CAUSE AND PREVENTION OF ROADWAY CRASHES AMONG YOUNG, HIGH-RISK DRIVERS IN MALAYSIA: A MULTI-DISCIPLINARY APPROACH

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. sujak@mmu.edu.my 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

ii

DECLARATION

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

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

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Several researchers at other institutions have provided assistance in the form of test instruments, unpublished papers and guidance over the course of this project.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.

iv

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.

v

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.

vi

gender and ethnicity) and psychological (locus of control. The present research was conducted to examine the interaction between the role of behaviour in traffic. A contextual mediated model was used to examine interactions between a set of variables considered distal to the causality of the crash event. previous attempts to investigate relationships between psycho-social variables and crash incidence have frequently yielded weak associations and inconclusive results.ABSTRACT Motor vehicle crashes are a serious social and economic problem in Malaysia. respectively). Distal variables included driver (driving experience and driving frequency). externally-focused frustration. Previous research has found that human factors play the chief role in contributing to crash outcomes. and destination-activity orientation. 302 and 252. where. However. on average. seven fatalities are recorded each day. personality traits. hopelessness. some personality constructs. Effects of the distal variables and proximal variable on self-reported history of crash occurrence and injuries were examined. driving experience and demographic characteristics are the specific contributors of these factors. 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). 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. BIT had four components: usurpation of right-of-way. freeway urgency. The role of the proximal variable in mediating distal effects on crash outcomes was also investigated. self-reported patterns of driving considered more proximal to the causality of the crash and self-reported crash and injury histories of the participants. vii . aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) characteristics. Three samples of university students whose primary mode of transportation involved driving automobiles (n = 301. and that driver behaviours. demographic (age. demographic characteristics and driving exposure in predicting crash and injury occurrence.

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. consistent with the assumptions of the contextual mediated model. locus of control moderated the BIT-aggression relationship. Among distal variables. As reported in previous studies. BIT exerted a strong mediational influence over the effects of distal variables on crash outcomes. As hypothesised. 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. Results indicated that. particularly with respect to an ongoing debate within traffic psychology over the comparative importance of theories or models of driving behaviour. viii . Implications for both theory and practice are discussed. in mediating the effects of the distal variables was analysed using a four-step regression procedure developed by Baron and Kenny (1986) and using structural equation modelling (SEM) with LISREL. The role of the proximal variable. The advantages of multi-disciplinary approaches to the study of roadway crashes are discussed. BIT.Results indicated a complex series of interactions between the variables. all four BIT components were associated with higher occurrence of both self-reported motor vehicle crashes and crash-related injury. as well. Two types of hostile automatic thoughts – with content related to physical aggression or revenge – moderated the BITaggression relationship.

2.5 1.3.TABLE OF CONTENTS COPYRIGHT PAGE DECLARATION ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS DEDICATION ABSTRACT TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES PREFACE CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1.3 1.2.3 The Individual Differences Approach 2.1 Risk Homeostasis Theory (RHT) 2.1 Human Factors and the Motor Vehicle Safety Problem in Malaysia 2.3.3.4 Risk Theories 2.1.2.2 Differential Accident Involvement 2.2 1.3.2 A Multidisciplinary Approach Theories of Driving Behaviour 2.1.2 Studies of Causal Factors in Malaysian Roadway Crashes The Professional Background 2.2 2.2.1 1.1 Roadway Crashes in Malaysia and Public Perceptions of Causality 2. Theories and Models 2.2.3.2.2 Traffic Psychology: Slow Progress in Theory-Building 2.3.4.1 Accident Proneness 2.3 ix .1 An Applied Perspective 2.4 1.3.3.2 The Emergence of Traffic Psychology as a Scientific Discipline 2.1 Human Factors in Roadway Crashes: A Vexing Research Challenge 2.1 Concepts.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 2.3.

1 The Haddon Matrix 2.6 2.5.5.9.3 Core Concepts in the Contextual Mediated Model: Moderation and Mediation 2. Gender and Ethnicity 3.5.3.2.2 Demographic Variables: Age.3 Locus of Control 3.2 Hopelessness 2.2.5.4.5 Hierarchical Theories of Driver Adaptation 2.1.4.5.3.6.4.5 Aggression 78 78 84 84 84 84 85 85 x .5.4.2 Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) Descriptive Models of Driver Behaviour 2.1 Locus of Control 2.1 Statistical Models 2.2.2 Locus of Control and Driving Behaviour 2.1 Unidimensional and Multidimensional Constructs 2.2 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 3.4.5 2.4.5 Use of the Contextual Mediated Model in Other Research Distal Variables in the Present Study 2.3.6 Task Capability Interface (TCI) Theory 2.1.3.2 Zero Risk Theory 2.2.1 Age 2.5.1 Type A Behaviour Pattern and Motor Vehicle Crashes 2.3.2.3.2 Conceptualization and the Research Framework Definition of the Variables 3.2.6.1 Driver Characteristics: Driver Experience and Driving Frequency 3.7 Attitude-behaviour Theories 2.3.2.5.2 Gender 2.2 Process Models 2.3.5.2.7.1 Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) 2.3 Psychological Variables 2.1.1.1.2 A Contextual Mediated Model of Personality and Behavioral Predictors of Motor Vehicle Crashes 2.2.2.3 Aggression Proximal Variables in the Present Research 2.4.5.3.5.2 Driver Characteristics 2.2.5.4 2.1.3 Locus of Control and Ethnicity 2.5.1 Experience 2.3.3 Ethnicity 2.4 Hopelessness 3.5.3.2 Driving Frequency and Traffic Exposure 2.1 Demographic Variables 2.3.4 Studies of Driving Behaviour Using the Contextual Mediated Model 2.2.1 3.2.4.

