness. BIT. Further. if different. Results reported here suggest an elaborate relationship.
… 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. 22.214.171.124). 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
it might be assumed that taxicab drivers could well have a broader social network. By virtue of their age and occupation. social trust and norms that promote coordination and cooperation.53. For taxicab drivers. and 36.7 months. internals reported that they engaged in safer behaviour in traffic.16. affected driving behaviour and decisions about the use of public roads. SD=22. Of course. For taxicab drivers. SD=1. SD=131. the continued operation of their vehicle is fundamental to their livelihood so motivational factors may take precedence over attributions of external control.hierarchy. 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. respectively).01years.1. Malaysian-Indian automobile 187 . as it did with the less experienced university students in the other groups.63. 5. This would be an error more likely to be made by younger novice or less experienced drivers. taxicab drivers were considerably older (43. the extent to which an individual is connected to others through interpersonal networks. traffic exposure and other variables on the effects that internality and externality exert on driving behaviour.3.5. Because of occupational demands.25 years.10) than the automobile drivers and motorcyclists (28. as well. Inclán. there are other possible influences. respectively). it might also be assumed that their traffic exposure was greater than that of the students. Further research is needed to examine the influence of driving experience.6 months as licensed drivers. They were also more experienced (266. In the present study. but the externality-chance dimension had no significant effect.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. although driving frequency was not measured for taxicab drivers. SD=.2 years. 20. SD=11. Hijar and Tovar (2005) have noted that social capital.66) than the automobile drivers and motorcyclists (20.1 months. SD=1.
or at least strongly influenced by outside forces. Research completed some thirty years earlier by Carment (1974) found that university students in India were strongly internally-controlled. 2003. perhaps due as argued earlier. findings with regard to locus of control differed from Carment’s (1974) earlier results. when compared to Canadian students. along with selfpromotion skills. Carment (1974) also found. financial matters and social affiliations are made. He explained this by pointing to the close and interdependent Indian family structure. in terms of political ideology and interaction with the social system.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). however. it is easy to see how expectancies for the external control of life outcomes can develop. rife with bureaucracy. In an environment where career choice. With the Indian-Malaysian sample studied in the present research. He attributed this to the socio-political environment of the time. which would have led young Indians to perceive that skills in overcoming systemic barriers. to cultural values of intra-family dependency and parental influence that have persisted within the Tamil and other Indian communities in Malaysia (Abdullah & Peterson. There were no significant differences between Malay and Malaysian-Chinese participants on any of the three locus of control dimensions. spousal selection. corrupt practices. The finding that Indian- 188 . 2005). individuals would be more likely to develop attributions of internal control. were necessary to succeed. Since perceived success under such circumstances might be expected to be largely due to personal proficiency in such areas. for support in effecting the life outcomes that are important to them. Participants scored high in terms of attributions about the controlling nature of fate and powerful others. that the Indian students were strongly external with respect to matters in their personal life. influence peddling and status-related privileges. Devashayam. in which members look to each other and especially to maternal figures within the home.
but two possible influences stand out. including locus of control. 1998. 1999). Willford (2003) concluded that Indian-Malaysians. the reasons for this commonality in outlook are probably multi-factorial. as a group. 5.7 in 1996. Again.5% annually from 9. 1999. an internal locus of control. Sendut. Armstrong (1987) argued that urbanisation has affected 189 . and. Indeed. although they were consistent with more recent research by Sinha & Watson (2007). 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.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. as a result. Gomez. where Cheung et al. (2006) found greater commonalities in personality traits. by extension. In reference to Carment’s explanation of the earlier results. 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. the proportion of the population residing in urban areas increased from 51% in 1991 to 55.3. Salih &Young. have been largely limited from participation in social and political processes that would necessitate that sort of social skill development and. 1966. This is consistent with recent findings among Malay and Chinese ethnic groups in Singapore. The size of the urban population in Malaysia increased by 4. than between Singaporean-Chinese and Chinese participants from China.5 million in 1991 to 11. 1999. 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.8 million in 1996.Malaysian participants scored lower in internality was contrary to Carment’s earlier conclusions with individuals from India. 2002. 1999) where one’s skills at manipulating the system may have fostered a need for greater internal control. Nandy. Closer proximity of cultural groups can be assumed to increase contact and transmission of knowledge and awareness of value systems (Hofstede. 1981).
318). bringing them closer together in outlook. Lynch. King & Parker. feeling more frustrated at external sources. 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. including perhaps attributions about the control of events. 2001) In the present research. Consistently. 2000. there is a large body of evidence that aggression plays a significant role in unsafe driving behaviour and in crash outcomes (Deffenbacher. 2008. more recently. driving in a more urgent fashion and concentrating more on destination activities than on road and traffic 190 . Clayton. Dukes. aggression had a strong influence on behaviour in traffic. Brown (2007) has examined educational practices in Malaysia within the context of ethnicity and nation-building. 2002. Nonetheless. Lawton & Nutter.women’s friendship patterns. 2001. 2002). in which members of ethnic groups are encouraged to adopt a ‘Malaysian outlook’ on life. Miles & Johnson. 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. Huff. among automobile drivers and motorcyclists. Oetting & Salvatore. 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. Jenkins. Parkinson. Government initiatives have aimed at re-positioning Malaysia as a highly networked information economy and society. Miller & Rodgers.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. by the enraged driver. participants scoring higher on a measure of total trait aggression reported driving patterns that involved right-ofway violations. 5. 2003.
While there are plenty of studies establishing the link between aggression and driving behaviour. higher aggression levels related to a strong tendency to commit right-of-way violations and to drive more urgently. physical aggression. Underwood et al. Parker. the more dangerously they behaved in traffic. there are only a few that have attempted to explore the mechanism through which external or cognitive contexts trigger the effect. but there were no gender differences with respect to anger or hostility. found that drivers were more likely to report anger when congestion was present. a little less strongly when they thought about taking revenge (“I want to get back at this person”) and least 191 . but that there was no evidence that the drivers who generally experienced higher level of congestion also experienced more anger. Finland and the Netherlands. (2003) found that drivers engaging in hostile automatic thoughts tended to report more aggressive and riskier driving. Petrilli et al. on a journey by journey basis. 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”). either verbally or as unspoken thoughts (“self-talk”). during such incidents. With taxicab drivers. Deffenbacher. (1996) and Deffenbacher. Oetting et al. Male drivers tended to score higher than female drivers with respect to total aggression.conditions. particularly where drivers felt that they were not at fault in the incident. (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. but had no significant effect on externally-focused frustration or destination oriented activity. Angry and aggressive driving episodes have been related to hostile cognitive statements that drivers make. 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. verbal aggression and indirect aggression. Further. Underwood et al.
and that cognitive event in turn triggers an aggressive or punitive type of traffic behaviour. perceiving another person’s slow driving as purposeful may lead to the emotional experience of anger. as well. however. In essence. 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. although still significantly. 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. would be most likely to involve the usurpation of right-of-way or more urgent speeding behaviour.strongly. when entertaining cognitive statements that made derogatory comments (“What an idiot!”) about other drivers. (b) schemas (underlying general assumptions about life). but they were found to moderate the effects of aggression on behaviour in traffic. the world and others). 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. 1997). and (c) cognitive distortions (ways in which people misinterpret their environment). That is. Such responses.. but not when they involved the derogation of others. a cognitive distortion which stimulates a cognitive response related to physical aggression or revenge. in the samples studied here. 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 . Each class of hostile automatic thought can be thought to represent a reaction to these three factors (Snyder et al.. one’s interpretations of the environment lead one to react emotionally toward features within the environment (Galovski et al. 2006). The effects of aggression on behaviour. Not only did drivers’ angry cognitions have a direct effect on their behaviour in traffic.
evoked specific behavioural responses that then became subject to contingent reinforcement (Kanfer & Goldstein. Meichenbaum. The relationship between aggression and driving behaviour is both important and complex.. 401). Novaco. 1995. Certainly. receive positive reinforcement – when I see the shocked look on his/her face!”). 193 . (2003). A driver’s mental workload is increased by the number of task demands with which one must contend in performing a function and. this process may be instrumental in the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic (“I’d like to knock his/her teeth out. or self-talk. Similarly. 1979.. Finally. 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. p. 1977). language comprehension can be regarded as a mental task which. but there may be more to it than that. This last finding replicated and extended earlier research by Gidron et al. and also by attributions regarding locus of control. Generally. 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. 2004. has been shown to be difficult to process (Dodge & Coie. so I’ll overtake him/her at high speed on the inside and feel great – i. has a workload associated with it” (Bridger.e. aggressive drivers of both automobiles and of taxicabs who had low levels of internality (i. the original cognitive behaviourists tended to regard cognitive statements as internal mental stimuli that.e. 1994. Hochschild. and particularly with negative emotion. 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. 1987. true to operant learning principles. like any other mental task. 1990. It is moderated by cognitive processes. Downe & Loke. “in ergonomics. Language loaded with emotional content. in the form of hostile automatic thoughts.are determined by chance or fate.
Tomkins. aggressive emotionality. 1993).1 Advantages of Using SEM Harlow (2005. 162). Making sense of.Robbins. 2002. MartinLoeches. subject to ambiguous interpretation (Chan.5 Testing the Contextual Mediated Model Using Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) 5. hostile automatic thoughts. 1979) and disruptive to attentional processing of external stimuli (Adolphs. Dien. and attempting to exercise control over. Martin. As de Waard (2002) has argued: There are limits to the investment of effort. As the costs of achieving or maintaining a certain target level of performance increase. and at the same time processing feelings of responsibility arising from one’s internal locus of control requires the investment of mental effort. Mercado & Tapia. lane control in driving) will drop if effort investment is insufficient or ceases. 5. As drivers contend with heightened feelings of aggression and increased internal chatter. 2004. an overburdening of cognitive workload capacity or both. This can happen both in conditions of very high task demand and in conditions where the driver’s state is affected (p. Stein. The present research has demonstrated linkages between hostile automatic thoughts. they may well reach a “red line” at which more mental effort is required than is available. Hinojosa. Additional studies are needed to investigate whether this relationship is best explained through an internal stimulus-response process.. 2000.5. In fact. Performance (e. Taylor & Fragopanagos. p. 2002. 1997). so too does the mental effort required (de Waard & Brookhuis. Watson & Wan. Tavris (1989) referred to anger as the “misunderstood emotion”. internal locus of control and tendencies toward more dangerous behaviour in traffic. 2005). as well as other task demands of driving in traffic. Trabasso & Liwag. 2000. Carretie.1) defined multivariate thinking as “a body of thought processes that illuminate interrelatedness between and within sets of variables” and proposed that 194 . 1996. Lambie & Marcel. 1999.g.
SEM is deemed to be a unique combination of factor analysis and multiple regression analysis (Hair et al. 2006). SEM can not only tell how well the predictors. the SEM depicts all of the relationships among constructs. Structural equation modelling (SEM). 2000). or latent. and perhaps most important. 2006). involved in the analysis.. factors represented by multiple variables. explain criterion. Hair et al. 195 . 2004. 2006). The constructs may be comprised of unobservable. By estimating and removing measurement error. variables but also determine which specific predictors are most important in predicting dependent variable outcomes (Maruyama. Gavin and Hartman (2004). the reliability of measurement can thus be accounted for explicitly within the analysis. leaving only common variance” (Hardy and Bryman.multivariate methods provide a richer and more comprehensive examination on the variables. using SEM to examine relationships among factors allows the relationships to be free from measurement errors “because the error has been estimated and removed. EQS and AMOS. When composing a model. The earliest use of SEM has been attributed to Swedish Statistician. First. p. or independent variables. 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. According to Williams. similar to the variables representing factors in a factor analysis. In addition. including dependent and independent variables. 2004. Second. the growth in application of SEM techniques has paralleled researchers’ access to computer based data analysis software programs such as LISREL. researchers are attracted to the benefits that SEM can offer. 1998). Finally.434). Having the characteristics of multiple regression analysis... advanced the idea of combining features of econometrics and psychometrics into a single model (Klem. Karl Jöreskog. a multivariate technique. who in 1970. allows the simultaneous estimation of multiple equations (Hair et al. or dependent.
etc) One badness-of-fit index (RMSEA. (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. 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. model re-specification by citing theoretical support for the changes made is desired. as suggested by Hair et al.e. there is a lack of consensus on how best to evaluate the extent to which a proposed model fits the data.5. GFI. CFI or TLI) One goodness-of-fit index (GFI. the comparative fit index (CFI). etc) 196 . Therefore. fit indices such as chi-square statistics. CFI. Hult & Kacmar (2004) and Williams et al. TLI. several alternative models were tested against different propositions in order to arrive at a model with the best possible fit. Hair et al. Shook et al. (2006) have argued that no single ‘magic value’ for the fit indices has been found to differentiate good from poor models. 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. (2006). when assessing the fits of measurement models. Shook. despite the prominence of SEM as a statistical tool. Ketchen.5. Williams et al. the goodness of fit index (GFI). Although many researchers have used SEM to examine a theoretically proposed model. In the present research. and the root mean square residual were included. but that very few studies have used multiple fit indices. Sümer (2003) added that. RMSEA or SMRM) One incremental fit index (i. It is therefore not practical to apply a single set of cutoff rules to the measurement models.e. SRMR. (2004) has been critical of most studies. (2004) noted that.
we would argue.g. it has been stressed repeatedly by several authors no definitive set of rules has been established for model selection (Byrne. 2000) and there are many examples of research studies.. so that stronger evidence supporting the correct specification of a model can be adduced (Thompson..00 have been recommended to indicate good model fit (Hair et al. Sambasivan & Ismail. the fit indices for assessing the model included χ2 value and the associated df. 2009) that have tended to select the model that has the best fit indices. 1998. It is widely agreed that selection of the model should be a very good or an excellent fit. Maruyama.. provided competing models both present a pre-determined standard for goodness-of-fit. both dealing with traffic psychology (Sümer. Structural equation modelling should. 1998). 2006). 2000). This has become such a widely accepted principle that decisions over model selection have become almost automatic (Klem. Md-Sidin. be a process that balances utility with statistical 197 . At the same time. 2001. 2006. it should not be used as the sole indicator of SEM fit because it is affected by sample size (Hair et al. CFI.In the present research.90. GFI.08 and a χ2 /degrees of freedom ratio less than 3. significant p-values can be expected. It is argued here that. 2006) such that for analyses of sample sizes more than 250. Fit index values (e.5. Although chi-square is the most fundamental absolute fit index. 2001. RMSEA lower than . 5.3 Best Fit or Best Model It is important to test multiple plausible rival models. 2003) and other disciplines (Elangovan. CFI and CFI) greater than . RMSEA and the χ2 /degrees of freedom ratio. 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. the model with the best goodness-of-fit indices is selected over alternate models. it may be advisable to select one that offers the most useful information even if indices are slightly lower than its alternative. 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. Hair et al.
Index coefficients from the original and subsequent analysis are shown in Table 5. There is some support for this position in the literature.10) excluded the fourth factor. when taking into consideration “practical considerations”. In the case at hand. Sobel and Bohrnstedt (1985) pointed out that exclusive reliance on goodness-of-fit indices is unacceptable. In some cases. of intervariable relationships for high-risk undergraduate automobile drivers were compared using an initial set of goodness-of-fit indices (see sect. 88).7. However. as suggested by Byrne (2001). More importantly. it makes sense to choose a model with a slightly poorer fit but more useful information over the best-fitting model. two structural equation models.3). Both models were judged to have an excellent or very good fit. it is concluded that the selection of Model 1C5 would be preferable 198 . 1C5 and 1C6. the choice between the two would be Model 1C6 given its superior index coefficients. statistical. destination-activity orientation. Thus. Byrne (2001) argued that: Fit indexes yield information bearing only on the model’s lack of fit. and practical considerations (p. stating that. a finding that was further supported by additional subsequent analyses using a further series of goodness-of-fit indices. assessment of model adequacy must be based on multiple criteria that take into account theoretical. If selection criteria were to be based solely on goodness-of-fit parameters. provided the chosen one meets pre-determined standards for goodness-of-fit. 4. Model 1C5 (see Figure 4. this judgment rests squarely on the shoulders of the research. they can in no way reflect the extent to which the model is plausible. 158). while Model 1C6 (see Figure 4.1.9) included all four components of the BIT scale. “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.soundness.
94 0.91 0.499 0. AQ.02 0. 199 . F2.96 1.96 0. F2.51 Very Good Model 1C6 Distal Context: I. HAT Proximal Context: BITF1. C.97 0.043 129. Injury Occurrence Degrees of Freedom RMSEA GFI Chi-sq/Df RMR AIC NFI CFI AGFI PGFI NCP ECVI Overall model fit 63.42 11. F3 BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way. BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration. P.034 97. Fit Statistics (Threshold values) Outcomes: Crash Occurrence. 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.97 0. BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration. AQ. BITF4=DestinationActivity Orientation Outcomes: Crash Occurrence.97 0.39 Best because it includes important information about destination-activity orientation behaviour that would be lost if Model 1C6 were chosen.02 0.Table 5.045 0.99 0. Injury Occurrence 35. P.02 0.97 1. F3 & F4 BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way.48 30.98 0.060 0. HAT Proximal Context: BITF1. Given that multivariate analysis revealed a significant association between this BIT component and crash outcomes. BITF2=Freeway Urgency. BITF2=Freeway Urgency. C.1: Goodness of Fit Statistics for Model 1C5 and 1C6 (Initial and Subsequent Analyses) Model 1C5 Distal Context: I.97 0.909 0.
200 . when variables do not improve the AGFI and PGFI. while for Model 1C6. 2006. et al. For practical reasons. goodness-of-fit. Results of this and other research have demonstrated that. By selecting Model 1C5. one that favours the maximum use of information in the cause of saving lives. in particular. 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. a central psychological feature of the TABP in driving is not overlooked and the BIT framework is kept intact. the standard should be to include as much relevant information as possible. Hair et al. Storey.It can be argued here that safety research demands a somewhat different standard in terms of model construction and selection. the decision was made to select Model 1C5 over Model 1C6. Reason. when drivers do let their attention wander from current road and traffic conditions they are at increased risk of experiencing a crash outome (Moller. based on the notion that each variable included may. However. Manstead & Stradling. they should be dropped.42.48. 1995. Nahn & Shapiro. in this analysis. farther along. this is an important component to retain in a contextual mediated model of behaviour in traffic even if it does render a lower.. (2006) have noted that models with a higher PGFI are preferable over competing models because they have a better fit relative to their complexity. Further discussion in this section refers only to Model 1C5. it is 0. the PGFI coefficient for Model 1C5 is 0. 1990. Kayumov. 1996). Parker. 2006). Sambasivan (2008) stated that. Schwebel.1). 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. but still acceptable. provide the key to reducing injuries and saving lives (Reason. When dealing with systems that are safetycritical.