7.7.2.5 Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) and Comparative Fit Index (CFI) 3.7.3.2.9 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 .7.7.6 Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index (AGFI) 3.2.7.5.2.1 Independent-sample t-tests 3.3.9 Injury Occurrence Research Design of the Studies 3.3 3.7.7.5.2 One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) 3.4 3.7.6 Logistic Regression Analysis 3.1 Chi-Square (χ2).3 Beck Hopelessness Scale (BHS) 3.2.1 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) Scale 3.7.2 Degree of freedom (df) 3.3.2.2 Research Instruments 3.5.1 The Sample 3.5.6 Personal Information Form (PIF) Procedure 3.7.5.2.5.7 Structural Equation Modelling 3.8 Kolmogorov-Smirnov One-Sample Test 3.3.3 The General Linear Model (GLM) Univariate Analysis 3.5 3.7.7.4 Aggression Questionnaire (AQ) 3.6 Hostile Automatic Thoughts 3.6.1 Study 1A 3.5 Multiple Regression Analysis 3.2 Study 3 Analysis of the Data 3.3 Study 1C 3.7.7.2.5 Study 3 Formulation of Hypotheses Methods of Data Collection and Analysis 3.7.7 Expected Cross-Validation Index (ECVI) 3.2 Study 1B 3.7.8 Parsimony Goodness-of-Fit Index (PGFI) 3.7.3.8 Crash Occurrence 3.7.3 Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) and Root Mean Square Residual (RMR) 3.7 3.3.7 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) 3.1 Studies 1 and 2 3.4 Linear Regression Analysis 3.2.7.7.4 Normed Fit Index (NFI) 3. p-Value and χ2/df Ratio 3.5 Hostile Automatic Thoughts (HAT) 3.6 3.6.7.7.4 Study 2 3.7.7.5.2 Levenson Locus of Control Scale 3.2.5.

2 Parallel-Form Reliability 4. Skewness and Kurtosis Crash and Injury Occurrence Data Distal and Proximal Variable Data 4.6.2 Results of Study 2 4.5 Hypothesis 5: Demographic Variables Influence Hopelessness 4.6.2.CHAPTER 4: ANALYSIS OF DATA 4.6.1 Reliability Test Results: Cronbach’s Alpha 4.6.6.4 Hypothesis 4: Demographic Variables Influence Locus of Control 4.6.9 Hypothesis 9: Hopelessness Moderates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Behaviour in Traffic 4.12 Hypothesis 12: Locus of Control Moderates the Relationship Between Aggression and Behaviour in Traffic 4.3 Validity Test Results 4.1 Age.1 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the BIT Scale 4.2.3 Hypothesis 3: Demographic Variables Influence Behaviour in Traffic 4.6.12.2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Levenson Locus of Control Scale 4.6.3.2.2 Hypothesis 2: Driver Characteristics Influence Behaviour in Traffic 4.2.8 Hypothesis 8: Locus of control Influences Behaviour in Traffic 4.2 4.5.4 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the HAT Scale Normality.5 4.13 Hypothesis 13: Demographic Factors Influence Hostile Automatic Thoughts 4.11 Hypothesis 11: Aggression Influences Behaviour in Traffic 4.14 Hypothesis 14: Hostile Automatic Thoughts Influence Behaviour In Traffic 4.1 Description of the Sample 4.6.2.3 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the AQ Scale 4.6.1 Results of Study 1 4.6.6 Hypothesis 6: Locus of control Influences Hopelessness 4.6 xii .1.2.1 Internality as a Moderator 4.1.3 4.1.10 Hypothesis 10: Demographic Factors Influence Aggression 4.4 Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 3 Reliability and Validity 4.7 Hypothesis 7: Hopelessness Influences Behaviour in Traffic 4.5.3 Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 2 4.3 Results of Study 3 Hypothesis Testing 4.12.2 Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 1 4. Gender and Ethnicity 4.6.3.1 Hypothesis 1: Behaviour in Traffic Influences Motor Vehicle Crash Outcomes 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 4.3.2.6.6.1.6.6.3.5.4 4.6.2 Externality-chance and Externality-powerful-others as Moderators 4.

5.6.16 Summary of Hypothesis Tests Testing the Contextual Mediated Model Using Structural Equation Modelling (LISREL Analysis) 4.4 Testing the Contextual Mediated Model 5.9.1 Advantages of Using SEM 5.6.4.3 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hostile Automatic Thought and Crash Outcome 4.3 Locus of Control and Ethnicity: Malay and Chinese-Malaysian Drivers Aggression Testing the Contextual Mediated Model Using Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) 5.5.3 Study 3 Testing Mediational Relationships Using SPSS 4.6 xiii .8.3.5.8 4.5.3 Timeframe for Data Collection 179 182 185 185 187 189 190 194 194 196 197 201 201 202 203 203 204 204 210 211 5.5.3 Study 3: Taxicab Drivers 5.2 Use of Self-Report Methods 5.1 Generalisability of Findings 5.4 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Crash Outcomes Comparison of Automobile Drivers. Motorcycle Drivers and Taxicab Drivers 4.4.1 Study 1C: Automobile Drivers 5.3.2 Locus of Control and Ethnicity: Indian-Malaysian Drivers 5.6.8.5.3 Best Fit or Best Model 5.2 Study 2: Motorcyclists 5.9 Relationship Between Aggression and Behaviour in Traffic 4.2 Goodness of Fit 5.7 4.2 Differences between Automobile Drivers and Taxicab Drivers 4.3.5 What Can be Learned from Testing Contextual Models with SEM? Limitations of the Study and Methodological Considerations 5.1 5.4 5.7.3 A Contextual Mediated Model for Understanding Factors Influencing Unsafe Driving Hopelessness Locus of Control 5.4.6.5 5.9.2 5.7.3 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 5.1 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hopelessness and Crash Outcomes 4.5.1 Study 1C 4.8.9.2 Study 2 4.8.5.2 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Aggression and Crash Outcomes 4.7.1 Differences between Automobile Drivers and Motorcycle Drivers 4.4.1 Internal and External Locus of Control as Determinants of Driving Behaviour 5.

4 Measurement of Driving Frequency Implications and Areas for Further Study 5.5.7 5.1 Generating and classifying crash prevention interventions 5.4.1 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 .7.7.7. Training and Rehabilitation 5.3 Driver Selection.6.7.4.7.7.4.4.4 Preventive Measures: “The Three E’s” 5.7.2 Engineering Interventions 5.2 Factors in Behavioural Adaptation (BA) 5.3 Education 5. Models in Traffic Psychology 5.7.

9 4. 2002-2006 Numbers of Automobile Drivers and Motorcyclists Involved in Road Crashes by Age Group Key Value Clusters for Each Malaysian Ethnic Group Research Hypotheses Dimensions of the BIT scale The Five Subscales of the Aggression Questionnaire The Three Subscales of the Hostile Automatic Thoughts (HAT) Scale Statistical Methods for Hypothesis Testing Gender and Ethnicity of the Sample for Studies 1 and 2 Age.5 4.7 4.3 3. Table Page 2.5 4. 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.1 3. Gender and Ethnicity of Participants in Studies 1.2 4.4 115 117 118 119 4.1 4.LIST OF TABLES No.2 Malaysian Roadway Crashes and Casualties.11 xv .3 114 4. Kurtosis and Skewness Statistics 13 14 57 91 95 97 98 101 112 114 2.4 3.1 2.8 111 121 121 122 4.2 3.6 4.3 3.10 4.

Gender and Ethnicity in Study 2 (N=122) 125 Means.25 138 4.22 136 4. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1A (n=301) Means.18 131 4.17 129 4.21 135 4.19 133 4. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1C (n=252) Means.16 128 4.20 134 4.29 xvi . Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 3 (n=133) Results of Logistic Regression Analyses Showing the Effects of BIT Component Factors on Crash Occurrence Results of Logistic Regression Analyses Showing the Effects of BIT Component Factors on Injury Occurrence The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores in Study 1A (N=301) The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores in Study 1B (N=302) The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores in Study 1C (N=252) The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores in Study 2 (N=122) The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores in Study 3 (N=133) Effects of Demographic Factors on total BIT Scores Direct effects of hopelessness on BIT scores Direct Effects of Locus of Control on Total BIT Scores 127 4.14 4.24 137 4. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1B (n=302) Means.12 4.27 4.28 4.23 136 4.26 138 139 144 145 4.13 4.4. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 2 (n=122) Means. Gender and Ethnicity in Study 1 (N=855) 124 125 Crash Occurrence Frequency.15 Crash and Injury Occurrence Crash Occurrence Frequency.

6 xvii .36 4.33 4.35 4.32 4.30 4.4 208 5.41 175 5.4.37 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 4.31 4.40 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Aggression and Crash Outcomes 174 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hostile Automatic Thought and Crash Outcomes BIT Mediates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Crash Outcomes Goodness of Fit Statistics for Model 1C5 and 1C6 (Initial and Subsequent Analyses) Distribution of National Population and Sampled Participants by State State of Origin Compared with Crash Frequency and Vehicle Registrations (Study 1) State of Origin Compared with Crash Frequency and Vehicle Registrations (Study 2) Spearman rank correlations for States of Origin for Participants in Study 1 and Study 2 Engineering Applications for Crash Prevention 174 4.34 4.39 4.3 5.2 5.1 199 206 207 5.5 209 225 5.

8 Proposed Contextual Mediated Model for Safety Research in Agriculture (from Downe. 2003) Inter-variable Relationships in Mediation Models Inter-variable Relationships in Moderation Models Page 36 37 40 42 44 46 47 2.3 3. 1989) The Haddon Matrix (Noy.2 2.4 4.2 3.7 2.3 4.3 2.4 2.10 64 80 81 82 83 146 3.1 4. 1996) Task-Capability Theory (after Fuller.6 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. Behavioral Predictors and Motor Vehicle Crashes (from Sümer. Hatakka.LIST OF FIGURES No.1 2. 1996. 1997) Contextual Mediated Model of Personality.1 3.2 147 148 4. 2007) 50 Hierarchical Levels of Driving Behavior (after Keskinen.9 59 2.4 148 xviii . 2000) Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen. 2.5 Figure Task Cube (from Summala.

5 4.13 xix .7 4.8 4.9 4.10 4.4.12 4.11 Interaction of Ethnicity and Verbal Aggression on Freeway Urgency Moderating Effect of Internality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship Moderating Effects of Externality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship Moderating Effect of Externality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship Contextual Mediated Model Study 1C5 Contextual Mediated Model 1C6 (Four BIT Factors) Contextual Mediated Model Study 1C (Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thoughts) Contextual Mediated Model Study 2 Contextual Mediated Model Study 3 153 154 155 158 165 166 168 170 172 4.6 4.