21). crash occurrence (r = -. 2001.5. 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.35 and .1).45). and hostile automatic thoughts). 1991.29).6.34) and injury occurrence (r = .5. with five distal factors (internality.4 Testing the Contextual Mediated Models Using SEM 5.28 respectively). Findings in this study underscored the strong role of BIT in predicting accidents.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. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) had significant effects on BIT scores (path coefficients = .28 and . Rothengatter.66). Total scores of BIT were significantly correlated with crash occurrence (r = . Distal factors (locus of control: internality.26. As observed from the investigation of structural paths. The results suggested that the alternative model. . freeway urgency. Sümer.5. via BIT.14. 2003). This suggested that automobile drivers with high levels of 201 . indicating that driving behaviour is closely related to involvement in motor vehicle crashes.23 respectively) and the BIT displayed a significant effect on crash outcomes (path coefficient = . four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way. externality-powerful other. for automobile drivers sampled. externally-focused frustration. Evans.18) and injury occurrence (r = -. Examination of the predictive relationship between distal and proximal variables yielded support for the contextual model and were consistent with previous findings (e.g. externalitychance. on crash outcomes. internality and aggression had direct effects on BIT and indirect effects. In Study 1C. . Internality was significantly but negatively correlated with BIT (r = -. . indicating the importance of this factor in crash outcomes. the base model (with only locus of control variables) was compared against five alternative models (see section 4.4.35. externality-chance. aggression. externality-powerful other. They appeared to be the strongest predictors among the five distal factors (path coefficients = -.
on the other hand.5.internality were more likely to have low total BIT scores. Results indicated that the first alternative model.66) directly predicted crash outcomes. freeway urgency and externally-focused frustration) for the proximal factor. externality-chance. Aggressive automobile drivers tended to have high level of BIT scores. externally-focused frustration.2 Study 2: Motorcyclists In Study 2. externality-powerful other and hopelessness). The first alternative model had four distal factors (locus of control: internality. crash occurrence (r = . was significantly and positively correlated with BIT (r = . 5.4. and destination-activity orientation) as proximal factors.55). internality and externality-chance (path coefficients = -. the base model (with only the locus of control variable) was compared against two alternative models. and four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way.23) and injury occurrence (r = . 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.65 and . and high probabilities of crash and injury occurrence. freeway urgency.80) indirectly and the proximal factor-BIT (path coefficient = . The second alternative model also had four distal factors but only three latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way. had a better fit than other alternative models. Investigation of the path parameters revealed that only two of the distal factors. freeway urgency. which sampled motorcyclists. as well as low probability of crash and injury occurrence.24). externally-focused frustration. with hopelessness removed as a distal factor but four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way. 202 . Aggression. crash occurrence (r = . One of the most compelling findings in Study 2 was that externalitychance scores had the highest correlations with BIT (r = .25).41). and destination-activity orientation) comprising the proximal factor and two latent constructs (crash and injury occurrence) comprising the crash outcome variable.20) and injury occurrence (r = .
Distal factors. for crash outcomes. Investigation of the path parameters revealed that there were only two of the four distal factors.3).3 Study 3: Taxicab Drivers In Study 3. crash occurrence. on the two latent variables comprising crash outcomes. hopelessness. and destination-activity orientation) as proximal factors. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts. had a better fit than alternative models. 4. their crash occurrence. with the sample of taxicab drivers. freeway urgency. the results of measurement model analysis showed that one of the distal factors. the bestfitting model used only a single latent construct. This suggested that internality and aggression play important roles in affecting the behaviour in traffic of taxicab drivers and. the result was slightly different as a belief in chance as an outcome determinant had a significant effect on BIT scores. had no significant effect on BIT scores. All models included four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way. externally-focused frustration. externality-powerful other and aggression). such as internality. externality-chance. aggression).24 respectively) that had direct effects on the proximal factor and a simultaneous indirect effect on crash occurrence.5. via BIT. Finally. Results indicated that the third alternative model. and destination-activity orientation) comprising the proximal factor and one latent construct (crash occurrence) comprising the outcome variable.5. to measure outcome. four latent constructs (usurpation of right-ofway. However. 5. externally-focused frustration.6. externality-chance. externality-powerful other. as a result. the base model (with only the locus of control variable) was compared against three alternative models (see sect. The second and third alternative models only had one latent construct. with four distal factors (internality.5 What Can be Learned from Testing Contextual Models with SEM? The use of SEM provided support for the contextual mediated model. 203 .5. internality and aggression (path coefficients = -. had significant direct effects on the four latent constructs that comprised the proximal variable (BIT) and. in turn and indirectly. crash occurrence. for the sample of taxicab drivers. The first alternative included four distal factors (internality.20 and .4. freeway urgency. For motorcyclists. Both dimensions of external locus of control had insignificant results.
With very few studies having been completed on Malaysian drivers to date. an argument used by Montag & Comrey (1978) and others who have studied young drivers. both and particularly the student samples constituted a convenience sample that may have curtailed the generalisability of findings. 204 . the fact remains that participants constituting the four student samples were. a total of five samples were taken. 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.5. In the present research.6 5. four of which were comprised of students from a single university. 2005). The fifth sample was comprised of professional taxicab drivers. “but sometimes it may be the only viable alternative when quick and timely information is needed” (pp. however. chosen at random from taxi stands. Further.6. 2005. 278279). by virtue of their age and driving experience within the highest risk group. Some authors have commented on the lack of generalisability of findings in traffic psychology research (Dunbar. To a large extent. Sekaran (2003) points out.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. Huguenin. 2004). 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.
The proportion of the total sample for Studies 1 and 2 falling within the 16. individuals usually obtain their license in the state in which they are registered as resident. young drivers are among the most likely to experience a motor vehicle crash. the sample does not appear to be very repreresentative of the Malaysian population. Since.13 years (SD = 1.31. 205 .2% and Study 2: 99. while Malacca and Negeri Sembilan were overrepresented. making it the single highest risk age group (see Table 2.2 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. With regard to whether the sample was representative of peoples of the various states and regions of Malaysia.In Malaysia. The Spearman rank correlation coefficient for these two sets of scores is rs=. contributed the largest proportion of the sample. Ages of participants in this research ranged from 18 to 29 years. Table 5. The most populous state. with a mean age of 20. Sarawak and Kelantan were under-represented in the sample. in Malaysia. as elsewhere. Approximately one-third of all automobile crashes.6%. during the interval from 2000 to 2003.to 25-year old high-risk group was 99. 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. involved drivers aged 16 to 25 years.6% (Study 1A: 99. Based alone on the number of residents living in each state. Sabah. it is helpful to examine the distribution by state in which research participants obtained their driving licenses.2%). Selangor.2). Study 1C: 99. Study 1B: 100%.55).
In both cases.000 3.300.0 12.674 1. and there are different crash frequencies in each one.000 Per cent of national population 26.503. It is important to remember that the purpose of this research was to study the population of young.3 (12) 11.2 (11) 12.887.000 2.2 3. in this case. Table 5.500.880 3. 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.000 1.9 9.100.7 (14) But.1 (7) 8.000 2.500 1.807 733.0 4. Not all states have the same number of drivers. For that reason.3 compares the state of origin of participants in Study 1 with the more relevant measures of vehicle registrations and crash occurrence. attempting to determine sample representativeness based on only state population would be flawed.6 (10) 7.6 0.2 (13) 11. Table 5.0 8.6 6.2 11.000 215.2 7.576 2.200.6 5.004.7 (2) 2.Table 5. 206 .5 (4) 4.9 (3) 2.4 5.9 (9) 7.19 Per cent (rank) of participants sampled 17.2: 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) 7.6 2.2 (1) 3. high-risk drivers in Malaysia. the state of origin is defined as the state in which the participants’ driving licenses were issued.387.260.818.2 (5) 0.150.396.4 provides similar comparisons for the state of origin of the sample of motorcyclists.000 1.5 (8) 3.286 1.188 1.8 (6) 6.8 6.
041 92.75 4.98 0.251 324.635 1.230 266.920 181.90 5.212 39.84 11.45 9.85 1.163 10.19 7.3: State of Origin Compared with Crash Frequency and Vehicle Registrations (Study 1) Average Motor Vehicle Crash Frequency (2000-2003) 34.496 187.606 24.34 3.28 3.63 207 .46 8.97 12.19 4.20 12.490 525.Table 5.496 Private Automobile Registrations (until 2003) 703.785 393.35 4.029 273.600 135.768 6.003 10.104 6.561 1.617 10.725 70.50 29.19 3.144 12.76 3.91 2.4 4.198 156.735 165.24 2.70 12.093 5.68 7.37 3.36 8.24 0.43 2.88 3.428.92 25.55 7.467 25.88 2.93 9.170 13.05 2.27 14.89 3.026 10.93 0.588.34 11.96 3.22 17.137 698.70 3.16 2.774 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 12.13 6.064 9.
35 4.92 25.03 4.88 2.36 8.288 444.38 0.615.606 24.59 1.27 14.66 11.992 776.49 0.15 5.995 233.63 11.93 7.064 9.212 39.82 9.76 3.989 6.88 3.305 276.14 7.725 70.003 10.02 10.43 2.37 3.617 10.22 3.45 2.561 1.20 15.79 13.46 5.64 1.49 12.64 2.4 4.958 % 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 12.28 3.46 14.221 36.768 6.856 310.Table 5.026 10.38 4.467 25.63 13.104 6.4: State of Origin Compared with Crash Frequency and Vehicle Registrations (Study 2) Average Motor Vehicle Crash Frequency (2000-2003) 34.93 9.283 770.679 90.74 208 .59 12.98 0.656 821.170 13.722 255.02 7.75 5.48 1.727 161.33 4.10 9.112 347.144 12.029 273.496 % Private Vehicle Registrations (until 2003) 933.133 705.
was representative of a high risk driver population. Of course. both for the studies of automobile drivers and for the study of motorcyclists. were licensed as drivers in – the states with the most registered vehicles and the highest numbers of crashes. it is possible to say that sampling. 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. Even though data collection was carried out at a single university location.908** 1 3 Participants’ state of origin .5 shows the The Spearman rank correlation coefficient (rs) for the variables in Tables 5. participants came from – or. Table 5. This sample was comprised of individuals within the age group that has the most motor vehicle crashes. 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.Table 5.824** . At least on these dimensions.903** .796** 1 Were the participants studied in this research representative of high-risk Malaysian drivers? In terms of their age and their regional origin. at least. Future studies of Malaysian driving behaviour will need to expand the range participant 209 .4.814** 1 .3 and 5. it can be argued that they were.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) .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. is that this kind of data is usually aggregated … From aggregated data we cannot study the connections between accidents and age and exposure. However. 1998. violations and accidents should be linked together. 5. the data has to be disaggregated. 296).6. in studying driving behaviour. Rothengatter. 1979). Katila and Laapotti (1997) have argued that. Exposure. 1998.2 Use of self-report methods The use of self-report methods in traffic psychology has been strongly criticised by af Wählberg (2002).characteristics used as a basis for sample-to-population comparisons. however. The issue becomes even harder to resolve when dealing with cognitive variables that cannot be observed directly (Groeger & Rothengatter. the easiest way to get data on several factors from the same subjects is by simply asking the subjects (p. Elander et al. None of these variables can be substituted by group means. Much important data is available in official statistics. the use of questionnaire data provides the only practical possibility for gathering data at a low cost. Self-report data are prone to inaccuracy due to participant memory lapses. demographic factors. Additional studies should be carried out in order to validate findings within the broader population. accidents. 2001). social desirability response sets and fakeability (Aiken. Keskinen. as in other psychological research. e. Hatakka. accident distributions by age. The problem. (1993) have similarly argued that other methods for studying the 210 . unless the variation within the group is very small.g.. 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. attitudinal factors. Again.
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. in studies of driving behaviour. In the present research. 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. though. as in a study reported by Chalmé. 211 . questionnaires were administered to measure all variables and.6. perhaps drawing from drivers’ insurance records or.effects of personality on driving have drawbacks that cannot be overlooked. the longer the time period for data collection.3 Timeframe for Data Collection Elander et al. 1996). muscle tension. The assumption. (1993) and af Wählberg (2003) have commented on the problem of data collection timeframes in studies of motor vehicle crashes. Visser and Denis (2004). Particularly.g. the more information is lost through memory lapses. subjects would tend to under-report dangerous or illegal activities and that this tendency might usually be expected to be consistent across compared groups. subjective accounts of crash or injury history should be validated against objective measures. 5. combined interview and observational methods. therefore. errors of recall or contamination by post-event information (Belli & Loftus. 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. blood pressure. for instance. Miles and Johnson (2003) have noted that. self-reported crash and injury histories and self-reported driving patterns measured by the Behaviour in Traffic scale could be prone to inaccuracy. Since generally motor vehicle crashes are fairly rare events. all data may be subject to the shortcomings of self-report methods. as well. Yet. In future studies. 13)..g.. steering wheel reversals and speed change frequencies)” (p. heart-rate acceleration and electrodermal activity) and to overt driving behaviours (e. inadequate data are collected when the research is conducted over short periods of time.
other measures of driving frequency present as many or more problems. individual standard. 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. 1971). it has to be acknowledged that the measure is subjective. 5. The driving frequency measure was alaso used a co-variate in analyses of relationships between other distal variables and proximal variables. Unfortunately. and the hypothesis (H2. First.2) that higher levels would result in less risky behaviour in traffic was supported. there is a certain imprecision to the measure. 2002). Second. and that one participant’s perception of frequent automobile or motorcycle use may seem infrequent to another’s. 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. 1997.6. 1999). This method has been used in previous studies by other authors (Pelz & Schuman.4 Measurement of Driving Frequency One of the self-report measures used in this research requires particular discussion. Traits included in the contextual mediated model as distal variables have been found to be relatively consistent and resistant to change over this interval. 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. a timeframe that is consistent with reasonably accurate recall (Haber & Haber. Mercer. participants were asked to recall if a crash or resulting injury had occurred within the past twelve months.In the present research. The problem with this approach is that it is every bit as subjective as the categorical judgements of 212 . Some authors have asked participants to estimate the distrance travelled during a particular period (Lajunen & Summala. as well.
Kahneman. 2003. Often. 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. 1982). but because they are inherently easier to think about. frequency or distribution in the world (p. There is some evidence that the availability heuristic exerts a greater impact when specific quantitative amounts or percentages have to be estimated. and the likelihood of encountering a traffic jam (Wood. This is why individuals tend to irrationally overestimate the number of murders per year (Jaffe. p. as opposed to reporting perceptions in categorical form (Tversky & Kahneman. it is argued here that such inaccuracy is also likely due to a cognitive phenomenon known as the availability heuristic. 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. 181). because they are highly emotional and so forth” (Plous. Slovic & Tversky. in which the perceived probability of an event corresponds to the ease with thich the event comes to mind or. because they have taken place recently. in other words. on how available it is in our memories (Kahneman. Wood & Boyd. Specifically. 2008). this strategy leads us to overestimate their actual occurrence. although this has not been firmly established. and that people are consistently poor at making these sorts of estimates accurately (Saad. 1973. 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. eventful or recent. their chances of winning a lottery (Griffiths.. 1993. “Some events are more available than others not because they tend to occur frewquently or with high probability.frequency that were used in this research. 1974). 213 . In much the same way. 2002). 2004). experiences that are more common than others tend to be the ones that are most available. Levy (1997) argues that: Unfortuantely. 1993). but not always. But. 2003). 121).
during periods of low traffic volume.. it might be expected that participants’ driving estimates would be particularly prone to influence by the availability heuristic. in their studies of roadway aggression. Driving 30 kilometres daily on quiet city thoroughfares. many of the inaccuracies involved with the use of self-reported frequency data could have been solved by taking direct odometer readings. 2000). A logbook approach was considered during the design of the present research. (2003). which is the lack of information about the circumstances under which road use occurred (Odero et al. and the availability of the resources necessary to operationalise them. 2001) . 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.In the Malaysian environment. on one hand. traffic volume and so on in logbooks as a means of controlling for differing driving circumstances. for example. Similarly. Of course. where driving histories generally include lengthy. poorer pavement and more surrounding vehicles (Åkerstedt & Kecklund. emotionally-laden seasonal and holiday travel (Richardson & Downe. Sansone. but training participants in standardised record-keeping. 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. road conditions. asked participants to record the time of day. it was felt that the collection of logbook data would have overextended time and financial resources at hand for the five 214 . Morf and Panter (2004) argue that psycho-social research generally involves a balancing act between idealised research questions. Given that sample sizes for this research had to be large enough to apply structural equation modelling procedures. 1991). Finally. Deffenbacher et al. the use of distance travelled doesn’t really solve the main problem in travel frequency measurement. in the form of more vividly remembered trips to family reunions during festive seasons.
1985. To summarise. Rothengatter (2001) has argued that better measures of risk exposure are needed in traffic psychology. drawn from empirical studies and demonstrating inter-variable relationships (Chaloupka-Risser. Good theories are simple. 1997). selfreported measure used here. 2004). Summala. Further research is required. are testable and contain no contradictions. 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. the decision was made to use participants’ subjective. have high information content. 2005). 5. 2005). While some authors have considered the terms “theory” and “model” as synonymous (e. the difference is that models are generally seen as “more modest affairs that aim to illustrate 215 .7 5. but this was done with an awareness of the shortcomings of this measure. In addition. 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. 1991). 2004). 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. over-arching theory (Rothengatter.g.. during the study design process. collected logbook data would have been largely qualitative in nature. Michon.7.studies undertaken. It was felt.1 Implications and Areas for Further Study Theory vs. categorical perceptions of driving frequency. creating new difficulties in their quantification (King. but that considerable effort has gone into the development of descriptive models. Ranney. that associated methodological disadvantages were fewer than those of the competing approaches. In the present research. Models in Traffic Psychology It has been noted earlier that the emerging field of traffic psychology has yet to arrive at a unified. 1994). are of nomological character and can be applied irrespective of time and space (Langdridge. 2002.
patterns of relationships. create links to other fields of knowledge or to explain or predict circumstances. The answer to this question is possibly yes. debate as to whether the greater need exists for more theory or for more data. 32). in particular to structure data. 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. on the other hand. 1997. stating that. The first question is whether we need traffic psychology theories. there has beeen an ongoing discussion and. Grayson (1997) agreed. if they aim to illuminate and encourage research on specific topics rather than the 216 . 94). if they are modest in ambition. The second question is whether we need traffic psychology models. 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”. or represent processes. 294). Hauer (1987). the fact remains that we have enough guidance already from mainstream psychology. p. and while any data collection procedure must have some element of theory if it is to have real purpose. often in graphical form (Grayson. check facts. at times. Attempts to develop ‘traffic- specific’ theories have proved far less fruitful than has the importation of established theories from other areas of psychology. Throughout the development of traffic psychology. Wilde (1982) has expressed concern that the study of traffic safety “is characterised by a sparsity of comprehensive and articulate conceptions” (p. The answer is probably not. Huguenin (1997) has similarly argued that theories are necessary to treat a subject scientifically.
for instance. 304). 1985) – that could hinder scientific progress. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts. Greenwald and Pratkanis (1988). those variables included a diverse set of human traits including locus of control. it has proved capable of linking psychological and demographic variables with a pattern of driving behaviour to illustrate influences on crash outcomes and injuries. In the present research. hopelessness. This latter point was also stressed by Evans (1991). the contextual mediated model developed here may also go some distance toward breaking out of the narrow monist frame of reference eschewed by Evans. it seems unlikely that general theories offering much more can be formulated. and if they are resultscentred (pp. 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. while ignoring other factors which are much too important to be ignored (p.3). The problem arises from an intrinsic dilemma. 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. Yet. 95-96). In this case. who argued that. This dichotomy of perspectives is not unique to traffic studies and driving behaviour but seems to permeate all areas of applied psychology. but the framework constructed here can easily accommodate a potentially endless range of both distal and proximal variables. In 217 .entire spectrum of traffic behaviour. 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. 2. The debate often seems to revolve around the comparative merits of result-centred versus theory-centred methods in research. While many models offer insight into specific aspects of driver behaviour.
competence or hierarchical level of information processing (see sect. together with methodological difficulties associated with the use of accident measures. 5. extraversion. openness. provides breadth of focus and a more holistic perspective than many other attempts at modelling driving behaviour.other studies. The general lack of success in identifying predictors of safe driving. much current research. … has used performance-based measures to predict individual accident histories. agreeableness and neuroticism (Sümer et al. depression. it has been conducted without the benefit of a process model of driving. Future research should attempt to expand the contextual mediated approach beyond studies of crash histories. and has relied heavily on post-hoc explanations. The contextual mediated framework.3. while still very much a model and not a theory.. crash-free driving.7. anxiety. While the present research 218 . the process through which drivers make adjustments based on their perceptions of risk. sensation seeking (Sümer. 2. Rather than describing and predicting the interaction of factors involved in causing crashes. as defined by Grayson (1997). lead to the conclusion that we should abandon the differential accident paradigm and define alternative measures of safe driving. Kerlinger (2000) and others. According to Ranney (1994). not on everyday driving. With several exceptions.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). for instance. 2005) were included as distal variables. conscientiousness. psychoticism. 2003). has focused primarily on accident-causing behaviour. it may be even more fruitful to focus the model on the interaction of variables that contribute to safe.4).
no matter how reliable a safety device. Conversely. On the other hand. Following this reasoning. As a result. will always maintain more direct involvement with the driving task than those scoring high on externality dimensions. 219 . They argued that locus of control. Such individuals would be more likely than internals to over-rely on a device to keep them oriented and alert. relying on it to competently perform the task it was designed for. some of the variables considered are conceptually tied to them. they will become less involved with the driving task and be less likely to react. 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. while intuitively appealing and providing some useful insight. 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. is a concept that should be incorporated as an element in theories seeking to explain BA and its role in driving. those who see themselves playing little or no part in the unfolding of events will act in a less cautious manner. those with an external locus of control may be more likely to give up control to an external device. 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. should the device fail to perform the task for which it was designed. Within their proposed conceptual framework. fail by not considering individual driver characteristics or the range of motivations that determine driving behaviour.did not test any of those theories specifically. along with trust in automation and sensation seeking. believing that fate will achieve its predetermined goals no matter what the individual does. or at least to react more slowly.
Typically. (2003) to moderate the effects of aggression on driving outcomes. Drivers with combinations of TABP and aggression. Summala. Findings from the present research can guide planners of remedial courses and counsellors to teach methods for increasing internal attributions. Coupled with simulated or actual driving experience and methods to modify patterns of hostile selftalk. which may mitigate the negative effects of roadway hostility. consistent with the earlier findings of Gidron et al. an area of increasing importance in fleet management (Barjonet & Tortosa. whether that adaptation is the result of perceived risk (Wilde. 220 .7.. locus of control was found to exert effects on Type A driving patterns and. 5. 2006) or cognitive processing (Keskinen. scarce resources for screening drivers. Luckner (1989) and others have successfully developed training curricula that encourage internality. Training and Rehabilitation The results of the present research have important implications for the improvement of driving behaviour. Programmes with content focused on building internal attributions and a sense of personal responsibility would enhance training outcomes. Specifically. 1982). can be focused specifically on combinations of risk factors at both the distal and proximal levels. 1996). al. Christ et al. 1996). Further research is required to investigate implications for improving driving performance. could be screened out.3 Driver Selection. though. 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. task capability (Fuller. 1997.In the present research. Further research should focus on the role played by locus of control in influencing patterns of BA. changes in driver behaviour might be better targeted. 2002. 2004). 2005. once identified. The treatment or rehabilitation of dangerous drivers has relied heavily on cognitive behaviour modification applications (Deffenbacher et. these approaches require special therapeutic training and large efforts on behalf of drivers. Gidron & Davidson.
education. 1957. educational programming (including public awareness and driver training). Slinn. This framework can be integrated with the “Three E’s” to identify specific crash prevention measures arising from the findings of the present research. the Haddon Matrix (Haddon. These have been euphemistically termed the “three E’s”. 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. From this has emerged the growing 221 . At the same time.7.1 Generating and classifying crash prevention interventions Ergonomists and safety scientists have.4. the tasks we ask operators to perform today are highly cognitie. Unlike 100 years ago. 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. 5. 1). World Health Organisation.4. 1970) provides another system for classifying highway events for the purposes of research or accident prevention (see Figure 2. recognised that the cardinal bases of accident prevention fall into three categories: engineering. 1957).7. Matthews and Guest (1999) have argued that traffic engineering has also undergone a transition in emphasis over the last decade. and machines are highly intricate (p. teams of humans. 1961. and the effective enforcement of regulatory legislation (Wheatley.2 Engineering Interventions Engineering applications in transportation have become increasingly cogniscent of human thinking processes. or legal intervention.5. Cooke and Durso (2008) have noted that: Most industrial tasks require human operators to interact with various technologies.4 Preventive Measures: “The Three E’s” 5. the technologies sophisticated and the interactions among humans.4).7.
there is an adaptive and cooperative relationship between the driver and the vehicle in ensuring that lane deviation and roadway departure are controlled. Suda & Ono. there may be limits to the number and level of sophistication of devices installed in motor vehicles. At the same time. as well as other in-vehicle technologies now being tested for future implementation in automobiles and other vehicles (see Table 5. Maggio & Jin.6). with the resulting transport systems generally referred to as Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS. for instance. 2005). depending on environmental factors. The findings of the present research that usurpation of right-of-way. Holzmann (2008) argues that there is considerable potential for crash reduction in this sort of technology. Stough. Lane-keeping Assist Systems (LKA). 2001). The amount of toque needed to adjust vehicle direction at highway speeds is quite small. Murazami. roadway and environmental settings (see Table 5.application of computer and information technology to transportation infrastructure and vehicles. Sadano. 222 . The aim should be to assist drivers by making routine actions simpler. not to overwhelm them with complicated or difficult override processes. Bishop (2005) has noted that there is still a lack of knowledge about the threshold levels at which to set in-vehicle modifications. 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. 2001). (Bishop. In the case of LKA. operator workload and performance (Inagaki. 2003). Other authors have cautioned against engineering so many devices and signals that driver attention becomes diverted from vehicle control tasks. in which in which the control of functions shifts between machines and human beings dynamically. or the adaptive automation concept. Several intelligent in-car systems have been developed to assist lane manoeuvring and to control lateral deviation in the forward motion track. is strongly associated with crash outcomes would support the importance of further development of LKA systems. so the systems are easily overridden by even the weakest drivers when needed (Kawazoe. Such systems are based on a shared control paradigm. These have been applied to in-car.6).
with a resulting increase in crash risk (Noy. 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. The present research also found that freeway urgency. Engineering solutions have also been suggested with respect to the design of roadways and the general driving environment. 1993. Recovery from lapses in attention has been faster in “restorative environments” enhanced with horticultural and aesthetic features (Heerwagen & Oriens. This finding would lend support to the myriad of speed control devices now under development. in the form of driving above the speed limit and driving consistently in the fast lane. Black.6). Herzog. 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. 1998). initiatives aimed at improving environmental aesthetics may have a positive impact on roadway safety. Intelligent Speed Adaptation (ISA) and Adaptive Cruise Control (ACC) systems (see Table 5. Tassinary. Safety benefits from traffic management can result from changes in the patterns of trffic flow. 1999. Ulrich. Parsons. 1997). and management of parking and loading arrangements that influence the speed of traffic. 2003. traffic 223 . 2004. such as Automated Speed Enforcement (ASE). Richardson & Downe. was associated crash outcomes. Traffic management may also be carried out for easons other than safety. in particular to pursue environmental. 2000). A number of studies have reported that roadside vegetation and predominantly natural environments elicit lower levels of driver frustration and stress (Cackowsky & Nasar. Brown & Noy. changes in traffic speed. Fountaine and Knotts. Hebl & Grossman-Alexander.
and whether this information varies according to the situation. and substantial lifestyle changes aimed at achieving an environmentally sustainable future (Ogden. Probably. 1996. however. ostensibly satisfying wandering attentional needs and allowing vehicle operators to concentrate on tasks at hand. Gregersen and Falkmer (2003). 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. journey purpose or other human factors. 1992). however. engineering solutions have the least to offer in terms of behaviour in traffic that involves risky levels of destination activity orientation. 224 . 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.efficiency (capacity) or access objectives (Ogden. Maakip (2003) has also added that there is little understanding of exactly what specific pieces of information drivers require or prefer to have. Dietze. 1996. Proctor. 1991). This view embraces a philosophy and a set of goals that go far beyone mere physical control and management of traffic. p. inexperienced drivers. This refers to driving while thinking about things unrelated to the driving task. 309). Current discussions of speed management go even beyond traditional traffic management approaches. but extends into city-wide suppression of traffic. and now encompass the principle of “traffic calming” (Brindle. Lippold and Mayser (2003) have noted that new driver assistance systems offer some promise for safety improvements by providing additional information to drivers. questions of alternative urban structure.
“rumble strips” in expressways.1. traffic and systems (RDWS) – curve different materials to increase weather sesors. etc. blind spot sensing and lange change assist. 225 . infrastructure. reversible corrections through a motorlanes. – 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. keeping. unsafe blind spot monitoring systems lane deviation.6: Engineering Applications for Crash Prevention Finding Drivers who usurp the right-ofway and commit lane violations are more likely to experience crash outcomes. Hi H 1. transitions for.1 Vehicle Road Environment lane departure warning lane marker improvements – integrated traffic systems (LDWS) – have the using plastic. created intelligent traffic of impending hazards. generally comprehensive lateral control controlled from a central assistance (LCA) – a point. to allow easier lanes and synchronised actuated increase in steering overtaking and lane signals decreases the need as the vehicle nears a lane. lane road conditions.Table 5. management centers (TMCs) integrated lane marker with closed-circuit television road departure warning applications – these combine (CCTV) camersas. the systems vision sensing technology to transmit information to combine lane and road drivers about traffic flow. 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. traffic drivers when their speed is definition. thermoplastic management systems – Many ability to detect lane and epoxy materials to metropolitan areas have departures and to alert drivers designate lane configurations. Integrated with combination of radar and roadside sensors. and likelihood of. variable speed warning systems advise lane conspicuity and message signs (VMS). departure warning. 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.
the host vehicle. 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 systems intersection modification. including those in adjoining lanes. communication systems (ACC) – acting as a Driving speed can be reduced embedded in the roadway “longitudinal control cothrough infrastructure infrastructure. point.1. Integrated with vehicles in the lane ahead of roadside sensors. than the safety standard. including controlled from a central cruise control but also track street and link closures. a particular high-risk part of the thoroughfare. to in-vehicle display terminals. traffic lights) safe. vehicle’s speed to comply travelling at speeds higher cooperative vehicle highway with the speed limit.1 Drivers scoring high on a measure of freeway urgency are more likely to experience crash outcomes. adjusting transmit information to Intersection devices (yield speed as needed to maintaina drivers about the speed at and stop signs. 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. t-junctions or or (at maximum) to limit the warning signs for vehicles pedestrian crossings.. systems (CVHS) – wireless adaptive cruise control road network modifications.2 lane deviation feedback systems – systems calculate the number of lane changes as a function of speed and cue the driver with performance data.and millimetre-wave (MMW)-based inter-vehicle communications – systems that send data about the proximity of approaching or following vehicles. are travelling. Radar. H 1.1. 226 . deriver-selectable interwhich surrounding vehicles provide speed modification at vehicle gap. ACC systems provide modifications. generally pilot”.(continued) H 1.
The use of properly designed humps are effective in causing vehicles to reduce speed in their vicinity. humorous content to evoke a contradictory affective response to frustration. 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. traffic flow management training to better frustration and effect a moderation and other cope with frustration caused calming influence on drivers. environment and other frustrating stimuli. horizontal displacement – these design features cause the driver to change direction quite sharply and change the visual cues presented by the roadway. measures that can reduce by driver interactions with congestion and other contrary messages – roadroad.(continued) Externally-frustrated drivers are more likely to experience crash outcomes. signs with calming or vehicles. pinchpoints and gateways or arches. at which the whole road space at an intersection is raised.3 vertical displacement. automated speed enforcement – the use of high-volume speed cameras to regulate the speed of motor vehicles on roadways. Such devices include chicanes. “Speed tables”. coupled with stress vegetation to reduce traffic signals.1. has an advantage over intersection redesign by saving space. 227 .
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. prepare for stress-provoking conditions and external frustration. to reduce wandering thoughts and focus attention on driving tasks at hand. 228 .1. notification of construction ahead. safety messages. H 1. at least.(continued) electronic variable message signs (VMSs) – roadside signboards which change messages to provide updated information about traffic congestion. weather-related road conditions. Destination-activity orientation is associated with a higher risk of crash outcomes. notice of future road construction and notice of public events. driver assistance systems – capable of providing information about destination conditions or journey progress. This information allows drivers to avoid or. dedicated broadcast of safety messages – radio or broadband messages with reminder to focus attention on driving tasks at hand.
given ethnic differences observed with respect to drivers’ behaviour in traffic.5. The present research suggests that. publicity campaigns and incentive schemes to be offered as part of the activities within mosques (Che Ali Bin Che Hitam. it is also important for them to devote some time to the affective and cognitive components of the driving task. in addition to teaching the practical manoeuvres and driving techniques associated with managing a vehicle. teachers or the police. In a study of traffic awareness in developing countries. It suggests that. The present research provides some useful additions to the knowledge base to be imparted to professional driving instructors in Malaysia. to some extent. This is consistent with previous calls in Malaysia for safety awareness education. Effective road safety education goes beyond driver training programmes.7. and must include broader awareness about the dangers of roads and traffic.4. Downing and Sager (1982) reported that children were significantly less likely to recive advice than in the United Kingdom from members of thir family. Professional driving instruction tends to be inadequate because (a) driving instructors are not properly tested or monitored. and (c) driving test standards and requirements are inadequate” (p. 2001). 73). however. They concluded that there is clarealy a need to improve road safety education. like community centres or places of worship. it may be effective to conduct such awareness bulding within cultural centres. the probems of poor driver behaviour and knowledge in developing and emerging countries “are likely to be due. Training skills for anger management and frustration tolerance. 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. 229 . (b) there are no driving or instruction manuals. to inadequacies in driver training and testing.3 Education According to Jacobs and Baguley (2004).
Second. (2) exhortatory and educational measures to encourage the development of appropriate skills and attitudes. road safety campaigns and media coverage” (Cheah. however. The results of the present research would suggest that messages about the link between personal responsibility for one’s action. from the findings of the present research. They also stated. 1030).4. and driving within safe legal limits could be included within future public information campaigns. that “Of these three approaches.7. one practical and the other touching on the development of theory. Success of the yearly Ops Sitak safety campaign by the Royal Malaysian Police and other regulatory bodies has been attributed to several “cumulative factors. First. 2007. 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. Yergil (2005) has discussed a number of cognitive biases that tend to enhance a false sense of safety among drivers. or an internal locus of control. This twinning of psychological and legal perspectives derives two implications. Jacobs and Baguley (2004) have stressed that changes in road laws and police operations need to be well advertised in order to be effective. The bias of false consensus. was studied in a 230 . 265). p. such as visibility of enforcement. legal measures change least often.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. and (3) legal measures providing rules governing the interaction of pedestrians and traffic. N6). or the tendency to attribute one’s own attitudes and behaviour to others. and penalties for infringement to ensure that the rules are obeyed.5. Siegrist and Roskova (2001) have called for an integration of social science views arising from traffic psychology with legislation and enforcement pertaining to traffic. evoke the least expectation and are least often evaluated in terms of their effect on accidents” (p. p. 1978.
is allowed to occur in a Just World. on one hand attributing outcomes to a fatalistic notion of Just World and. Stradling. The theory of planned behaviour (TPB. opinions about what significant others would think of the behaviour (subjective norms) and perceived behaviour control (PCB). Ajzen. Both biases seem rooted in an external locus of control. Reason & Baxter. 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). 1991. Yergil (2005) notes that: In order to maintain the self-concept of a law-abiding citizen. Azjen & Fishbein. on the other. 498).sample of drivers by Manstead. 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 . 2001. to consensual beliefs of powerful others. 1992). 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. Parker.” 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). By doing so. They showed that the frequency of violations was related to the evaluated percentage of other drivers who commit the same violations. drivers need to resolve the contradiction between cognitions: “traffic laws are laws” and “I violate traffic laws. 2001) provides an interesting theoretical framework for considering the influences of these cognitions and their interplay with regulatory controls. Another possible way to minimise the same contradiction is to diminish the significance of the violation by labelling it as an action that. after all.
By examining drivers’ response to traffic laws in the context of the theory of planned behaviour.drivers’ decisions to adhere. 232 . Similarly. it may be possible to come closer to the integration of legal and psychological perspectives advocated by Siegrist and Roskova (2001). to traffic regulations. an orientation toward an external locus of control may influence PCB factors underlying the decision to comply with legal requirements or not. or not adhere.
locus of control. Iverson & Rundmo. contribute to the occurrence of crashes and injuries. Studies using structural equation modelling to interpret complex inter-variable relationships have become increasingly prevalent within the traffic psychology literature (e. it was concluded that driver experience. Sümer et al. gender. with demographic and personality variables posited as distal and patterns of behaviour in traffic consistent with the Type A behaviour pattern. such human factors are important contributors to crash outcomes.. derived from the earlier work of Sümer (2003). Wállen Warner & Åberg. when risky. as expected. aggression and tendency to entertain hostile automatic thoughts all act upon driving behaviour patterns which. Sümer. 2005. In the present research. 2003. A contextual mediated model.CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION The present research was an attempt to investigate interaction effects of experiential. demographic and psychological characteristics of drivers on the occurrence of self-reported motor vehicle crashes and crash-related injuries. Results have indicated that. hopelessness. age. 233 . In doing so. structural equation modelling (SEM) was found to be a valuable technique for articulating interactive relationships in a holistic manner. was used to frame the relationship between these human factors. 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.. 2002. ethnicity.g. as proximal to the crash outcomes. 2006) and it is anticipated that there will be many more.