is a matter of debate … Obviously. I feel like it each time I think of that moment. and his mental state. are factors that influence the likelihood of occurrence. and this thesis is the result. And they crashed. He’d sent me a nice card at Christmas. He died instantly and she spent three weeks in the hospital. They quarreled and then left on his motorbike. But. just every so often. Her face and arms had been bruised and lacerated. . But sometimes. I like to watch boxing. I got back to work on them. only a trimester or two earlier. I hope it makes a contribution. She told me about the motorcycle crash that had claimed the life of her cousin. LISREL couldn’t. I wanted to throw in the towel. He was driving. they are prone to other types of error as well. I don’t cry much any more. I’m a fairly big guy. externally-focused frustration. lane deviation and all the rest.Talib Rothengatter & Raphael Huguenin. He didn’t want to go. to the weary traveler. He was very popular with other students. She had needed to go on an errand. like encounters with fairies and werewolves. but she’d nagged him.D. they cut across a lane too quickly. 2004 Some three years or so into my Ph. The factors she described that evening were the same ones I’d been trying to study – freeway urgency. when humans are prone to imagine fairies or werewolves. She started crying and couldn’t stop. but accidents or encounters with fairies or werewolves are random events. they were frustrated and angry with each other. She had been badly injured. I sure felt like it as I sat there beside her. I was confused by the results I was getting. finally. they were focused on the errand. programme. he’d taken the same course as she. They were hurrying. I knew the fellow. xx . My research design needed a serious re-working. How important these factors are. Her hands and voice quivered. She was afraid she had missed too many lectures. things were not going well. handle the latent variables I wanted to include in my structural equation model.PREFACE Accidents occur. she was riding pillion. at least not with real tears. I told her not to worry. I feel like it a bit right now. Then one evening into my office came a student from my first-year Critical Thinking class. The behaviour of the traveller. I’m pretty happy with it. or wouldn’t. I didn’t recognise her at first. I despair that we may never be able to snare this werewolf.

anticipation. the most prevalent factors have been human failures associated with speed. Sleet. judgement. Graham. Even after decades of study. state of mind and physical well-being. Scurfield.. Peters & Peters. Drivers’ attentional (Most & Astur. kinaesthetic (Zhang & Chaffin. Mills & Vavrik. 2007. 2000). Green. Olson. leading to a rich information base for regarding humancentred design as a “requirement for all elements in the traffic system. Iwasaki. cognitive (Vaa. perceptual-motor processes (Young & Stanton. road. Notwithstanding the extensive literature that exists on safety design factors for automotive products (e.. scholars still search to identify the relative effects of vehicle. 2002) and their impairment (de Raedt & Ponjaert-Kristofferson.g. Theeuwes. 2004). much of the recent attention on causal elements in roadway crashes has focused on the human factors involved. the quest for a better understanding of the causality and prevention of roadway mishaps has become an urgent task for safety researchers. 2001.1 Background of the Study With an estimated 1. 2002. 2002). policy-makers. perceptual difficulties and drink driving” (p. Furuichi & Kadoma.CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1. Enns. for instance. Consistently over the years. Drivers’ performance and avoidance of collisions depend on their skills. Trick.g. Ogden. “human factors play a major role in road accidents. This is particularly salient in developing countries. 2007. where rates of roadway accidents and deaths have been consistently higher than in other parts of the world (Peden & Hyder. such as Malaysia. including the 1 . Stanton & Pinto. environment and human characteristics on the risk of accidental events and fatalities. perceptual (Hong. Mohan & Hyder. Verwey. highway engineers and automotive design specialists. 1999). Sabey (1999). 2006. 2004) have been studied extensively. 1996. 2004).2 million deaths in motor vehicle crashes worldwide (Peden. 2000). 2002) and road safety engineering (e. commented that. 2001). 11). 2000.

roadway. with the intent to determine the degree to which measures of aggression. 1983). there are conflicting findings and associated problems with this research” (p. 2002. Malaysia is also a nation with a disproportionately high frequency of motor vehicle accidents. 1949) have since been replaced by more complex explanations that focus on the interaction between emotional. the vehicle and the new technologies that are increasingly being deployed by the road and fitted in vehicles” (Carsten. This dissertation is a report of research into relevant psychosocial variables and their effects on self-reported driving behaviour. as a “social menace”(Abdul Kareem. p. including the study of a large number of variables. 1989). 21). 2007). and as a “major public health problem” (Subramaniam. 2005). The high rate of roadway accidents and deaths has been described in both scholarly and popular print or internet media in extreme terms.351. According to Dewar (2002b). 2004.2 Road Safety in Malaysia Malaysia is a nation of motor vehicle users.732 motor vehicles were registered in 2006. describes its significance and presents an overview of the methodology used. often labelled as “tragic” (Koh. However.332 drivers and 15. 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. McKenna. hopelessness and other variables interacted to affect attitudes toward driving and the severity and frequency of participants’ self-reported involvement in motor vehicle crashes.112). “the literature on personality has a long history. The chapter 1. 2003).000 fatalities were recorded (Ministry of Transport Malaysia. There was a total of 341.252 accidents in 2006 and over 6. locus of control.790. A total of 10. concludes by noting the delimitations of the research. Very early initial attempts to identify an “accident proneness” personality trait (Tiliman & Hobbs. 2 . More challenging has been the attempt to link personality and psychosocial variables to driver behaviour and performance. This first chapter of this dissertation presents the background of the study.

Gonzalez. Wells-Parker et al. ethno-cultural background (Byrd. 2002. easily generalised to a variety of cultural and social settings. 2002) and many others. Schwebel. Ulleberg. Hence. 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). Vasconcellos. Blasco. Loo. Cohn. 2003. Barjonet & Tortosa. Wu & Yen. Lin. integrative and international viewpoint based on application in order to address changing situations and objectives” (p. Draskóczy. attitudinal and personality correlates of roadtraffic crash risk. 2002. Huang. 1999. and the past twenty years has seen the emergence of the new discipline of traffic and transport psychology (Barjonet & Tortosa. Verwey. 1979. 2007). 2001). locus of control (Arthur. there has been an increasing recognition of the need for theoretical formulations and specific models. 1991. Hwang. Gal & Syna Desevilya. Sumala & Zakowska. and (b) the elimination or reduction of effects of task-induced or environmental stressors on human performance when driving (Brown. Huguenin (2005) has argued that the field of traffic psychology arises from an “interdisciplinary. Parada & Cortes. 2005. Wells. Investigations of individual differences have included driver age and gender (Beck. Historically. 2004. Lajunen & Summala. 2003). 2004. 1997). 2000. 1997). 1994. Renner & Anderle. Severson. 2002. Dewar. Trimpop & Kirkcaldy. 3 . 2005). Gidron. 2006. Hartos & Simons-Martin. 1997. 3). Ball & Rizzon. Barrett & Alexander. Many studies have been devoted to the examination of behavioural. Shinar. Elander. Rimmö. 1993. 2000). Stewart.Trends toward high rates of motor vehicle crashes and fatalities have been observed in developing countries world-wide (Peden et al. 2002b. leading many researchers and safety organisations to regard road safety as a leading international development issue (Garg & Hyder. often with widely varying results (Dewar. Lajunen & Kaistinen. 2004). 2006. that allow for better prediction and explanation of roadway crashes (Risser & Nickel. Özkan. 2001. West & French. 2001. 1997). 2005. aggression (Parkinson. risk-taking and sensation-seeking (Horswill & Coster.

This has led to a growing interest in modelling human behaviour involved in the driving task and. personality and demographic) and proximal (i. with resulting outcomes often involving crash and injury. 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. vehicle. Hampson & Morris. 2004). 2005). in developing general and specific cognitive models of individuals’ interaction with the world around them (Brown. 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. falsifiable hypotheses might be drawn (Summala. aberrant driving behaviours) variables in predicting traffic accident involvement.e. it has been recognised that the psychosocial factors involved in driving safely differ greatly across the range of human. in particular. drivers still operate automobiles and motorcycles in ways that reduce the likelihood of safe arrival at destinations.3 The Problem Statement Given widespread awareness about the high rates of death and injury resulting from motor vehicle crashes worldwide and in Malaysia. however. Noy (1997). Sümer (2003). 1. loss of attention and the deliberate usurpation of right-of-way are frequent behaviours in traffic. road and environmental conditions that comprise the driving situation. for instance.e. Speeding. with the risk of roadway casualty? 4 . has recently proposed a promising contextual mediated model which distinguishes between distal (i. leaving the field with inadequate theory development from which testable.. has been that such behavioural models have seldom been used as the foundation for developing an integrated. 1997.Increasingly. externally-focused frustration. A frequent criticism. What demographic and personality factors are associated and interact with unsafe driving behaviour and. 1996. in turn. Parker. theoretical basis for traffic psychology (Huguenin.. 1997).

By better understanding the manner in which psychosocial characteristics of individuals might predispose them to engage in unsafe driving behaviour. but also on their interactions. this research is important to organisations and people concerned with driving safety. (d) driver hopelessness. injuries and deaths. 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. “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. p. (b) driving experience. the present research might be seen as making a contribution to our growing understanding of that very interface. 2005. 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. Results of the resulting analyses are detailed in chapter 3.The aim of the present research is to determine those factors contributing to traffic accidents on Malaysia roadways. While there is no doubt that collective knowledge pertaining to the causality and prevention of roadway crashes is growing exponentially. situated as proximal variables.4 The Professional Significance of the Study With the frequency of roadway crashes. with a view to assessing which preventive measures would be most effective. By focusing on not only demographic. gender and ethnicity. 1. (e) driver aggression. Fifteen hypotheses are formulated to predict that distal variables including: (a) driver age. in which distal psychosocial factors exert an influence on behavioural tendencies more proximally related to the crash event. and (f) drivers’ hostile automatic thoughts would not only affect each other but also four self-reported measures of behaviour in traffic. 9). it becomes possible to construct a broader awareness of how demographic and personality variables contribute to motor vehicle crashes. 5 . (c) driver locus of control. 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.

“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. Moreover. the plethora of theories available. Katila & Peräaho. the Malaysian setting has remained relatively understudied (Richardson & Downe. There is a growing sentiment that. 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. an area that some authors have argued is overlooked in the current literature (Keskinen. 2000). Utzelmann. 2001. Laapotti. in the applied sciences. 2004. they also have implications for a broader “theory versus model” debate in traffic psychology. 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. 2004. The present research adds to the growing body of literature dealing with driver aggression and its various forms of expression. Findings of the present research have implications for driver selection and training. 6 . It is also the first attempt to examine closely the effects of the psychological construct of hopelessness on driver behaviour. road safety measures and public policy. the development and adaptation of in-vehicle safety devices or intelligent transportation systems and the construction of models to foster additional research. Despite considerable popular attention to the problem of motor vehicle crashes and fatalities in the developing countries of Southeast Asia. 1974). Näätänen & Summala. 94). Rothengatter. 1997. 1993). p. 1997). 2004). all of which have been noted as purposes for traffic psychology (Brown & Noy. 2005. Some authors have suggested that. Hatakka.Of particular interest may be variables related to driver affect. Recent trends in the philosophy of science call conventional hypothetico-deductive processes into question (Becker.