In the current literature. 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. the locus of control variable has been long recognised as a moderator variable in a range of psychological processes involving stress (Lefcourt. as well as statistical grounds.. 1986. it is argued here. 1987). Some inter-ethnic differences in 234 . Harrell. In most cases. it has been argued here that it may be an important factor in behavioural adaptation processes underlying risk homeostasis (Wilde. measures of aggression had direct effects on all components of self-reported behaviour in traffic. 1973). the best fit usually implies the best model. This is Of the variables studied. However. 2003). like Brown and Noy (2004).. one conclusion is that the locus of control construct plays an important role in safety behaviour. In the present research. the selection of one SEM over competing models has been generally based on which has the better goodness-of-fit. Some previous studies have shown a link between ‘fatalism’. Montag & Comrey. that when faced with competing models in safety studies. task capability (Fuller. or external locus of control. and accident risk (e. 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. 2000) and hierarchical motivation theories (Näätänen and Summala. while internal locus of control has been frequently associated with safer work and lifestyle practices (Guastello & Guastello.g. Hoyt. It is further concluded that aggression also plays a significant role in behaviour leading to crash outcomes. although it is widely acknowledged that this is not a hard and fast rule. 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. Further. 1995. 1983) and was earlier found to moderate the effects of aggression on driving behaviour (Gidron et al. traffic psychologists and other researchers are advised to make the choice based on theoretical and practical. 1982). 1974).
One of the benefits of using structural equation modelling in such research is that it allows for a holistic. 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. road engineering and ergonomics.. it became apparent that motor vehicle crashes are indeed multi-factorial phenomena and that prior assumptions of causality should always be subject to review. cultural anthropology.g. Huguenin. a multi-disciplinary approach was used. bird’s eye view of the factors contributing a given outcome. including psychology (especially cognitive and information processing). as well. Each system has its own experts whose lenses are focused almost exclusively on their own subject matter. and a psychologist who studies cognition and driving while turning away from laws and government.aggression were observed. In examining inter-relationships among and between these variables. a civil engineer who uses laboratories to measure asphalt wearing under different conditions. in combination. 2005. 1998. Groeger & Rothengatter. For example. 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. However. they 235 . an economist who researches economic factors of transportation without much concern for geography. As Rothe (2002) has pointed out: Traffic-safety systems are composed of complex behaviours that imply complex causes and entangled factors. It is argued that this is a In interpreting these effects. Several authors (e. all are professionals who know their area of expertise has collegially or self-imposed limitations. promising approach to future studies of crasch occurrence. Rothengatter.
Indeed. findings with regard to four components of behaviour in traffic gave rise to a number of interventions in the engineering. educational and enforcement spheres. Continued sharing between professional associations and between design.form a complex traffic-safety reality in which systems form a web of interdependent fields (p. 313). Through a multi-disciplinary approach. a multi-disciplinary approach leads not only to the greater level of understanding described by Rothe (2002). regulatory and social science specialists should be encouraged. 236 . significant impacts can be made in reducing motor vehicle crashes. In the present research. management. injuries and death. Additional studies should aim toward a conceptual common ground and further examination of models and theories from which broader understanding can be derived. 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. but it also opens the door for a wider range of preventive measures. 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.
(2003).. attitudes and social norms of Swedish male drivers. 10(2). The effectiveness of motorcycle safety campaigns on motorcyclists. Radin Umar.. MY: Pearson.H.  af Wählberg. Car occupants accidents and injuries among adolescents in a state in Malaysia.  Abdullah. (2003).A. Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies. P. and Anurag. A.  Åberg. H. Journal of Safety Research. 25. (1979).  Aiken. 473-486.E.REFERENCES  Abdel-Aty. L. (2005). Third edition. Crash data analysis: collective vs. Psychological Testing and Assessment.. R. Some methodological deficiencies in studies on traffic accident predictors. 35. 1867-1874. Subramaniam. Drinking and driving: intention. Understanding Multicultural Malaysia: Delights. individual crash level approach. Musa. Mohd Zulkifli. H. M.. (2002). Bahrain. (2007). Petaling Jaya. On the validity of self-reported traffic accident data. (2002). Current Opinion in Neurobiology. K.T. 289-296.B.  Ahmad Hariza..S. 237 . 12. A. Malaysian Journal of Medical Sciences. (2003). Accident Analysis and Prevention.R. (1999). and Pederson.  Abdul Rahman. 31-39. R. N. P. T. 581-587. (1993). S. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. L.  Abdul Kareem. Neural systems for recognizing emotion. Puzzles & Irritations. Accident Analysis and Prevention. M. and Law. E140 Proceedings of the Safety on Roads International Conference (SORIC).E. A. A. 5. and Kulanthayan. (Research Report 1/99) Kuala Lumpur: Malaysia Road Safety Council. 38(5). 169-177. Mohd Nasir.  Adolphs. Review of global menace of road accidents with special reference to Malaysia – a social perspective.  af Wählberg.H.
 Archer. Tubré. T. A. J. gender and early morning accidents. C. and Beckmann. (2004). I. In Stroebe.G. (2003). S. Social. J. Current Psychology: Developmental.. (2001). 623-633. Nature and operation of attitudes. and Kecklund (2001). (Eds. 7. Human Factors.. and Christian.  Arbous. A.  Ajzen. M. (2001). Personality. 303-313. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. Learning.105-110. In Kuhl.) European Review of Social Psychology. Journal of Sleep Research. Beliefs about aggression among male and female prisoners. 238 . I. From intentions to actions: a theory of planned behavior. Heidleberg: Springer-Verlag. (1985).T. W. (1952).  Åkerstedt. 10(6). Ethnic differences and married women’s employment in Malaysia: do government policies matter? Journal of Socio-Economics. Ajzen. From attitudes to behaviour: basic and applied research on the theory of planned behaviour.  Armitage. (1991). 340-342. M. Day. and Fishbein. Aggressive Behavior. and Kerrich.E. Annual Review of Psychology. Women’s Studies International Forum. and Haigh.J. B. Convergence of self-report and archival crash involvement data: a two-year longitudinal followup. Attitudes and the attitude behavior relation: reasoned and automatic processes.  Arthur.  Amin. I.  Ajzen.H. Accident statistics and the concept of accident proneness. 291-307. 47. W. and Hewston. 404-415. I. E.  Armstrong. 23. Age.) Action-Control: From Cognition to Behavior. M. Edwards. J. Women’s friendships under urbanization: A Malaysian study. 187-195. (2005). 52. (1997).C. 22(3). and Tubré. T. J. 10. (1987). S.  Ajzen. Bell. J. Biometrics. 33(3).D. London: John Wiley & Sons. 179-211.J. A..A. (Eds. 50(2). The theory of planned behaviour. 27-58.
Continuing carnage on our carriageways. NL: Styx.F. 14-29). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual. Transport psychology and transport in Europe: a general overview. (1994). F. strategic and statistical considerations. R. 279-284. 21-30).C. (2005. October 18). 34. P-E.V. M. In Trimpop.. R. Barrett.L. D.M. Prediction of vehicular accident involvement: a meta-analysis. (2001). and Kenny. J. (2002).M. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Characteristics of traffic crashes in Maryland (1996-1998): differences among the youngest drivers. M. 4(2). 2007 from http://www. Accident Analysis and Prevention. (Eds.. (1997). Transport psychology in Europe: a historical approach. (Ed. Human Performance. 239 . K. and Tortosa.  Barjonet.-E. R. P. When hope becomes hopelessness.  Baron. and Alexander. (1998).) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. R. G. Wilde. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2(4).bakrimusa. Improved safety through improved technical measures? Empirical studies regarding risk compensation in relation to antilock braking systems. and Dischinger. GJ.  Barjonet.-E. 34. In Barjonet. European Journal of Oncology Nursing. An alternative accident prediction model for highway-rail interfaces.. W. B. 51(6). Arthur. (1986). Groningen. F. Manila: Philippines. Amsterdam: Elsevier.) Challenges to Accident Preventions: The Issue of Risk Compensation Behaviour. 89-105.  Aschenbrenner. Asian Development Bank – Association of Southeast Asian Nations regional road safety program (accident costing report AC5: Malaysia).  Bakri Musa. (1991). T.A.S. 1173-1182.A.D. P.M. and Carson. and Biehl.  Aylott.  Asian Development Bank (2005). (2002).31-42. Boston: Kluwer. and Carbonell Vaya E.  Austin. and Tortosa. P. Retrieved April 4.  Ballesteros. 231-234.) Traffic Psychology Today (pp.com/archives/continuing-carnage-on-our-carriageways. In Rothengatter. S. (Eds.
. 73-84. 29(1).F. D.) The Evolution of Psychotherapy (pp. Hopelessness and suicidal behavior. D. and Weissman.H.S. (pp. (1987a). E. A. Cognitive models of depression.E. A. J. Prisoners of Hate: The Cognitive Basis of Anger. A. 88. Hartos. The pliability of autobiographical memory: Misinformation and the false memory problem.) Remembering Our Past: Studies in Autobiographical Memory (pp. D.  Beck.T. The level of and relation between hope..K. New York: Brunner/Mazel. New York: Meridian.F. Hostility and Violence. Palliative Medicine. Teen driving risk: the promise of parental influence and public policy. A.  Beck.M. (1993).G.  Benzein. A.T.A. D.. (1975). Cognitive therapy. M. 5-37. (2005).. Health Education and Behavior.T. 234(11). (Eds. (1993). L.  Beck.C. Lester. 157-179). (Ed. A.T. A. (1987b). Kovacs. J. A. 149-178). San Antonio TX: Psychological Corporation. (1976). 19. E. In (Flinders. A. and Bonnett. New York: Perennial Harper Collins. H. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy: An International Quarterly. Weissman. and Loftus. (Ed. and Berg.C. 1(1). Beck.T. hopelessness and fatigue in patients and family members in palliative care.  Beck. The measurement of pessimism: the Hopelessness scale. (1974).G. (1980). 240 . Theory: the necessary evil. 42  Becker.  Beck. Psychological Bulletin.J. New York: Teachers College Press. 234-240.  Beck. R. P. Manual for Beck Hopelessness Scale. and Mills. A.T. Cognitive Therapy and the Emotional Disorders.) Theory and Concepts in Qualitative Research: Perspectives from the Field. Journal of the American Medical Association. 588-606. G.  Bentler. 218-229). R. K. and Trexler.  Beck. (1996). (1999). and Simons-Morton (2002).. In Zeig. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology.  Belli. New York: Cambridge University Press. and Steer. Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. 1146-1149. In Rubin.T.
Revolutions and shifting paradigms in human factors & ergonomics. (1984).  Boff.com. Benjamin. New York: Routledge.  Bina.. New York: McGraw Hill.  Blacker. A.. Assessment of conceptual tempo in the Type A (coronary prone) behavior pattern. K. 38(3). Retrieved March 30. 751-777.  Bridger. Williams. 44-51. Applied Ergonomics. A. and Valentine. R. Nordic Journal of Psychiatry. Psychology and road safety. S.A. M. J. 34(1). McKee. Graziano.bernama.. and Bonino. 2007 from http://www. Psychological Bulletin.J. D. Malaysian National News Agency. Stress and Coping. T. A technology to measure multiple driving behaviors without self-report or participant reactivity.. Talley. (2002). B. 15(1).D.E. Associations of Type A behavior with the emotional traits of anger and curiosity. M.S. Applying Psychology in Organizations. 391-399. T. (2001). (2006) Risky driving and lifestyles in adolescence. 313-322. 37-40. Introduction to Ergonomics. Accident analysis and Prevention.  Blumenthal.C. E. 39-55. 241 . (1994). and Haney.php?id=185148.  Bernama.  Bettencourt. S.S. J.  Boyce. (2006). Managing the high costs of road deaths. H.B. R. 472-481  Binzer. R. F. (1981). Ben-Zur. Journal of Personality Assessment. 132(5).A. 53. 43.. 37. (1995). Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. (2006. 45(1). (2006). F. and Shimmin.my/bernama/v3/printable. March 12).  Blasco. and Geller. 95-104. Personality and aggressive behavior under provoking and neutral conditions: a meta-analytic review. Applied Psychology: An International Review. Anxiety. Hopelessness and locus of control in patients with motor conversion disorder.
P. (1995). (Eds. (2002). and Huguenin. (1982). International Journal of Educational Development. Behavioural adaptation to in-vehicle safety measures: past ideas and future directions. (1948). Accident Analysis and Prevention. Risk taking in male taxi drivers: relationships among personality. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. E. 20-23. R.M..G.E. Personality and Individual Differences.  Brown. D. R.  Burns. 267-278. Briggs. The effects of music tempo on simulated driving performance and vehicular control. (1989).W. N. (1992). M. T. 219-241. 4(4).C.D. (2000). Levine.  Brown. observational data and driver records. 9-19). 29-38  Brodsky. (2005). W. 318-330. R.  Browne. Goldzweig. In Rothengatter. and Warren. T. I. 24(1).J. Exposure and experience are a confounded nuisance in research on driver behaviour. 14. 18(2). 32(1).C. Ergonomics. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Single sample cross-validation indices for covariance structures. R.D. and Cudeck. and Carbonell Vaya. 242 .  Bunnell. Local street management in Australia: is it ‘traffic calming’. 105-124.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application. W. C. (1997). and Ghiselli. (Re) positioning Malaysia: high-tech networks and the multicultural rescripting of national identity. Journal of Applied Psychology. and Wilde. R. C. I. Amsterdam: Elsevier.K.  Brown. Political Geography. I. 24. Haliburton. 345-352. (2007). (Eds.. G. 27(3).) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application.S. Multivariate Behavioral Research. The Fatality Analysis Reporting System as a tool for investigating racial and ethnic determinants of motor vehicle crash fatalities. Amsterdam: Pergamon. (2004). Schlundt.  Brindle.S. 445-455. 37(4). How traffic and transport systems can benefit from psychology (pp. G.C. I.D..  Brown.W.  Brown. 21.. 641-649.E.P. E. In Rothengatter. Accident proneness among street car motormen and motor coach operators. T. and Noy. Making ethnic citizens: the politics and practice of education in Malaysia.
(1974).  Caird. and Borgatta. In Fuller.  Carmines. Oxford: Elsevier Science. (Eds). B. Human Brain Mapping.L. Cohn. Hinojosa. (1998). Multiple perspectives. and Durkee. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. (1999)..  Carretie. Applications and Programming. and McIver.  Carsten. E. D. Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Conccepts.D. F. J. O. E.. Parada. 21. E. Environment and Behaviour. M. and Tapia. Gonzalez. L. An inventory for assessing different kinds of hostility. W.. (2000).. Seatbelt use and belief in destiny among Hispanic and non-Hispanic drivers. R.  Byrd. M. (1981).  Carment. Mercado. 9.. Internal versus external control in India and Canada. The restorative effects of roadside vegetation. Beverly Hislls CA: Sage.W. G. Los Angeles CA: Western Psychological Services. M.G.A.  Byrne. T.. 63-65. (2003). J. 15981613. 736-751. 243 . Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.  Cackowski. J. 47(15). (2002). Structural Equation Modeling with LISREL. J. L.L. and Nasar. Ergonomics. Applications and Programming.K.  Buss. A.  Byrne. Analyzing models with unobserved variables: analysis of covariance structures. and Kline. In Bohrnstedt. 290-299. 35(6).H. A. Accident Analysis and Prevention.H. PRELIS and SIMPLIS: Basic Conccepts.W. (2001). (2004). & Santos.P. 22. A. 65-115). Buss. Manual for Aggression Questionnaire. and Cortes. International Journal of Psychology. T.F. J. Automatic attention to emotional stimuli: neural correlates.) Social Measurement: Current Issues (pp. Journal of Consulting Psychology. Human Factors for Highway Engineers. 45-50. (1957). 31. The relationship between organizational and individual variables to on-the-job driver accidents and accident-free kilometers. Martin-Loeches. 343-349. (Eds.A.J. B. and Warren.M.. (2004). M. J.
21(4).-H. Motorcyclist accident involvement by age. R.org/workshops/05CampoGrande  Chan. P.  Cheung. 2008 from http://www. and Lim. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour.  Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and State Farm Insurance (2007). (2007).ictct. S. 2007 from http:www. Personality and Individual Difference. Self-consciousness in Chinese college students in Hong Kong.M.  Cheah. Kuala Lumpur. Driving: through the eyes of teens. Cognitive effects of environmental knowledge on urban route planning strategies. Personality across the ethnic divide in Singapore: are “Chinese traits” uniquely Chinese? Personality and Individual Differences. Motorists more careful because of Ops Sitak. Malaysia. (1996).  Chaloupka-Risser (2005). 10(2).D. In Rothengatter. November 12). (2007. H. Howard. Y. and Yeh.  Chaplin.0. and Denis. 557-562. Carver. Matto Grosso do Sul.com/statefarm/chop/youngdriversurvey/PDF/NYD_Survey_FIN. Amsterdam: Elsevier. T. what can we know – traffic psychological analysis of Driver Behaviour.  Che Ali bin Che Hitam (2001.F.P. Visser. F. R.. Proceedings of the International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT) Extra Workshop. T. and Nash. gender and risky behaviors in Taipei. M. Taiwan.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. (2004).G. Sunway Campus. Doing data analysis with SPSS 10. (1985). Cheung. W. (2000).-H. The Star. and Huguenin. 41..pdf 244 . J. (Eds.-L. Dictionary of Psychology. Brazil. November). Campo Grande. March 20-22. New York: Dell. R.W. D. 467-477. (2006). Traffic management and road safety along federal roads in Malaysia. N6.  Chang. Retrieved March 31. 109-122. Retrieved October 15. 61-71).  Chalmé.ghipr..H. Monash University. Paper presented at the Traffic Engineering and Management in Malaysia workshop. What are we allowed to ask. J. Pacific Grove CA: Duxbury. S. R.