although adding additional layers of variables and complexity to the analysis. A multi-disciplinary approach has been generally considered one of the hallmarks of the new field of traffic psychology (Rothengatter. this research draws on principles from a wide range of disciplines. 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. goes some distance in differentiating the present study from other more narrowly-defined examinations of driver behaviour. 1.g. and is appropriate for this examination of psychosocial features of the Malaysian driver. this work represents the first instance in which Baron & Kenny’s (1986) widely-cited procedure for establishing mediation has been performed using logistic regression.Notwithstanding a handful of well-founded reviews of statistical trends and risk factors (e. with emphasis on the importance of model comprehensiveness as a factor in addition to goodness-of-fit. human motivation. may be limiting the development of effective public policy and intervention measures. In doing so. 2001). Che Ali. very little research has been focused on the psychological and social features of the motoring population in Malaysia. cultural anthropology and applied psychology. and on the manner in which those factors interact to affect safety outcomes on the roadway. which deals with methodology. This has left the door open for largely unsupported speculation about the character of Malaysian drivers and.5 Overview of the Methodology Questions about how the study was conducted and the choice of research methods are answered fully in chapter 3. Radin Umar. This broader perspective. It is useful. attitude theory. To the author’s knowledge. 7 . 2001).. Selection of alternate structural equation models is also discussed. 2005) and attempts to link driver performance to road engineering (e. Certain methodological considerations add to the professional significance of this research.g. incorporating cognitive ergonomics.. in turn.

three separate phases were carried out (Study 1A. in which there was no direct manipulation of independent variables in the laboratory or field setting. 2006. moderating and mediating relationships between variables. driving (experience. first. driving experience. in their capacity to explain which specific predictors 8 . 1B and 1C). These equations depict all of the relationships among constructs (the dependent and independent variables) involved in the analysis” (Hair. hopelessness. in their capacity to predict outcomes and. Anderson & Tatham. access to vehicle) and psychological (locus of control. destination-oriented activity) and two self-reported measures of accidentrelated (crash occurrence and injury occurrence) outcomes were assessed. hostile automatic thoughts) on four self-reported measures of behaviour in traffic (usurpation of right-of-way. The final result. In each successive study. p. 2003). was a multi-dimensional path analysis depicting causal. at the conclusion of Study 1C. cultural background). similar to a series of multiple regression equations. freeway urgency. The present research applied an ex post facto research design. each entailing data collection from a different sample. In Study 1. 711). Babin. the effects of selected demographic (age. The present research consisted of three studies: Study 1. Study 2 and Study 3. Structural equation models were also used to explain the relationships between these variables. Structural equation modelling is a family of statistical methods that “examines the structure of interrelationships expressed in a series of equations. or outcome. to include in this first chapter a general statement of the method used in order to round out the introductory picture presented. but where differences which already existed between subject groups on independent measures were evaluated to determine their naturally-occurring influence on dependent. externally-focused frustration. second. Black. This model drew on the similar conceptual theory used by Sümer (2003) in the construction of his earlier contextualmediated model. gender. variables (Sekaran. In this case.however. Maruyama (1998) has argued that the two prominent reasons why researchers use structural equation modelling techniques lie. aggression. different combinations of variables were added to the respective structured equation model and the level of complexity was examined.

a model was constructed using a sample of undergraduate participants for whom motorcycles were the primary mode of transport. A team of researchers flagged down taxi drivers at random and.6 Delimitations All research is confined by the boundaries of its scope and design. over the course of 30. After the initial model-building had been completed. data were collected through classroom-based group administration of research instruments. a third model was constructed. where it is argued that the “convenience sample” used in the model-building phases was. Such predictive capabilities were considered to be of importance in any examination of the dynamics leading to risks of roadway crashes and fatalities. Student participants sampled for two of the three studies were selected from an undergraduate population at a single university. behavioural inventories and personal profile questionnaires.to 45-minute trips. representative of the characteristics of high-risk Malaysian drivers. This issue is discussed at some length in chapter 5 of the thesis. leaving room for questions about the generalisability of findings to populations within and outside Malaysia. 9 . with resulting variable relationships compared to the model that had been built from the responses of automobile users in Study 1. In Study 2. verbally administered psychometric instruments.are most important in predicting. Generalisability of the present study may be constrained by the single-setting of the subject pool and the limitations of the particular methods selected. Again. These are discussed in detail in chapter 5 of the thesis but relevant issues are introduced here. 1. this time sampling professional taxicab drivers in the Kuala Lumpur area. In Study 3. in fact. 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.

(b) time-period for calculating accident frequency. social desirability or response set biases? Indeed. Katila & Laapotti. The present research. at least to a certain extent. 1990). In a meta-review of traffic safety research. against the first two and these are covered in chapter 2. the research did not address the question of differences arising from the extent to which drivers considered themselves to be liable for the self-reported crash outcomes. Boyce & Geller. af Wählberg (2003) outlined three significant methodological deficiencies that have plagued the study of traffic accident predictors. The relationship between the manner 10 . The present research included procedural elements to mitigate. Keskinen. much of the recent driving safety literature has distinguished between errors. including: (a) test-retest reliability of predictors. Are the attitudes. as well. Violations are deliberate deviations from those practices believed to be necessary to safely operate a vehicle and include such behaviours as speeding. did not specifically compare these driving patterns within the context of participants’ self-reported behaviour in traffic. Finally. Baxter & Campbell. such as failing to check the rear-view mirror before pulling out or changing lanes. However. Stradling. while recognising the distinction. 2001) and others down-playing them (Hattaka. The prevalence of self-report measures in traffic safety research. and (c) culpability for crash outcomes.Concerns with research of this nature also frequently centre around the question of self-reported data. Lapses involve problems with attention and memory and include such things as switching on one thing when meaning to switch on something else. lapses and violations as differing behavioural responses underlying the crash event (Reason. with some authors emphasizing methodological risks (af Wählberg. 2002. 1997). Manstead. is discussed in chapter 5 of the thesis. Errors are a type of driving mistake involving failures of observation and misjudgement. accident histories and behavioural trends reported by participants really valid? Or are they prone to the influences of confabulation. along with its implications for the validity of results and potential alternative methodologies. there has been a vigorous debate about the utility of self-report measures in safety research for several years. close following or taking aggressive actions against another driver or vehicle.

11 .in which behaviour in traffic was measured in this research and the dimensions offered by Reason et al is discussed in chapter 5.

as a social “menace”(Abdul Kareem. inconsiderate and aggressive.1 2. industrialisation and motorisation. there were 341. they indicated “angry”. and as a “major public health problem” (Subramaniam. Nation-wide statistics seem to underscore the popular concern over safety issues. Malaysian drivers have been consistently characterized as “confrontational”. The high rate of roadway accidents and deaths has been described in scholarly and popular print or internet media in extreme terms. A succession of online weblogs and internet sites authored by tourists and local writers alike have condemned Malaysian drivers as dangerous.1 Human Factors and the Motor Vehicle Safety Problem in Malaysia Roadway Crashes in Malaysia and Public Perceptions of Causality In 2006. in aggregate. “friendly”. 2007). in order of frequency. “obnoxious” and “cowardly” (“Cowardly Malaysian Drivers”. a sample of 348 first-year university students indicated. economic expansion. “discourteous” (Davin Arul. “laid-back” and “considerate”. 2007). the Minister of Health characterised Malaysian roads as “worse than a war zone”. Malaysia has experienced remarkable increases in population. “reckless”. “peaceful”. “selfish” (“Our Roads are Filled”. Downe and Loke (2004) reported that. 2005). 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. pointing out that annual fatalities exceed the total deaths among American combat personnel over four years of fighting in Iraq (Zolkepli. 1989). 2005). In newspaper reports. Recently.000 fatalities were recorded (Ministry of Transport Malaysia. 2006). 2005).CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 2. but when asked to “describe what Malaysian drivers are like”. Over 6. 2003). “impatient”. These are thought to have contributed. “ugly motorists” (“Rude Drivers”. to a rapid increase 12 . often labelled as “tragic” (Koh. “bullies” and “selfish”. when asked to provide five adjectives which would “describe what Malaysians are like”. A developing country in Southeast Asia. “patient”. or as “negligent” (“Malaysia Records Highest Single-Day Death Toll”.1. 2007).252 motor vehicle accidents in Malaysia. 2007).

891 8.20 deaths per 10. 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.218 2005 6. 2005). The number of road fatalities has decreased slightly from 6.885 35.091 37. Mohd Zulkiflee.040 2004 6. 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. & Wong. 2005).252 Motor Vehicle Casualties 2002 Fatalities Severe Injuries Minor Injuries Total 35.228 9.425 2003 6. Table 2.2).236 49.252 in 2006 (Ministry of Transport Malaysia.253 source: Royal Malaysian Police (2007) The road accident death rate in Malaysia dropped from 8.1 summarises the five-year incidence of crashes and injuries. Abdul Rahman.012 19.287 9. one- third of all crashes in Malaysia involve automobile users or motorcyclists within the 16.645 54. 2005).417 47. In Malaysia.415 52.98 deaths per 10. the number of crashes has increased 80% over the past ten years. Radin Umar. in Malaysia.264 2006 341.395 2006 6.425 5. 2003. higher than any other age grouping or combination of consecutive age groupings.in the number of road traffic crashes (Abdul Kareem.552 37.000 vehicles in 2006. but still lags behind frequencies in developed countries which generally fall below 3 deaths per 10. Subramaniam & Law. 2007).815 2005 328.741 38. Table 2.1: Malaysian Roadway Crashes and Casualties.to 25-year-old age group (see table 2.653 2004 326.287 in 2006.000 vehicles in 1996 to 3.286 9.109 in 1996 to a total of 341. from 189.000 vehicles (Law.200 9.7111 2003 298.304 in 1994 to 6. Generally. 2002-2006 Motor Vehicle Crashes 2002 Total 279. Studies 13 . This suggests that studies.

of university-aged drivers are critical to understanding behavioural and situational factors that predict the most commonly occurring class of crashes (Stevenson.84 1.389 6.68 3.205 11.72 554 2.180 10.50 979 4.45 30 0. general insurers paid RM1. 2006).15 43 0.216 10.77 3.967 100 19.620 7. Some Ministry of Health estimates of medical costs alone have been as high as RM5.7 billion.08 2.025 9.16 90 0.15 3. Morrison & Ryan.049 15.81 3.29 2.31 3. 2001).08 1. Palamara.68 128 0.22 150 0.10 3.40 1.06 608 3.997 14.05 2.81 2.038 13.315 17. 14 . Recent international analyses have placed the total economic burden at around RM7 billion yearly.15 572 2.85 147 0.034 4. It has been reported that.81 1. with one road accident victim admitted to hospital every six minutes (Bernama.41 302 1.49 450 2.178 15.2: Numbers of Automobile Drivers and Motorcyclists Involved in Road Crashes by Age Group 2000 2001 2002 2003 Number % Number % Number % Number % 37 0. or about 2.82 1.6 million a day on motor claims (Abdul Kareem.418 100 19. has resulted in considerable economic loss for the country.378 11.05 2.593 11.64 135 0.26 463 2.65 121 0.08 585 2.469 15. or an average of RM4.85 2.07 2.05 1.341 12.709 8.97 1.921 100 20. 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. in 1999 alone. 2005).820 13.80 203 0.309 10.48 323 1. and particularly among younger drivers.63 160 0.92 2.4 billion to RM5.56 3.07 2.803 9.90 159 0.448 17.47 280 1.329 100 source:Royal Malaysian Police (2000. 2001.953 17.431 7.67 billion.27 458 2. 2003).94 1. 2002.54 708 3.91 984 4.94 625 3.76 22.110 10.08 541 2.99 164 0.92 1.947 10.086 9.23 2.29 708 3.37 337 1.416 6.551 12.005 15.71 543 2.48 105 0.023 5.61 99 0.11 2.67 206 0.21 3.94 2.65 2.4% of the Gross Domestic Product (Asian Development Bank. Table 2.