Tzamalouka.. Panosch. and Huguenin. Bartle. Cairns... and Ward. Towner.  Chung. N.P. R. A. (1992). E. 24(2). 245 . Make Roads Safe: A New Priority for Sustainable Development. French. In Chmiel. N. (Ed. Bakou. (2000). and Bukasa. Personality and Individual Differences. M. injuries and cultural definitions: motorcycle injury in urban Indonesia. A. M. Journal of Safety Research.. 196-203.M. P.C. P. (2002). and Stiles.D.K. (2005). June).’ Injury Prevention. and Darviri.S. 13(2). S.  Christie. and Lee-Gosselin. 39. Bradshaw. N. How exposure information can enhance our understanding of child traffic ‘death leagues. Smiley.. 2007 from http://www. P. 974-981.T. and Costello. (1999). 125-129. B. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 679-684. MacGregor. N. Retrieved December 7. R. C.  Commission for Global Road Safety (2006. D... C. (1996). The role fo motorcyclist and other driver behaviour in two types of serious accident in the UK. Helmets. Lamsudin. 38(6).  Christ. 255-274). C. J. V. Safety at work.  Chmiel. H. and Chan. Ward.G.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp.  Chliaoutaks. (Eds.. R. M. Accident Analysis and Prevention.E. 28(2). C. Time vs. 431-443. (2007). Y. Driver selection and improvement in Austria. 193-200. Demakakos. )2007).pdf  Conrad.. G.) An Introduction to Work and Organizational Psychology: A European Perspective (pp.D..makeroadssafe. S.. Aggressive behavior while driving as predictor of self-reported car crashes. Personality traits and the development of depression.  Clarke. London: Wiley-Blackwell. Cancer Nursing.L. 377-390). Patient-related barriers to cancer pain management in a palliative care setting in Hong Kong. E.  Chipman. and Truman. (2004).. Chioqueta... P. 22(3). Koumaki. W. Amsterdam: Elsevier. In Rothengatter. Kasniyah. T. T.. 33. distance as measures of exposure in driving surveys.org/documents/make_roads_safe_low_res. hopelessness and suicide ideation. 1283-1289. Accident Analysis & Prevention.
and Ponjaert-Kristofferson (2004). Cognitive/neuropsychological functioning and compensation related to car driving performance in older adults. February 8). W. K. P. N48  de Raedt.asp?id-7003. 21-50. or variable accident tendency? Journal of the Statistical and Social Inquiry Society of Ireland. 5(1). Domains and facets: hierarchical personality assessment using the Revised NEO Personality Inventory. Retrieved April 5.  Davin Arul (2005. p.R. G. D. T. (1961).  Crittendon. Accident proneness. Human Factors for Engineers (pp.A. W. (1991). Asian self-effacement or feminine modesty? Gender and Society.  Cozan. and Santos.  Davies. (2005). (1962)..F. 64. Amsterdam: Elsevier. position on the road and culpability in a road accident scenario. 161-175). R. and McRae.  Crombag.M. 246 .thestar. (1995). (2006. J. Mental workload.T. 10.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application.  de Waard. 20(5). P.J. Stories of Modern Technology Failures and Cognitive Engineering Successes. Applied Cognitive Psychology. 98-117. Editorial: Get out of my @%^$! way: there are a few things we should remember about this whole rudeness-on-the-road thing. N. Crashing memories and the problem of ‘source monitoring’. Cooke.J. and van Koppen. D. and Froggatt.  Costa. F. 45-62. Wagenaar. (Eds. 10. H.M.S. In Fuller. R. and Durso. 16(5). (2002). American Psychologist. (1996). Engineering psychology and the highway transportation system. R.  Cresswell.W. In Rothengatter. The Star. The influence of car and driver stereotypes on attributions of vehicle speed. and Patel. Boca Raton Fl: CRC / Taylor & Francis. 95-104. [Letter to the Editor] The Star Online.my/permalink.L. 263.A. P.  Cowardly Malaysian drivers. L. 2007 from http://blog. 152-171. Journal of Personality Assessment. Amsterdam: Elsevier. R. Legal and Criminological Psychology. October 18).com. and Huguenin.D.
(2005). L. E.S.D. Power and pleasure around the stove: the construction of gendered identity in middle-class south Indian Hindu households in urban Malaysia.L. R. Age differences – drivers old and young. (2003). E.A.  Dewar. 5-17. 729-730. Oetting. (1997).. Journal of Physicians and Surgeons Pakistan. (1996). and Swaim. Individual differences.  Delhomme. T. and Brookhuis. (1999). (2002a). and Meyer. Characteristics of two groups of angry drivers.S.  Deffenbacher.  Deffenbacher. D. 26(1).E. 161-171). and Oetting. Differential lateralization of trait anxiety and trait fearfulness: evoked potential correlates. R. S.  Devashayam. Lynch. Tucson. (Eds. Behaviour Research and Therapy.. 50(2). and Olson. P. 14(12). (Eds. N. The expression of anger and its consequences. de Waard. Filetti. Lynch. Women’s Studies International Forum. Road traffic injuries in Sri Lanka: a call to action.R.L. AZ: Lawyers & Judges.T.  Deffenbacher. K. and Ameratunga. (2003). J. Characteristics and treatment of high anger drivers.. On the measurement of driver mental workload. 1-20. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 28. T. AZ: Lawyers & Judges. Ergonomics. Lynch. (1998). 27(4). 247 . (2002b). and Morris.L. R.N.L. E. and Carbonell Vaya.R. T. In Dewar. Cognitive Therapy and Research. Richards.  Dewar. Journal of Counseling Psychology. P. 41.F.L. 209-233). P. 383-402.. Huff. Control motivation and young drivers’ decision making. and Olson.B. J. R. 575-590. 111-142). J. The Driver’s Angry Thoughts Questionnaire: a measure of angry cognitions when driving. 123132. In Dewar.E.R..  Deffenbacher.  Dien. Oetting. Oetting. E. R. C.  Dharmaratne.S. 47. Tucson.E. 333-356.L... R.R. J. E.C.) Human Factors in Traffic Safety (pp. 373-393. M. (2004)..D.. Personality and Individual Differences. E. and Salvatore. R. Petrilli. S. Amsterdam: Pergamon. J. (Eds.S. (2000). R. R. E.) Human Factors in Traffic Safety (pp.L. Lynch.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. 34.W. In Rothengatter. T. R.
(Eds. (2003). (1999). 263282. (Ed. J. and Carbonell Vaya. 525-535. D. Lim. (2001). 223-231).) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. Dietze. Powers. 85-92).) Proceedings of Agriculture Ergonomics Development Conference (pp.T. T. Miller.  Dula. K..S. Accident Analysis and Prevention..L.  Dixey. H.) Driver Behaviour and Training (pp.Y. Effects of aggressive driving and river characteristics on road rage.G. M. Clayton. November).A.P. M. (2003). (2004. Aldershot UK: Ashgate. R.. Aggression and ethnicity in Malaysia: a preliminary investigation. Nigeria. M. Ebersbach. 14(2). M.D. 197208. 278-285).  Dobson. (1999). 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). Brown. L.. December).. negative emotional and risky driving. 1146-1158. J. R. and Che Doi. Asian Institute of Medicine. Women drivers’ behaviour. T. Mohd Yusuff. 248 . Kuala Lumpur MY: IEA Press..R. and Rodgers. locus of control and worker safety in three Malaysian plantations: moving toward a contextual-mediate research model. and Mayser. J. M. W. R. T.. and Loke. S. Bahar. 53. 31. In Dorn. and Coie. C. Paper presented at the First International Conference-Seminar on Culture. (Eds. A.L. and Ballard.  Dukes.a. In Rothengatter.  Downe. A.L.  Downe. C.G. (1997). Knowledge transfer. Health Education Research. Malaysia.E. 323-331. N. 33. and McFadden. Traffic safety and the new research paradigm in human sciences. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. Science & Technology.  Dodge. In Khalid. A..M. Ball. C. Development and evaluation of a measure of dangerous aggressive. S. Kedah. S. Amsterdam: Pergamon. Social information-processing factors in reactive and proactive aggression in children’s playgroups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. E. Sungai Petani.E.. ‘Fatalism’. Social Science Journal 38. socio-demographic characteristics and accidents.  Draskóczy. Jenkins..A. (2007. (1987).. L. Lippold.
.L. R. G. 838-844. (2005). 201-22. Dumais.  Dunbar. (Ed.D. (1993). Annals of Internal Medicine. G.A. Sudden and rapid death during psychological stress. 113. (2002). G. A. J. Czech Republic. 771-782.. Amsterdam: Elsevier  Dyal.. March 20-22. 293-300. G. Volume 3: Extensions and Limitations (pp.ictct. Causal ordering of stress. R.  Engel.. (1971).) Research with the Locus of Control Construct. R.  Elangovan.  Edwards. Brno. 74. Chawky. A. 4(3). Cross cultural research with the locus of control construct. (1968). West. 279-294. 209-306). Psychiatric risk factors for motor vehicle fatalities in young men.) Traffic and Transport Psychology (pp. Weather-related road accidents in England and Wales: a spatial analysis. (1984). (2001). and Turecki. Lesage.R. Journal of Transport Geography.  Ellis.M..  Elander. satisfaction and commitment. A. 249 . and intention to quit: a structural equations analysis. Reason and Emotion in Psychotherapy. J. H.. Boyer. C. Psychological Bulletin. (1962). Annals of Internal Medicine. 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.(Ed. Behavioral correlates of individual differences in road-traffic crash risk: an examination of methods and findings. In Underwood. Lalovic. 50(13). New York: Lyle Stuart Press. Retrieved December 25. C..org/workshops/02-Brno/Elvik.B. (2005). New York: Academic.. A.pdf  Engel. Leadership and Organizational Development. 17-26). Ménard-Buteau. A. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry. J. A life setting conducive to illness: the giving up complex. Kim.L. Using epidemiological data to address psychological questions about pedestrian behavior. G.  Elvik. In Lefcourt. and French D.. 2007 from www. N. 159165. 69. (1996). 22(4).
December 10). 6(1).  Ey.  Evans. American Journal of Public Health.A.  Ferguson. Driver fatalities versus car mass using a new exposure approach. New York: McGraw Hill. Hope and Hopelessness: Critical Clinical Constructs.J.. (2000). L. 84). Patterson. E. 23(5). A study of accident proneness among motor drivers. E. p. (Industrial Fatigue Research Board Report No. Barnard.. (1929). Worse than a war zone: our roads claim 6.6bil losses yearly. E.  Farmer. Racial differences in adolescents’ perceived vulnerability to disease and injury.M. L. N22. J.M. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. C. (1995). Risk Analysis. (Industrial Fatigue Research Board Report No. and Popovich. S. 81-94.G.. Hadley. 86(6).M. K. Herth. The Star. London: Medical Research Council. Journal of Behavioural Medicine. 38). (1939). 784-786. 421-435. A study of personal qualities in accident proneness and deficiency.  Farran. (1976).  Evans. London: Medical Research Council. G. E. (1996). B. W. (1984). (1926). (1991).  Farmer.S. Statistical Analysis in Psychology and Education. 19-36.A. and Chambers. (1986). E.G. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage. London: Medical Research Council. L. Evans. Klesges. Comment: the dominant role of driver behavior in traffic safety. S. Risk Homeostasis Theory and traffic accident data.000 and RM5. 16.G. L. and Chambers. M. 250 .  Evans. Traffic Safety and the Driver. L. and Alpert. E.. (Industrial Fatigue Research Board Report No..  Farmer. Accident Analysis and Prevention. and Chambers. A psychological study of individual differences in accident rates.  Farik Zolkepli (2007. 55).
Cultural values in Malaysia: Chinese.  Fishbein. and Järmark..  Friedman. consequences and considerations. Women and traffic accidents. 66. causes. Suicide and the continuum of self-destructive behavior. In Fuller.H. Reading MA: Addison-Wesley. Perception of the risk of an accident by young and older drivers. 38(5). Journal of Safety Research 38. 77-97). 461-472. S. 37. Testing moderator and mediator effects in counseling psychology. R. M.  Fuller. Accident Analysis and Prevention. P. (2005). and Rosenman. (2005). August). Towards a general theory of driver behaviour.P.. 207-213.  Frazier. Amsterdam: Elsevier. and Seiden. 251 . 12(4). 9. Human Factors for Engineers (pp. A. P. and Bragg. (2006).  Fuller. I.  Firestone. Tix. S. S. and McCartt. In Proceedings of the 24th International Congress of Applied Psychology..18(4). and Santos. R. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. I. J. 289-298. 412-426. Recherche Transports Sécurité. (1975). 51(1). R. (1990). R. 63-77. Journal of American College Health. The intention to commit driving violations – a qualitative study. Malays and Indians compared. R.  Forward. Belief. The task-capability interface model of the driving process. (2007). Teoh.E.A. R. (2004). 47-55. S. and Richardson. New York: Knopf.  Finn.A.. H. M. Journal of Counseling Psychology.W. R.T. Human factors and driving. 137-145. and Ajzen. Type A Behavior and Your Heart. (1974). Ferguson. (1998. Accident analysis and Prevention. (2000).  Fuller. and Barron. Linderholm.  Forward. A.W. R. Intention and Behavior. (1986). B.A.  Fontaine. Attitude. Cross Cultural Management. Progress in teenage crash risk during the last decade. 115-134. (2002). San Francisco. K. S.R. E.
C.D.. and Hyder. Fuller. 6. Exploring the relationship between development and road traffic injuries: a case study from India. J. Nandy. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. (1949). In Pfaff-Czarnecaka. Development and preliminary validation of a brief intervention for modifying CHD-predictive hostility components. Malta.E. Journal of Applied Psychology. Y.B.  Glass. and Syna Desevilya.  Gomez. Y. A. McHugh. and Brown. Amsterdam: Pergamon. 109-116. (1999). rights and redistribution in Malaysia. Rajasingham-Senanayake. 203-220. and Blanchard.  Grayson. European Journal of Public Health. (1996). Revue européenne de psychologie appliquée. N. Road Rage: Assessment and Treatment of the Angry. 33(6).A. and Gomez. and Pender. (Eds.A. E.  Galovski. and Davidson.. N.B. 487-491.  Gidron. H. (2006). (1999).E. S. (2006).. MY: Sage. Task difficulty and risk in the determination of driver behaviour..  Garg. R. 540-546. (1997).S. E. 167-202).  Ghiselli.  Graham. Hillsdale. R. R. Theories and models in traffic psychology – a contrary view. (2003). (Eds. L. (2006). A.S. (1977). Attitude towards online purchase of fish in urban Malaysia: an ethnic comparison. 19. Use of auditory icons as emergency warnings: evaluation within a vehicle collision avoidance application. G. Tracing the ethnic divide: race.C. Aggressive Driver.) Ethnic Futures: The State and Identity Politics in Asia (pp. Washington DC: American Psychological Association. 93-96).  Gidron. A. 13-21. T.. 109-128. Gal. (2008). 16(5). and Mahbob. Journal of Behavioural Medicine. and Carbonell Vaya. Mutu. 58(1). Ergonomics. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. Stress and Coronary Disease.T. Petaling Jaya. In Rothengatter. The prediction of accidents of taxicab drivers. E.T. T. E. C. K. D. 12(4).) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp.. 252 . E. Internal locus of control moderates the effects of road-hostility on recalled driving behavior. Journal of Food Products Marketing. 42(9). E.W. Behavior Paterns. 1233-1248. D.  Ghazali.
 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. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. (1974). and Nutter. (2001).M. Billittier. The locus of control as a moderator variable: stress.M. 479-490. D. Locus of Control: Current Trends in Theory and Research. and Morgan. K.J.  Levenson. In Lefcourt. (1976).M. 177-196. 93. (1973). and Stiller.B. H. H. Lawton. Mahwah.. Jehle. 41.. pp. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychiatry.. R. Neerincx and Schreibers (2006). Volume 2: Developments and Social Problems (pp. 397-401.  Lefcourt. New York: E. A comparison of reported levels and expression of anger in everyday and driving situations.  Lefcourt. Dutton. Barrett. Malay dominance and opposition politics. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.  Leech.K. H. (Ed.. (2002). (1975). Conner. Multidimensional locus of control in psychiatric patients. L. G.C. 377-383. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Journal of Personality Assessment.L. H. Activism and powerful others: distinctions within the concept of internalexternal control. 262 . Additional dimensions of internal-external control.  Levenson. H. Moscati. W.G. 97. 659-662.407-423. 3. 37. (1983). N. The influence of demographic factors on seatbelt use by adults injured in motor vehicle crashes.M.  Levenson. Human-factors engineering for smart transport: decision support for car drivers and train traffic controllers. British journal of Psychology. (2005).  LeShan. (2002). G. Cancer as a turning point. H. Janssen. R. IV.P.. A. H. Applied Ergonomics. (1989).  Lenior. E. D. SPSS for Intermediate Statistics: Use and Implementation. 303-304. 253-269). In Southeast Asian Affairs 2002: An Annual Review. 38.) Research with the Locus of Control Construct. A.V.  Lee. 2nd Edition. C.  Lerner.M. Journal of Social Psychology. New York: Academic.
11. D. 59-67. F.  Levy. W. L-L. powerful others and chance. (1999. Accident Analysis and Prevention.M. Edmonton AB: University of Alberta Press. 125-127.M. (1981). Media Statement released by the Office of the Malaysian Parliamentary Opposition Leader and Democratic Action Party Secretary-General. (Ed. (1997). L. E. (1980).. In Rothe. Hwang.my/news/story. Accident Analysis and Prevention. D. The Star Online. Tools of Critical Thinking: Metathoughts for Psychology. R. (1960). S. and Scodel. I. February 2). 36. Psychological Reports.  Lindsey. Predicting risky and angry driving as a function of gender. Role of primary personality factors in the perception of traffic signs and driver violations and accidents. Defensive driving a must under new curriculum. K. C. Levenson.) Research with the Locus of Control Construct. Neighbors.. Wu. and Donovan. (2007). 7. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. New York: Academic. Volume 1: Assessment Methods (pp. and Yen. 536-545.A. In Lefcourt.com.  Lim. 15-63). H.  Loo. 2007 from http://thestar.P.  Lonczak. (2002) Driver skill: performance and behaviour. Accident-proneness: does it exist? Occupational Safety and Health. Retrieved May 14.  Lin. Huang. H-F. H.) Driving Lessons: Exploring Systems that Make Traffic Safer.S. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 8-9  Liverant. Internal and external control as determinants of decision making under conditions of risk. 39(3). 263 ..com/archive/1999/feb99/sg1541. 2007 from http://www.. The effect of crash experience on changes in risk taking among urban and rural young people.asp?file=/2007/3/26/nation/17254652&sec=nation&focus=1. (2004).S. H. A. March 26). (Ed.. H-D. M-R. (1979). (2007. 10.  Looi. 213-222. Retrieved April 5. 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. Differentiating among internality.limkitsiang.P.htm.  Lonero. J.
and Hershberger. I. M. H. C. Basics of Structural Equation Modeling.W.R. age. Goodness-of-fit in CFA: the effects of sample size and model parsimony. May). (1995). A. 62-67. 185-217. 129.. (Ed. Psychological Bulletin. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Accident Analysis & Prevention. Aldershot UK: Ashgate. and level of education. 103. S. 31.) Driver Behaviour and Training (pp. (1994. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. G.R.  Maakip. Victoria NSW.L. Monash University Accident Research Centre. R. A three-factor model of trait anger: dimensions. Altering locus of control of individuals with hearing impairments by outdoor-adventure courses. Vissers. Goodness-of-fit indexes in confirmatory factor analysis: the effect of sample size. D.. (1994). 18(4). Australia. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage. 68(5). Young driver research program – a review of information on young driver performance characteristics and capabilities.. (1997).L.A. Driver information systems: a preliminary investigation of motorists information requirements in Kuala lUmpur.  Maruyama.L.  Martin. 391-411.L. behavior and cognition. Balla. M.28. of affect. J. C. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Multivariate Statistical Methods: A First Course. (1998). Age differences in male drivers’ perception of accident risk: the role of perceived driving ability. (1988). R. Report No. P. J.A. Watson.M.M. 264 . J. Journal of Personality. and McDonald.  Matthews. (1986). driving violations and accident involvement in relation to drivers’ sex. Traffic accident involvement rates by driver age and gender.  Marcoulides. 73-87. Journal of Rehabilitation.R.K. Quality & Quantity.M. (1999). (2003). 299313.P. 55(2). H. (2000).A. A. and Jessurun. G. Lourens. J.  Massie.F.  Marsh.  Luckner. Malaysia. R. L. In Dorn..L. 27(1).F. 593-597. W. and Balla. Annual mileage. (1989). and Mooran. 233-252). D. and Wan. and Williams. 869-897. K.  Marsh.  Macdonald.W. Campbell..
Risk Analysis. 37(6).W. (2007). P. Hampshire UK. 769-778.. I.  McRae.net/Bloge/2005/11/malaysia-records-highest-single-day. 34(47). G. E. (1998). I. 649-663. and Burkes. Cognitive abilities and safety on the road: a re-examination of individual differences in dichotic listening and search for embedded figures. Malaysia records highest single-day death toll during holiday period.. 9. S.. J. Unconscious suicides.E.D. (1989).  McKenna. M. New York: Plenum. Ismail. and Costa. Rinehar and Winston.  McMillan. (1986). [ in press]. and Neilly.malaysia-today.P. Male and female drivers: how different are they? AA Foundation for Road Safety Research. L.  Md-Sidin. F. 265 . (2009).R. 71-77. 2007 from http://www. (1990). 23. Waylen. Journal of Managerial Psychology. (2005. Beresford.htm  McConnell. November 6).  Mercer.. D.V.  McKenna.. J. Retrieved April 5. F. Psychological Medicine. Can we predict suicide and nonfatal self harm with the Beck Hopelessness Scale? A metanalysis. Duncan. 29. Malaysia Today. Accident proneness: a conceptual analysis. R.. Perspectives Psychiatriques. Cognitive-Behavior Modification: An Integrative Approach. and Brown. 45-52. Traffic accidents and convictions: group totals versus rate per kilometer driven.E. Fort Worth TX: Holt. Personality in Adulthood.  Mendel. Accident Analysis and Prevention.  Meichenbaum. Ergonomics. D. Gilbody. M. Sambasivan. The University of Reading.P.P. G. (1983). New York: Guilford.  McKenna. A. F. (1977). (1989). 173-181. Relationship between work-family conflict and the quality fo life: an investigation into the role of social support. Understanding Human Behavior. (1974). S.
 Mizel.  Ministry of Transport Malaysia (2007). 2007.M. J.. J. H. A. J. L.aaafoundation. 75-85.  Michon. Michon. and Johnson. New York: Plenum. 341-353. C.org/pdf/agdr3study. Simulator performance.my/en/street_smart_statistik. and Keskinen. Aggressive driving. (1997). (1985).L. (2003). (Eds. 2006 from http://www. Journal of Psychosomatic Research. May). Washington DC. A.org. 335-342. and Schwing.) Proceedings of the Finnish-Soviet Symposium on Cognitive Processes. K. M.. 21(4). D. 6(2). Safety Science. (1989). P..php.L. Retrieved May 23. A re-examination of the accident proneness concept. Bulmas. In Aggressive driving: three studies. l. Journal of Applied Psychology.  Mintz. Cognitive theory of traffic behaviour. (1949).. 195-211. L. Journal of Applied Psychology.J. Kayumov. 266 . Time intervals between accidents. (1983.E. Aggressive driving behaviors: are there psychological and attitudinal predictors? Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. Finland. First year as a licensed car deriver: gender differences in crash experience.panducermat. 33(3).L. 147-161. G. and subjective sleepiness: normative data using convergent methodologies to assess driver drowsiness. J. Hasselberg. E. R. Turku. and Niemi. what should we do? In Evans.C. (Eds. 401406. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 61(3). V. L. Explanatory pitfalls and rule-based driver models. (154). and Shapiro. and Laflamme.  Mikkonen. from http://www.) Human Behaviour and Traffic Safety. M. A critical review of driver behaviour models: what do we know. Retrieved December 15. AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety. In Helkama.A.A.pdf  Moller.  Monárrez-Espino.  Miles. 44(2). E.  Mintz. (2006). and Blum. 38(6). (2006). Nhan. Statistics. microsleep episodes.
8. Träskman-Bendz and Alsén (1997). A. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 51-63. (2007). I. Internality and externality as correlates of involvement in fatal driving accidents. and Astur.  Moore. T.L.. 42.  Mousser. and Summala. E. 72. 6. Amsterdam: North Holland. In Pfaff-Czarnecaka. 339-343. A. (2003).E. Clinical problems of anger and its assessment and regulation through a stress coping skills approach.. A. MY: Sage. 164-174. Rajasingham-Senanayake.  Nandy. R. (1999). 15(2).T. New York: Allyn & Bacon. R. and Maniam.. (1994). A model for the role of motivational factors in drivers’ decision-making. (Eds.B. Journal of Applied Psychology. 320-388). Road User Behavior and Traffic Accidents. W.L.  Neuman. and Gomez. (1974). Feature-based attentional set as a cause of traffic accidents. D. In O’Donoghue . A. Montag. (1976).  Novaco. Coping with the politics of faiths and cultures: between secular state and ecumenical traditions in India. Defining ‘modern’ Malay womanhood and the coexistent messages of the veil.  Näätänen. 125-132. and Summala H. 38(1). H. Journal of Affective Disorders.L. Accident proneness and road accidents. 167-202).) Handbook of Psychological Skills Training: Clinical Techniques and Application (pp. Religioin 37. Boston: Pearson. R. Journal of the Institute of Automobile Assessors. 267 . S. 243-261.  Most. J. P. L.  Morris. (Eds. K. (1987). and Comrey. 32-37. 137-144. A. Transcultural Psychiatry. Fifth Edition. and Krasner. Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches.S. Hopelessness and suicidal behavior. W. (1956). (2007). Visual Cognition. Petaling Jaya.  Näätänen.) Ethnic Futures: The State and Identity Politics in Asia (pp. (2001) Ethnicicity and suicidal behaviour in Malaysia: a review of the literature. Nandy. R.  Niméus.
B. R. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice. [Review of the book Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application]. Novaco. British Journal of Psychiatry.S. February 8). 171.. and Z. J. A. 201-215). and Williams. In Dewar. 4. 40(10). 654-656. W.. (1997).L (2002). (2002). (Eds. (1997). (Ed. 268 . and Olson. The decade 1989-1998 in Spanish psychology: an analysis of development of professional psychology in Spain.B.  O’Neill. 92-93. R.  Noy. Risk homeostasis hypothesis: a rebuttal. In Baenninger. 253-326). Driver suicides. Ergonomics.A. Aggression on roadways.  N-S highway still one of the safest roads. and Hermida. P. F. 43-76).  Ohberg. (2007. Social psychological principles: ‘the group inside the person’. (1996). Pentilla. Aldershot. 468-472.  Novaco. AZ: Lawyers & Judges. 237-252.  Our roads are filled with selfish drivers. A. (2000). P. Garner. Oxford UK: North Holland. and Lonnqvist.  Olson.) Human Factors in Traffic Safety (pp.W.L. M. Zwi (1997). (2001). R. Amsterdam: Elsevier  Odero. P. K.  O’Connell. p.) Targets of Violence and Aggression: Advances in Psychology (pp. Safer Roads: A Guide to Road Safety Engineering.W. Tucson.. 4(2). (1996. Driver perception-response time. 2(5). 34. Injury Prevention. A. M. Tropical Medicine and International Health. (1998). Road traffic injuries in developing countries: a comprehensive review of epidemiological studies.R. December 9). 445-460.W. Human factors in modern traffic systems.38.  Ogden.  Ochando. J.F (2001). 1016-1024. I. In Fuller. p. UK: Ashgate. R. N51. R. Spanish Journal of Psychology. says operator. Temes. Straits Times. Human Factors for Engineers (pp. E. [Letter to the Editor] The Star. and Santos. J.
269 .A. N. Retrieved December 20. Lajunen. T.. Accident Analysis & Prevention. (2008). W. J. Ergonomics. S. (pp. and Lajunen (2005). M.  Özkan. T. (1995).  Parker.  Parker. 229-235. 37(1).G.E. A. and Summala. Manstead. (1974).. Locus of control in university students from eastern and western societies. Özkan. O. The view from the road: implications for stress recovery and immunisation.W. H.org/workshops/05Helsinki/P1_Ozkan. Journal of Environmental Psychology.T. British Journal of Psychology. Traffic locus of control. (2001). Finland. (1998).) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application. 2007 from www. and Huguenin. (2002). Hebl. Lajunen. R. (Eds. 38(5). and Kaistinen. T.S. C. J.ictct. Anger on and off the road. Amsterdam: Elsevier.  Parker. J.  Papacostas. 42. 507-526.. (2004). 456-461.pdf -  Pai.R. driving skills and attitudes toward in-vehicle technologies (ISA & ACC). 3-13. 533-545. and Synodinos. Reason. Poster session presented at the 18th International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT).  Parkinson. Applied Psychology: An International Review. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology.S.  Parsons.  Parsons. Tassinary. (2005). D. (1988). M. T.. T..D. and Schneider. Driving errors. 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. 18.M. 1036-1048. D. Anger and aggression among drivers in three European countries. 40. and Saleh.. R.. Accident Analysis & Prevention. Multidimensional Traffic Locus of Control Scale (T-LOC): factor structure and relationship to risky driving. 125-134). 479-486. 92. and Grossman-Alexander.S. C. 34. 113-140. B.R and Stradling.G. driving violations and accident involvement. Personality and Individual Difference. Ulrich. 38(3). R. Dimensions of driving behaviour and driver characteristics. L. Road safety: what has social psychology to offer? In Rothengatter. D. Helsinki.
(1971). 3..M. B. G.  Peltzer. (1980). (2000). E. (1986). D. Road safety in southeast Asia: factors affecting motorcycle safety. A. A. Matto Grosso do Sul. Accident Analysis and Prevention.) (2004). 201-204. J.A. 147-154. Switzerland: World Health Organization. 8(1). W. Are young drivers really more dangerous after controlling for exposure and experience? Journal of Safety Research. Geneva. 875-878. risk-taking and risk perception of accidents among South African taxi drivers.C. Perceptual and Motor Skills. and Peters.B. Journal of Sleep Research. U. 9-14 270 . Accident Analysis and Prevention. Quera-Salva.J. Simple reaction time.  Philip. Superstition. March 20-22.  Pestonjee. R. 324. and Renner. and Al Haji..R. and Mathers (Eds. (1976). Taillard.. and Singh. (2002). World report on road traffic injury prevention. 619-623.. T. 91. G. Mohan. Scurfield.org/workshops/05-CampoGrande  Perry. Perceptual and Motor Skills. 1153. Brazil. Neuroticism-extraversion as correlates of accident occurrence. Road traffic injuries are a global public health problem [Letters].  Phares. B. Campo Grande. and Hyder..H. A. and Baldwin. (2005). and Åkerstedt. Sleet. D. British Medical Journal. 68-79. 2007 from http:www. Hyder. K. (2003). duration of driving and sleep deprivation in young versus old automobile drivers. Proceedings of the International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT) Extra Workshop. Morristown NJ: General Learning. Bioulac.A. 35. M..ictct. 63. (2002). L. A. Retrieved March 31. M.and Schuman.R.. M.s  Pelz. Further evidence of associations of type A personality scores and driving-related attitudes and behaviors. Automotive Vehicle Safety. London: Taylor & Francis.  Peters.A.J. D. Type A behaviour pattern and motor vehicle drivers’ behaviour. D.  Perry. D.. Jarawan. P. Locus of Control in Personality. Peden. (1999). S.  Peden. 12(3). E.  Per.
reasons for riding and the social context of riding among young on-road motorcyclists in New Zealand. 673-678. P.S. 1315-1332. Breen..D. S. 33.J. 284-288. Ergonomics. (2000). (1996). 733-750. 78-80. Baxter. Journal of Applied Psychology. IATSS Research / International Association of Traffic and Safety Sciences. (2007). T.J.  Porter.J. Accident reduction through area-wide traffic schemes.  Radin Umar. 3112).N.  Rautela. S. 49(4). Models of driving behavior: a review of their evoloution. 20(4). 334-343. A.. Psychology of drivers in traffic accidents. (1965). (1989).S. F. Disaster Prevention and Management. Errors and violations on the roads: a real distinction? Ergonomics. 299-300. (1994). T. S.  Reeder. Accident Analysis and Prevention. C.I. 369-374  Renner. Human Error. and Corlett. internal-external locus of control and depression. and Pant. 32. 16(3). Performance differences of individuals classified by questionnaire as accident prone or non-accident prone. and Campbell. Stradling. 32(2).  Reason. and Lussier. Journal of Clinical Psychology. Venturesomeness and extraversion as correlated of juvenile drivers’ traffic violations.-G. (1976). J. Cambridge University Press. Plous.. 566-573. S. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health. 271 . C. (1991).  Ranney. Hopelessness. Delineating road accident risk along mountain roads. New York: McGraw Hill. (1990). 32(3). 26.A. and Langley. L. Updates of road safety status in Malaysia. W.  Preston. and Harris. K.  Prociuk. J.E. Chalmers. (1990). Traffic Engineering and Control. 317-333. Manstead. Accident Analysis and Prevention. R.  Reason. 29(1). The Psychology of Judgment and Decision Making. E. S. R.  Proctor.H. and Anderle. (2005).. S.. (1993). J.J. D. J. Rider training.
1-7. (2005). European Federation of Psychologists’ Associations Task Force on Traffic Psychology. W-R.D. Singapore: Elsevier. R. Journal of Safety Research. K. (1999). Aggression and Violence: An Interdisciplinary Approach.. 453-460.A.R.  Robbins. Stress and Health. S. 37(3). (2005b) Fatal red light crashes: the role of race and ethnicity. Anger. Analysis of motor-vehicle crashes at stop signs in four U.pdf  Risser. H. and Solomon. Jefferson NC: McFarland & Company.L.190. and Nickel. Amsterdam: Elsevier.  Richardson. S. R.B.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application. R. Ergonomics. A. Tippetts. T. (2002). and Huguenin. Pacific Grove CA: Brooks/Cole.be/doc/Final%20report%20TF%20Traffic%20Psychology%20GA%202003. Upper Saddle River NJ: Prentice Hall. E. P. Proceedings of the joint conference of the Asia Pacific Conference on Human Computer Interaction and the Southeast Asian Ergonomics Society Conference. Journal of Safety Research. Retrieved May 23. Theories of science in traffic psychology. and Voas.  Risser. Retrieved December 11.S. (2005a) Stop sign violations: the role of race and ethnicity on fatal crashes. (2004).G.  Road Transport Department Malaysia [Jabatan Pengagkutan Jalan Malaysia]. (2003). 485-489.. (2003. and Voas.64. Human factors and motor vehicle crashes: a conceptual framework for ergonomic research in South East Asia.P. April). E.96/v5/statistik/statistik-2006. M.  Romano. 272 . Tippetts. (Eds.  Rimmö. Accident Analysis & Prevention. 37(1). (Ed).G. R. S. Organizational Behavior. (2000). Aberrant driving behaviour: homogeneity of a four-factor structure in samples differing in age and gender. 2007 from http://www. P. 569-582. Retting.  Romano. (2000). (2007) Statistik2006. In Lim. Weinstein. 45(8). R.Y. R.  Rice. and Downe.efpa.. 2007 from http://202. cities.html  Robbins. S. P-A. 34(15). Report to the General Assembly. In Rothengatter.
topics and methods. A. (2005). 214-220). T. (2005). T. 10. In Underwood. and Shahar. Amsterdam: Elsevier. M.) Behavioural Research in Road Safety VIII. (pp.  Rothengatter. In Rothe. J. Some problems and misconceptions related to the construct of internal versus external control of reinforcement. G. T. The ethnic factor in state-labour relations: the case of Malaysia.  Rowley.B. 80. Rosenbloom.  Rothengatter. (2002). (Ed.) Traffic Psychology Today (pp.  Rotter. 56-67. whole issue. 428-435  Rothe. 308-331. In Barjonet. (2007). 489-493. Boston: Kluwer.P. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. (Ed. (2006). J. The role of ethnicity in employee relations: the case of Malaysia. T. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. (Ed. and Bhopal. C. (1975). 43(1). Internal versus external control of reinforcement: a case history of a variable.) Driving Lessons: Exploring Systems that Make Traffic Safer. C. 45. (2001) Objectives. 43(3).  Rothengatter. Traffic safety: content over packaging. (2002). 273 .P. Edmonton CA: University of Alberta Press.(Ed. T. and Bhopal. P-E. Drivers’ illusions – no more risk. Crowthorne UK: Transport Research Laboratory.B.) Traffic and Transport Psychology (pp.B. G. 5.B. 3-12). Capital & Class. Traffic psychology and road safety: separate realities. 88. Psychological Monographs. 84-115. Differences between taxi and nonprofessional male drivers and attitudes towards traffic-violation penalties. (1998). 249-258.  Rowley. American Psychologist. J. (1966). Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. (1990).  Rotter. M.  Rotter. J. An overview of traffic psychology: do research and measures match? In Grayson. J.  Rothengatter. 595-600).
M. S. [Perankaan Kemalangang Jalanraya Malaysia]. occupational.  Sabey. (2005. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Royal Malaysian Police [Polis Diraja Malaysia] (2000). Road Safety – Back to the Future.malaysia-today. Malaysian Road Accident Statistics.A2. F. Bukit Aman.  Salminen. R. Kuala Lumpur. [Perankaan Kemalangang Jalanraya Malaysia]. Malaysian Road Accident Statistics. Bukit Aman.A. 2007 from http://www. (2005). 373-376. (2006. Retrieved May 22. (1999). and Santos (Eds. 2003 from http://www. Ergonomics of the driver’s interface with the road environment: the contribution of psychological research. Kuala Lumpur. The Star. IBU Pejabat Polis. Bukit Aman. Malaysiatoday (Reuters). In Fuller.  Sadiq.  Royal Malaysian Police [Polis Diraja Malaysia] (2007). Retrieved December 11. [Perankaan Kemalangang Jalanraya Malaysia]. and Heiskanen. [Perankaan Kemalangang Jalanraya Malaysia].  Royal Malaysian Police [Polis Diraja Malaysia] (2003). 33-36. Kuala Lumpur. Kuala Lumpur. spills & death plague Malaysian roads. J. Bukit Aman.  Saad. IBU Pejabat Polis.gov.). IBU Pejabat Polis. September 29). Amsterdam: Elsevier. J. (1997). 37(2). p. (2002). Human Factors for Engineers (pp.  Salminen.  Rude drivers lack emotional control. S.  Royal Malaysian Police [Polis Diraja Malaysia] (2001). Relationships between injuries at work and leisure time. Basingstoke UK: AA Foundation for Road Safety Research.rmp. 23-42).htm 274 . Malaysian Road Accident Statistics.net/Blog-n/2006/09/thrillsspills-death-plague-malaysian. B. 29(1). Malaysian Road Accident Statistics. September 26). Correlations between traffic. Statistik Kemalangan Jalanraya & Kematian.  Royal Malaysian Police [Polis Diraja Malaysia] (2002).my. Accident Analysis and Prevention. IBU Pejabat Polis. Thrills. sports and home accidents.
Economic factors and traffic crashes in New Zealand. K. A model of traffic crashes in New Zealand.F. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage. and Young. D. (2008.. 38. C. (1997).  Schlag. P. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 6(9). conscientiousness. Sagberg. B. 484-491. and Panter. Healy. I. Nagoya: Japan. A. Applied Economics.K. K.F. V. Ericsson. Fosser.  Schwebel.E. The research process: of big pictures.  Scuffham. and sensation seeking. 3-16).I. In Sansone.. and Langley (2002). C.. Individual difference factors in risky driving: the roles of anger/hostility. S. little details. 179-188. Urbanization and Regional Development (pp. Regional Development Series. C.C. and Panter.C.E. (2004). Accident Analysis and Prevention. November 15).C.. (Ed. A. 34. P. 275 . Public acceptability of traffic demand management in Europe. Jr.T.. Singapore: Maruzen Asia for United Nations Centre fro Regional Development. Traffic Engineering + Control. 117-147).. A. Malaysia: urbanization in a multiethnic society – case of peninsula Malaysia. 293302  Salih. (1981). 801-810. 6. C. F. (2000). (2003).. M. Morf.).  Schneider. and Schade. 673-687.  Sambasivan. In Healy. and the social psychological road in between.L. 29(3). J. Jr. Severson. An investigation of behavioural adaptation to airbags and antilock brakes among taxi drivers. v.A. M.) The Sage Handbook of Methods in Psychology (pp. and Sætermo. and Rizzo.F. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage. J. 35. (1966). A. Contemporary urbanization in Malaysia.  Scuffham. Asian Survey. (Eds. In Honjo. and Bourne. K. Personal correspondence. M. L.  Sendut. Ball. Learning and Memory of Knowledge and Skills: Durability and Specificity. Morf. Accident Analysis and Prevention.A. The effects of contextual interference on the acquisition and retention of logical rules. (1995).  Sansone. (2006).T. H. 314-318. 41.A. and Bourne. L. M.
. and Warshaw. 1. The theory of reasoned action: a metaanalysis of past research with recommendations for modifications and future research.  Siegel.) Traffic Psychology Today (pp. 1549-1565. (1956). Hartwick. S. D. Ergonomics. 325-343. New York: McGraw Hill. B. Journal of Counseling and Development. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. 119(3). (2001). L.J. U. Manual for the Attitudes toward Guns and Violence Questionnaire (AGVQ). and Kanekar.M and Kacmar. Theory of reasoned action and theory of planned behavior in alcohol and drug education.S. B. 361-365. Hult. (2003).  Shapiro. (1988).  Shinar. (Ed. Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education. M. 397-404. Research Methods for Business: A Skill Building Approach. H.T. 180-205). (1998). D.  Siegriest.M.E. and Payne. Dewar. G. A.  Shinar. 46(15). E.  Sharkin. (1988). J. Fourth Edition.. Ketchen. and Roskova. 137-160. P-E.  Sharma. Boston: Kluwer. C. Traffic sign symbol comprehension: a cross-cultural study. An assessment of the use of structural equation modeling in strategic management research. (2003). (2007).R.. 25. suicide and unconscious motivation.  Shook. The effects of safety regulations and law enforcement. M.H. Sekaran. and Zakowska. C.L. 3-7.P. 237-240. (2000). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Aggressive driving: the contribution of the drivers and the situation. S. Los Angeles CA: Western Psychological Services. J.  Selzer..  Sheppard. 51(1). Automobile accidents. 15(3). K. Strategic Management Journal. Journal of Consumer Research.E. P.. 66. In Barjonet. (2004). Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. (1962). D. Summala. The measurement and treatment of client anger in counselling.L. American Journal of Psychiatry. R. 276 .
sirc. Measuring the experience. and Guest. Retrieved December 25. Sinha. P. (2004). B. In Kassinove. R.  Slovic. (1992). Editorial. and Sydeman. D. M.A. Fishchoff. 277 . Stress. (1995).. and Frank. Human Factors in Consumer Products (pp.. (2001. Kurylo. International Journal of Stress Management. 21(4). (2007).R. (1977). Jr. Journal of Risk and Insurance. 50(8). B. A. Crowson. P. E. J. Oxford UK.org/publik/driving.). 47(8).K. J. and Poirier. B. C. and Watson.. and Coombs.  Stanton. 1-18). C. American Psychologist.A. B. (1998).J. P.G. 2007 from http://findarticles. (1997).  Slinn.J. N. Winter).  Smiley. 49-68). 1029-1030. Traffic Engineering Design: Principles and Practice. S. 44. In Stanton.. M.C. Issues in Science and Technology.. London: Arnold. Cognitive Therapy and Research. 237-258. H.pdf  Spielberger.K. Product design with people in mind. (2007). (Ed. Ergonomics. 1151-1158.A. coping and psychological illness: a cross-cultural study. Assessing hostile automatic thoughts: development and validation of the HAT scale. C. 386-397. 477-492. B. Injury control: a promising field for psychologists. August).  Stanton. FL: Taylor & Francis.) Anger Disorders: Definition and Treatment (pp. expression and control of anger. Houston. Matthews. Philadelphia PA: Taylor & Francis.  Spielberger. Boca Raton. 2007 from http://www. Auto safety and human adaptation. (Ed. Lichtenstein. Reheiser.  Social Issues Research Centre (2004..C. Corrigan..D.com/p/articles/mi_qa3622/is_200001/ai_n8903050/pg_1  Snyder. 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. Retrieved December 1. N. N. 14(4).D.. S. Preference for insuring against probably small losses: insurance implications.
and Erol.  Sümer. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Cheltenham. Personality and behavioral predictors of traffic accidents: testing a contextual mediated model.. In Lewis.  Stewart.  Stokols. 247-254. Traffic Injury Prevention. N. P. 178-182. 44(3). The representation and organization of emotion experience: unfolding the emotion episode. M. and Campbell. Safety-Critical Computer Systems. New York: Guilford. E. N.. M.  Sümer. UK: Edward Elgar.. 529-544.) Intelligent Transportation Systems. R. Stokols. and Havland. (Eds. N. R. N. R. 1359-1370.) Handbook of Emotions (pp.A. (1996). N. D. R. (Ed. and Liwag.C. T.L. 949-964. Trabasso.  Steiner. R.  Stough.  Stevenson. D.. J. Stanton.  Stein.M. and stress. (1988). Bilgic. Maggio. 2(4). Attributions of responsibility for motor vehicle crashes. 681-688. 63. and Pinto. (2003). Journal of Applied Psychology. (2000). The Methodology of Theory Building. Methodological and technical challenges in regional evaluation of ITS: Induced and direct effects. J. Sydney AU: Educology Research Associates. 37(4). 35. H. Medical Journal of Malaysia. (2001). 278 .  Subramaniam.R. Personality attributes as predictors of psychological well-being for NCOs.W. and Jin. M. D. (2005). N.. 139(6). In Stough. and Ryan. Journal of Psychology. G. (1993). M. Traffic congestion. Behavioural compensation by drivers of a simulator when using a vision enhancement system. M.  Storey.R. Type A Behavior. (2005). Sümer. T. Ergonomics. A. Novaco. (1978). J.. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Morrison.. Harlow UK: Addison-Wesley. 43(9).E.. 279-300). (2001). Behavioral factors as predictors of motor vehicle crashes in young drivers.A. Palamara.E. 467-480. (1989) Prevention and control of injuries arising from road traffic accidents in Malaysia.
 Summala. 38. 442-451. Koonchote. H. In Underwood. S. and Punto. H. Özkan. T. (1988). P. 491-506. Karanci. 103-117. Risk control is not risk adjustment: the zero-risk theory of driver behaviour and its implications. (2006). (1980). Epidemiologic characteristics of drivers. 193-199. 21. H. S. (2005). 31. Ergonomics. N. 22(1-3). (Ed. (Eds.) Traffic and Transport Psychology (pp. Assen/Maastricht: Van Gorcum. 82-92). Safety Science. Nguntra.. (Report 11). Journal of Traumatic Stress. H. Hierarchical model of behavioural adaptation and traffic accidents. University of Helsinki Traffic Research Unit.. G. P. Accident risk and driver behaviour. A.) Road User Behaviour: Theory and Research (pp. Traffic psychology theories: towards understanding driving behaviour and safety efforts. 41-52). T. coping selfefficacy and quake exposure as predictors of psychological distress following the 1999 earthquake in Turkey. Nieminen. 703-711. G. and Merisalo..K. Mahasakpan. Personal resources. W. (2005). Helsinki.  Sümer. (1996). In In Rothengatter. A psychophysical method for determining the effects of studded tires on safety.. Human Factors.N. R.. N.  Summala. and Tantriratna.. 38(3). and Lajunen.. 383-394). (1994). Amsterdam: Elsevier  Summala. H.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. Asymmetric relationship between driving and safety skills. H. T. T. and Näätänen. Risk control is not risk adjustment: the zero-risk theory of driver behavior and its implications. Maintaining lane position with peripheral vision during in-vehicle tasks. H. R.  Swaddiwudhipong. A. Berument. In Rothengatter. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Sümer. Accident Analysis and Prevention. vehicles.  Summala. H. pedestrians and road environments involved in 279 . and Gunes. H.  Summala. (1986). (Eds.  Summala. M. and de Bruin. (1988). and Carbonell Vaya E. (1996).  Summala. (1997). Scandinavian Journal of Psychology. The zero-risk theory and overtaking decision. 18(4). T.  Summala. 331-342.
Driving habits and behaviour patterns of university students. S. P-E. and Layde. 280 . Southeast Asian Journal of Tropical Medicine and Public Health. 138(5). (2001). 18(4). New York: Simon & Schuster.  Theeuwes. and Fragopanagos (2005). (1998). Journal of Clinical Psychology. Hopelessness in a community population in Japan. D. The interaction of attention and emotion. In Barjonet. C. 33(2). Anger: The Misunderstood Emotion.R.233-239.G.. and Huba. Ten commandments of structural equation modeling. (eds.  Taylor. Sakamoto.. Fujihara.R. S. (1985). B. Ono.. 241-257. E. Kuhn. J.M. (1985). Age and gender patterns in motor vehicle crash injuries: importance of type of crash and occupant role. A Modern Dictionary of Sociology. (Ed.  Tanaka. 167-172. Boston: Kluwer.  Thompson..J. T.) Reading and Understanding More Multivariate Statistics. Washington DC: American Psychological Association.. S. G. and Yarnold.S.  Tanaka. P. (2000).S. (2001). 581-590. and Kitamura. 37-44. New York: Thomas & Cromwell. Y. Hopelessness in a community population: factorial structure and psychosocial correlates.M. G. L. 52(6). Neural Networks. and Kitamura. J. J. (1996). E. A. 609-615. Fujihara.. C. and Theodorson.  Synodinos. Sakamoto.A. (1989).  Tanaka. Ono. British Journal of Mathematics and Statistics. 353-369. 34. International Review of Applied Psychology. N.. The effects of road design on driving. Accident Analysis and Prevention.) Traffic Psychology Today (pp. A fit-index for covariance structure models under arbitrary GLS estimation. Y.C. E. 42. and Papacostas. In Grimm.road traffic injuries in rural Thailand.  Tavris. 25(1).  Theodorson.  Tavris. G.E. S. P. T. (1969). 241-263). Journal of Social Psychology.
445-448. 5(5). J. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour.F.W. 55-68. (2001). (1993). Availability: a heuristic for judging frequency and probability..  Tiliman.  Tversky. Personality and Individual Differences. 207-332. 23(1). and McClure. 147-152. Injury Control and Safety Promotion.  Underwood. Applied Cognitive Psychology. D. and Sanders. Personality subtypes of young drivers. Wright and Crundall.  Underwood. J. The accident prone automobile driver. (Eds. 321-333. G. (1997). Enns. (1996). American Journal of Psychiatry.) Handbook of Perception and Action. A.. 2. London: Academic. W. (1974). L. Journal of Counseling Psychology. J. (1999).  Turner. A. Automatic and controlled information processing: the role of attention in the processing of novelty. Age and gender differences in risk-taking behaviour as an explanation for high incidence of motor vehicle crashes as a driver in young males. (2003). C. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomic Science.  Trick.  Tversky. 32(3). Anger while driving. 185. H. G. 123-130. D. 106(5). and Kahneman. 279-297. and Kirkcaldy. D. 5. C.A and Hobbs. 7. P. Personality predictors of driving accidents. Relationship to risk-taking preferences.T. 4(4). 10(3). Effectivenss of cognitive-behavioral treatments in reducing Type A behavior among university faculty – one year later.  Underwood. G. Paying attention behind the wheel: a framework for studying the role of attention in driving. (1949). 11-22. O. P. Chapman. In Neumann. B. and Kahneman. J. Volume 3: Attention. 1124-1130.. Thurman. (1985).M.  Ulleberg. and response to a traffic safety campaign.E. Judgment under uncertainty. Mills. 281 . 385-424. Science. and Milton.. Collusion after a collision: witnesses’ reports of a road accident with and without discussion. A. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. Cognitive Psychology.  Trimpop. (2004). and Everatt. and Vavrik. R. (1973). R. accident involvement. G.
42. R. Harrison.) Traffic and Transport Psychology (pp. Brazil. G. (2001). and Rothengatter.A. Cognition and emotion in driver behaviour models: some critical viewpoints. The role of attributions and anger in aggressive driving behaviours. Proceedings of the International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT) Extra Workshop. 210-222. A.D. 2007 from http:www. Utzelmann.F. In Rothengatter. W. Campo Grande. T. 181-190). On-line driver workload estimation. (2007). T. S. Traffic accident risks in developing countries: superseding biased approaches.pdf  Vallières. Anticipation and the adaptive control of safety margins in driving. J. (2004). Ergonomics. 26. Amsterdam: Elsevier.. D.J.org/workshops/05-CampoGrande  Vassallo. E. Harris. H. Driver selection and improvement in Germany.F. Retrieved December 5.  Vasconcellos. D. M.. Caserta. (1998). and Vallerand. T. A. In Underwood. J. (2005).A.ictct. Risky driving among young Australian drivers: trends precursors and correlates. Personality and Individual Differences. Sanson. A.org/workshops/01-Caserta/Vaa. R. and Huguenin.. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Smart.. 2007 from www. Retrieved September 1.  Verwey. (2000). March 20-22. 282 .” Recovery. Amsterdam: Elsevier  Van der Hulst. É. Effects of road situation and age on secondary task measures. 39. Matto Grosso do Sul. 336-345. 24-29.  Velting. 913-921.D. 444-458. (Ed. Italy.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application..M. 43(2). Ergonomics.B.  Vaa. Bergerson. Meijman.  Vavrik. (Eds. (1999). J. Cockfield. 9(2). Proceedings of the 14th workshop of the International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT). S.. (2005).ictct.. (1999). “Accident prone. Personality and negative expectancies: trait structure of the Beck Hopelessness Scale. W. and McIntyre.
Personality and Individual Differences. (2001). P. Elliot.com/articles/waterman37. (2009.com/public_affairs/reports/AA-foundation-FDN33-cradle-grave.S. and Zaidel. Retrieved November 2. 438-447. 427-433. A. In Proceedings of the 1998 Road Safety Research.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp.  Waller. (2000). Here’s the story of Burma-Shave.  Waylen.  Wállen Warner. Drivers’ decision to speed: a study inspired by the theory of planned behavior.theaa.A. Wellington. M.html. G.P. B. 2008 from http://www. 283 . Amsterdam: Elsevier. Journal of Counseling Psychology.R. 5(4). N. Policing and Educatino Conference 2. Stanton. eye blinks and ongoing driver behaviour.. J. (2001). Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. F.F.P. Basingstoke UK: AA Foundation for Road Safety..backwoodshome.pdf  Wei.T. (1997). 117128. (Eds. 421-444. (2002). and Young. Changes in young adults offense and crash patterns over time. Retrieved December 15.H. Feeling nostalgic? Now you’ll rave. and Åberg. Raghunathan.. M. P. (2006). and Mallinckrodt (2003). M. The development of gender differences in risky attitudes and behaviour in road use (Summary Report).F. and Little. Perceived coping as a mediator between attachment and psychological distress: a structural equation modeling approach. 123-142. 2007 from http://www. P.. A. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Shope. R.J. Transportation and society. January 21). An on-road investigation of vehicle feedback and its role in driver cognition: implications for cognitive ergonomics.B. T. H. International Journal of Cognitive Ergonomics. D. Predicting drowsiness accidents from personal attributes. and McKenna. 50(4). L.  Walker.. and Carbonell Vaya E. In Rothengatter.M. Backwoods Home Magazine. 28. 1-8).  Waterman. Cradle Attitudes – Grave Consequences. Verwey.  Watson. 33.A. T. Methodological problems associated with surveying unlicensed drivers. (1998).  Waller. New Zealand. W. Heppner. 9.E.
S. 8. B. M. University of Waterloo Press.  Wells. Does risk homeostasis theory have implications for road safety? British Medical Journal.S.M (1956). 130(4). R. G. S. (2002).S.J. (ed. and French. Target Risk. 135-154). Fox. G. Dunaway. 271278. P.S. Risk homeostasis theory and traffic education requirements. G. deductions and discussion of recent commentaries.J.L.  Wheatley. 450-455. G.  Wilde.  Wheatley. (2007).. Accident Prevention. and Anderson. Deaths and injuries from car accidents: an intractable problem? Journal of Cleaner Production. Ceminsky. K. (2002).  Wilde. (1961).W. 84. (1973). M. (1993). G. Elander. On the choice of denominator for the calculation of accident rates.  West. 15(11/12). (Ed.) Transport Risk Assessment (pp. 469-529) New York: McGraw Hill. Ergonomics. 207-219. Advances in Paediatrics. G. R.  Wilde. 441-468. G. 1149-1152. (1994). British Journal of Psychology. (1982). (2005). J. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Type-A behaviour pattern and decision-making style as predictors of self-reported driving style and traffic accident risk.J. Risk homeostasis and traffic accidents: propositions. E. S. 324. Childhood accidents. 209-225.. Hallberg.  Wilde.S. 2.  Wilde.J.J. An exploratory study of the relationship between road rage and crash experience in a representative sample of US drivers.. Guiling. G. J.). Mild social deviance. (1984). Risk Analysis.N. D. (pp. M. G. 1116-1121. 195. Proceedings of the International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT) Extra 284 .. 31. Snow.J. (1988).S.. The theory of risk homeostasis: implications for safety and health. In Yager. 34. Preventions of accidents in childhood..  Wells-Parker. G. and Klerman..M. Toronto: PDE Publications. Wiliams. Hostility and depression associated with suicide attempts. American Journal of Psychiatry. Weissman.  Wilde. In Halsey.
F. (Ed. Matto Grosso do Sul. A.G.  Wood.. Space and Culture. 26(6).R.  Woodcock. The factor structure and convergent validity of the Aggression Questionnaire in an offender population. Driver experience with antilock brake systems. Boston: Pearson. 398-403. T.  Williams. 303346. 34(5). Brazil. New York: Taylor & Francis.G. (1999).  Williams.  Williamson.. International Social Science Journal. Structural equation modeling in strategy research: applications and issues. Responsibility of drivers. Fundamentals of ergonomics in theory and practice.I. (1994). and Well. N. Possession and displacement in Kuala Lumpur’s ethnic landscape. S. Designing for the in-car safety and security of women. A. 807-811.) Contemporary Ergonomics..S. V. M.Workshop. and Poythress. (2003).. Campo Grande. Psychological Assessment. 527-531. Farmington Hills MI: Gale. 2007 from http:www.  Wilson. 557-567.K. J.  Williamson.J. (2001).E.C.ictct. T. 110-131. In Hanson..B. and Hartman. by age and gender. 285 . Gavin. S. (2008). and Shabanova. Flyte and Garner. 99-109. 6(2). for motor-vehicle crash deaths.A.F. (2004). Accident Analysis and Prevention. M. Journal of Safety Research. (2000). A. 1. M.  Williams. E. N. L. Countries and Their Cultures. Retrieved March 31. Research Methodology in Strategy and Management. A. D. and Boyd. (2003). 55(175). 8.  Williams. (2003). Lenard. 31. (1996). Boyd. Mastering the World of Psychology. Applied Ergonomics. T.Y. Wood.org/workshops/05-CampoGrande  Willford. The fluid state: Malaysia’s national expressway. J. Cascardi. J.. J. March 20-22. Welsh.
(2005). Geneva. 740-746. Back to the future: brake reaction times for manual and automated vehicles. M. G.A. Asian Journal of Social Science. L.C. Regional Office for the Western Pacific. S. 286 .  Yergil. . In Underwood. D. X. Ergonomics.) Traffic and Transport Psychology (pp. World Health Organization [WHO] (1957). N. Ergonomics. 50(1). 473-485. 1314-1330.  Zhang. and Chaffin. Head tilt during driving. Islam. 46-58. D. A three-dimensional dynamic posture prediction model for simulating in-vehicle seated reaching movements: development and validation. (2007). Negotiating identity in Malaysia: multi-cultural society. theatre and tourism. 118. Accidents in Childhood: Facts as a Basis for Prevention.  World Health Organization [WHO] (2004).  Zikovitz. Country reports. 33(3). Report of an Advisory Group.R. 42(5). (1999). Amsterdam: Elsevier  Young. and Harris. Ergonomics.S. 487-503). Technical Report Series No. (2005). and Stanton.  Yaapar. Drivers and traffic laws: a review of psychological theories and empirical research. 43(9). (Ed. D. (2000).
or benefits. 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. As a result. Immediately after releasing the pressure. (see also. presumably because of personality factors. traction is maintained steering and braking actions continue to be effective. on most surface types.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 . Because the wheels continue to turn during the braking manoeuvre. ABS ensures that. differential accident involvement). the brake line pressure is relates. a concept generally attributed to Farmer and Chambers (1926. Behavioural adaptation (BA): “the ability to adapt to novel conditions based on one’s experiences. drivers stop sooner and in a more controlled manner than with traditional rack-and-pinion braking systems. the outcome of which is typically reflected by perceived advantages. allowing the wheel to turn. 1939) and arising from the individual differences approach in psychology. the ABS reapplies it until the wheels begin to lock-up again.
driving and psychological variables influence self-reported behaviour in traffic and self-reported crash outcomes. BA is a core concept in all risk theories of driver behaviour. 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. 288 . Turke showing the manner in which the certain demographic. In the present research. risk homeostasis theory. p. and (c) assumes that individuals may vary along a continuum with regard to factors that affect their risk of crash. that corresponds to an accumulation of crashes in the statistical mass. where effort to save lives may be concentrated. it refers to a combination of circumstances. including driver behaviour. the statistical model was based on the results of automobile users’ responses to psychological testing and questionnaires. drivers will alter their behaviour (see also. where possible. hierarchical driver adaptation theory. accident proneness) Differential psychology: see individual differences approach. therefore allowing for the influence of external factors. proximal variable. when confronted by differing levels of perceived or objective risk in the environment. task capability theory) . The contextual mediated model forms the basis of ordering variables within the research design for studies reported in this thesis. Usually based on geographical location of the crash. (see also. (see also. It refers to accumulations of motor vehicle crashes in amassed statistics. (see also. time of week and. black spot) Black spot: a term attributed to Heikki Summala of the Traffic Research Unit at the University of Helsinki. 25). as an alternative to the largely discounted notion of accident proneness. Black event: a post-hoc extension of the black spot concept.Noy. Also referred to as risk compensation. characteristics of road users. The concept has been applied both to Summala’s (1996) hierarchical adaptation theory and to Fuller’s (2000) task capability theory. it is essential when searching for black spots to disaggregate the accident mass by splitting it into progressively smaller units by type. crash outcome) Differential accident involvement: a concept proposed by Frank P. black event) Contextual mediated model: an empirically-based path analysis. distal variable. first offered by Nebi Sümer of the Middle East Technical University in Ankara. (b) does not prejudge the causation of personality variables. McKenna of the University of Reading. 2004. (see also. road and traffic conditions. It differs from accident proneness in that it (a) denotes an area of study. rather than a theory. The central idea is that.
but rather as a multidimensional variable made up of three or more dimensions. selfefficacy and self-esteem. One such multidimensional model of LoC was advanced by Hanna Levenson. demographic and motivational variables – contribute to diving outcomes. The name was changed to the British Industrial Health Research Board in 1931.. accident proneness) Inner speech: see self-talk. interests. It contains detailed information about fatalities resulting from motor vehicle crashes on public roadways in the United States since 1975. 289 . Department of Transportation. William Haddon Jr. 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. Externality Chance (C) and Externality Powerful Others (P). Later conceptualisations have viewed LoC. values. (see also. Individual differences research typically focuses on the domains of personality. Locus of control (LoC): a concept generally credited to Julian B. intelligence. self-concept. aptitudes.S. 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). motivation. ability. and after crash – to form a matrix with nine cells. in-crash. a body of theoretical and empirical knowledge has been generated from attempts to consider how individual differences – primarily in personality.Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS): is a database in the public domain maintained by the U. bipolar construct ranging from I (internal) to E (external) maximums. Headway: the distance between two vehicles travelling one in front of the other. who posited three dimensions: Internality (I). 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. (see also. Rotter of the University of Connecticut. In traffic psychology. the vehicle and the road – with the three phases in a motor vehicle crash – pre-crash. Each of the nine elements of the matrix represents a possible focus for road safety. then of the Veteran’s Administration Medical Centre in San Francisco. not as a unidimensional. Haddon matrix: a model developed by the American traffic analyst. which combines the three components of the road traffic system – the human. Individual differences approach: also referred to as differential psychology. leading to the now largely discredited concept of accident proneness. It was at the IFRB that statisticians and analysts first examined the distribution of accident frequency.
mobile construction equipment or platforms. and buses. 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”. including life goals” (Chaplin.S. 333-334). trucks (lorries). Risk compensation: see behavioural adaptation. Perceived behavioural control (PBC): a key concept in Azjen’s Theory of Planned Behaviour. individuals will engage in behaviour intended to eliminate the discrepancy. regards it as “that which permits a prediction of what a person will do in a given situation.Motor vehicle: a machine which incorporates an engine and wheels and is used for transportation on land. individuals are likely to perform riskier behaviour. Freudian psychology considers it to be a manifestation of the integration of the id. Private speech: see self-talk. Risk homeostasis theory (RHT): Originally postulated by Gerald J. Non-motorised transport: any transport that does not require a motor to generate energy. p. 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. PBC refers to the degree of control that individuals believe they have over a given behaviour. conversely. motor vehicles included automobiles. and using animal-drawn or human-drawn carts or other devices. operates to keep user risk at an essentially constant level. For the purposes of the present research. Motor vehicle crash: a collision or incident that may or may not lead to injury. if perceived risk exceeds target risk. When there is a discrepancy between the level of perceived risk in the environment and an internalised “target risk” level. somewhat analogous to a thermostat. individuals will engage in more cautious behaviour. most usually on roads. Wilde. Adlerian psychology views it as “the individual’s style of life. occurring on a public road and involving at least one moving motor vehicle. That is. Included in this term are walking. motor vehicle crash was considered largely synonymous with the concept of motor vehicle accident. the individual differences approach. the RHT posits that an underlying feedback system. Professor Emeritus at Canada’s Queen’s University. or characteristic manner of responding to life’s problems. motorcycles. if perceived risk falls below the target risk. but excluded those vehicles which operate on rails. For the purposes of the present research. Wilde’s theory has generated equivocal 290 . 1985. bicycling. the ego and the superego. as expressed by Raymond Cattell. motorised bicycles.
Road traffic system: Road traffic may be considered as a system in which three components (the human. Self talk: a fundamental concept in most theories of cognitive behaviourism. Cognitive self-statements may be either negative or positive. It refers to the constant stream of chatter that goes on in one’s mind. Road traffic fatality: a death occurring within 30 days of a motor vehicle crash. Road traffic injuries: fatal or non-fatal injuries incurred as a result of a motor vehicle crash. 35). A motor vehicle crash may be considered as a failure in the system. tunnels. archways and footpaths. (b) incorporation of safety features in the design of new roads. as the result of injury sustained in the crash.and snow-covered roads during the winter months. signage. draining system. Also referred to as private speech or inner speech. bridges. and (d) improvement of known hazardous locations on the road network. (c) improvement of safety aspects of existing roads to avoid future problems. the vehicle and the road) interact with each other. stopping places. Studded tyres: used primarily in countries that experience ice.” (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. 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. (see also. which applies engineering principles in order to identify road design or traffic management improvements that will cost-effectively reduce the cost of road accidents.research results and some heated controversy within the field of traffic psychology. behavioural adaptation. parking spaces. most frequently attributed to Donald Meichenbaum at Canada’s University of Waterloo. Within the context of this research. target risk. 1996. Road safety engineering: “a process. overpasses. at both conscious and unconscious levels. based on analysis of road and traffic related accident information. They enable better traction and shorter braking distances than non-studded counterparts. these tyres are manufactured with small metal studs – much like football cleats – inserted in the treads. zero risk theory) Road infrastructure: road facilities and equipment. Opportunities for road safety engineering in general apply at four levels: (a) safety conscious planning of new road networks. including the network. but only 291 . p.
The theory of reasoned action (TRA) proposes that behaviour is a function of intentions. remains constant at the target level. (see also. (3) the benefits expected from cautious behaviour alternatives. (2) the costs expected from cautious behaviour alternatives. (b) subjective norms (opinions about what significant others would think of the behaviour). which are the best predictors of behaviour. theory of planned behavriour) 292 .when manoeuvring on icy or hard-packed snowy surfaces. Intentions are influenced by: (a) attitudes (the positive or negative evaluation of the behaviour). target risk is determined by four “classes of utility factors”: (1) the benefits expected from risky behaviour alternatives. theory of reasoned action. instrument panel and windshield of a motorcar. Target risk: a core concept in Wilde’s risk homeostasis theory. and (c) perceived behavioural control (PBC) over the performance of the behaviour (which jointly influences both the intention and behavioural performance). The TPB has been applied to a wide range of research problems in traffic psychology. the TPB posits that a given behaviour is determined by individuals’ intentions. Each cell of the matrix represents a combination of the three dimensions which form the basis of the theory. (see also. risk homeostasis theory) Task cube. it is a level of risk that each individual is willing to accept. 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. where i represents the number of factors defining the functional taxonomy dimension. which in turn are a function of attitudes and subjective norms. (see also. Individuals will undertake behaviour to ensure that the level of risk in which they are engaged. Supplementary restraint system (SRS): Also referred to as “airbags”. 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. and (4) the costs expected from risky behaviour alternatives. behaviour control) (see also. According to RHT proponents. derived from Summala’s (1996) hierarchical adaptation theory of driver behaviour. 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. According to Wilde (1994). hierarchical adaptation theory) Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB): as proposed by Icek Ajzen of the University of MassachusettsAmherst. studded tyres actually increase braking distances and decrease lateral control of the vehicle. and Icek Ajzen at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst. On dry roads. A complex 3 X 5 X i matrix.
community planning. it posits that drivers attempt to maintain a stable balance between subjective and objective risk. It is often proposed as an alternative to Wilde’s risk homeostasis theory. coordinating.Traffic management: planning. time. only when a subjective threshold is exceeded and “feelings of fear” are experienced. the term is considered synonymous with transport psychology and with mobility psychology. management science and economics. The five basic transportation factors include: safety. Traffic mix: the form and structure of different modes of transport. ergonomics. convenience and economy. from its outset. The emergence and impact of the field of traffic psychology is discussed in chapter 2 of this thesis. motorised and non-motorised. risk homeostasis theory) 293 . has embraced a multidisciplinary approach and a shared focus with human physiology. road engineering. Traffic psychology: a relatively new and developing field of applied psychology that. controlling and organising traffic to achieve efficiency and effectiveness of the existing road infrastructure capacity. Transportation factors: a set of five domains operating on the process of moving goods or persons from one place to another. adapting behaviourally to driving conditions. 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. behavioural adaptation. that share the same road infrastructure. comfort. In the present research. (see also.
Appendix A: List of Published and Research Scales 294 .
1993). C. Research scales (BIT and HAT) were obtained and used with the permission of the authors. 2000). Published scales (AQ and BHS) are marketed only to professional psychologists capable of meeting criteria for psychometric knowledge and expertise. Hawaii 96822 USA http://www.eng.com/cgibin/MsmGo. Papacostas & Synodinos. Information for obtaining copies of these instruments is provided below: Aggression Questionnaire (AQ.S.html 295 . TX 78259 USA http://pearsonassess. Available from: Western Psychological Services 12031 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles.hawaii.A number of variables studied in the present research were measured using scales copyrighted by corporate publishers or by universities where they were developed. with the understanding that they would not be re-published. Beck & Steer. Papacostas Department of Civil Engineering 2540 Dole Street University of Hawaii at Manoa Honolulu. 19500 Bulverde Road.70400&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL Beck Hopelessness Scale (BHS. Buss & Warren. 1988) Obtained with permission from the authors: c/o Dr. Brace & Company).com/portal/page?_pageid=53. San Antonio.wpspublish.edu/~csp/csp. CA 90025 USA http://portal.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. Available from: The Psychological Corporation (Harcourt.
Crowson.edu/hope. Kansas 66045 USA www. Houston.ukans. 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. Snyder. C. Snyder.R. Kurylo & Poirier) Obtained with permission from the late Dr.Hostile Automatic Thoughts Scale (HAT. 296 .psych.
Appendix B: Personal Information Form (PIF) 297 .
What type of motor vehicle do you most often drive? (please check only one) ___ car -. _________. In what city/town did you learn to drive? _______________.. _________.. __________ (city/town) (state) (country) 5.g.what manufacturer & model (e. please answer the following questions: 2. For how long have you had your driver’s licence? __________ years and ___________months (number) (number) 3. Do you presently have a driver’s licence? (circle one) yes no If yes. so please answer all questions as truthfully as you can. what kind of transportation do you use? (please check only one) ___ bus ___ motorcycle (driver) ___ car (driver) ___motorcycle (pillion. Proton Wira) _______________ ___ motorcycle – what engine size (e. 250 cc) ______________ ___ other (please specify: _________________) 7. 1. Most of the time when you travel.CONFIDENTIAL Personal Information Form Please answer the following questions about Please answer the following questions about YOURSELF. sitting behind driver) ___ car (passenger) ___ bicycle (non-motorized) ___ walk ___ other (please specify: _______________) 6. In what city/town have you lived most of your life? _______________.g. 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 . We are not asking for your name. __________ (city/town) (state) (country) 4.
most of the time ___ no 10. do you have ready ACCESS to a car? (please check only one) ___ yes. When you want to use a car. some of the time ___ yes. some of the time ___ yes. all the time ___ yes. most of the time ___ no 11. have you been in a motor vehicle accident that required you to be hospitalised for injuries? yes no If yes. all the time ___ yes. do you have ready ACCESS to a motorcycle? (please check only one) ___ 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 . in what kind of vehicle were you travelling when the accident occurred? ___ bus ___ motorcycle (driver) ___ car (driver) ___motorcycle (pillion.8. Within the last twelve (12) months. sitting behind driver) ___ car (passenger) ___ bicycle (non-motorized) ___ I was walking ___ other (please specify: _______________) If yes. 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. When you want to use a motorcycle.
12. 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. in what kind of vehicle were you travelling when the accident occurred? ___ bus ___ motorcycle (driver) ___ car (driver) ___motorcycle (pillion. Within the last twelve months. Within the last twelve months. have you been in a motor vehicle accident that resulted in damage over RM100 to your vehicle. 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. sitting behind driver) ___ car (passenger) ___ bicycle (non-motorized) ___ I was walking ___ other (please specify: _______________) If yes. sitting behind driver) ___ car (passenger) ___ bicycle (non-motorized) ___ I was walking ___ other (please specify: _______________) If yes. What is your gender? 16. but no injuries? If yes. What is your age? ___ male _____ years ___ female 17. have you been in a motor vehicle accident that required you to go to a medical clinic for minor injuries? yes no If yes. 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 . in what kind of vehicle were you travelling when the accident occurred? ___ bus ___ motorcycle (driver) ___ car (driver) ___motorcycle (pillion.
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 reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.