The loss of potential income of the dead and maimed in turn dwarfs those medical outlays (Bakri Musa. 1999). physician and journalist has commented that: The human toll is unquantifiable. and that alone justifies making concerted efforts to address the issue … The economic costs in property damages are huge. traffic congestion. What else can we do. but miniscule compared to the expenses of medical care and rehabilitation. 2005). Criticisms of road configuration. 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. which is actually a nightmare. 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. (Bernama. or the pain of the maimed. Public interest and political frustration has given rise to extensive speculation over the possible causes of the problem. In 1999.Yet. The economic consequences can be estimated. There is no way to A popular measure the grief of those who have lost their loved ones. lane definition. signs and lighting have been levied in certain quarters 15 . 2006). 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. Some seven years later. if people want to die? (Lim. In spite of numerous road safety campaigns the number of accident cases have been increasing. economic figures and accident statistics provide only partial indications of the impact of the highway safety problem on Malaysian society. But it is nothing compared to bringing down the number of road deaths.

They don’t even stop to look left and right or look in the rear view mirror. 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. Krishnan & Radin Umar. 1997). though. unlike in other countries. They are also bad in giving ample time to others and this is an example of non-defensive driving. is often mentioned as a factor. serious injury and death (Per and Al Haji. 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 . as compared with 1. the Royal Malaysian Police (2007) reported 3. for instance. 2001. 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. given greater risks of accident. 2005). 2006). 2007).215 deaths among motorcar drivers and passengers. 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. Researchers.(Abdul Rahman et al. Who they are. approximately 45 per cent of all registered vehicles in 2006 (Road Transport Department Malaysia.693 deaths among motorcycle operators and pillion riders. how they think. Generally. 2005). The relatively high population of motorcycle riders. 2007). Those countries have had a motoring culture for nearly a century but our road-users are relatively newer to motoring (Sadiq. In a recent newspaper interview. In 2006. Maybe these drivers just never realised how simple it is to avoid accidents (Looi. newspaper columnists. most accounts have come around to commenting on driver demographic and behavioural characteristics as significant factors in motor vehicle crashes (Che Ali.

In the same study. due to fewer trips and reduced traffic exposures as a result of slower economic activity.2 Studies of Causal Factors in Malaysian Roadway Crashes Notwithstanding this public outcry. risky behaviour (Chang & Yeh. since studies in other parts of the world have found that individual differences play a significant role in determining rider training outcomes. This is. Law et al.general understanding of the causes and potential prevention strategies related to the country’s traffic safety problem. Ward. Musa. 17 . Ahmad Hariza. rather than personality factors. reasons and social contexts of motorcycle use (Reeder. with a 27% and 38% drop in the rate of motorcycle casualties and motorcycle fatalities. Law. respectively.1. 2. Conducting time-series regression analyses of police data. (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. a needed focus in the analysis of programme effects. For instance. Zulkaurnain and Kulanthayan (2005) examined the impact of economic variables on motorcycle-related crashes. Radin Umar and Kulanthayan (1999) found that the same MSP had significantly improved motorcycle riders’ perception and understanding of safety issues. perhaps. conspicuity and excessive speeding. Mohd Nasir. they reported that the Asian-wide economic recession significantly contributed to a reduction in traffic fatalities. Radin Umar. 2007) and crash Type And liability (Clarke. or else on the evaluation of specific safety interventions. In a separate study. however. 2007). Bartle & Truman. Chalmers & Langley. injuries and fatalities. was personality or demographic factors of motorcyclist samples investigated. In none of the studies of the MSP. MSP interventions had been aimed at modifying motorcycle riders’ awareness and attitudes of safety issues related to helmet use. The research that has been undertaken has tended to focus largely on the contribution of broader economic and social variables. causal factors underlying crash and injury rates on Malaysian roadways have remained largely understudied. 1996).

18 .122). The very monotony of the road surface. they are accident prone. motivated largely by the government’s fear of unregulated public assembly. He argued that. the factor that made the high speeds possible. 121-122). however. 1996). a capacity that makes them distinct as a society” (p. Although the expressway was meant to avoid both traffic and accidents. “many Malaysians claim that as drivers. 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. including speeding and falling asleep at the wheel (“N-S Highway”. he argued that national leadership intended it to be both a symbol of progress. 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.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. since 1994. 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. According to Williamson. 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. road engineers devoted their efforts to creating a public artery in which speed and limited stoppage were design priorities. has linked peninsular communities. these conflicting aims of speed and safety seemed to exacerbate them. This. Describing the expressway as a “stunning infrastructural achievement” (p. generalising to all driving environments and situations. 110). resulted in a myriad of problems.

personality characteristics (Elander. levels of driving experience and. Human factors are far more important than engineering factors. roadway engineering has a much greater influence than automotive engineering (p.2 2. but rather 19 . Åberg. bad road conditions. 1993). Among human factors. the largest opportunities for harm reduction: A clear hierarchy of factors can be specified. driver behaviour (what the driver chooses to do) has much greater influence on safety than driver performance (what the driver can do). According to the Commission for Global Road Safety (2006). Panosch and Bukasa (2004) argued that: Road safety is less a technical but rather a human factors problem. 1993. etc. The majority of accidents are not caused by problems of the vehicle. “human behaviour makes a direct contribution to crash risk through the extent of knowledge and understanding of traffic systems. 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. Because at least one driver is involved in every traffic crash. 62).2. Among engineering factors.2. 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.1 The Professional Background Human Factors in Roadway Crashes: A Vexing Research Challenge Attention to the demographic. 784). West and French. Evans (1996) further argued that changes in driver behaviour offer. 1991). personality and behavioural characteristics of drivers has not been exclusive to the Malaysian scene. particularly. driver experience and skill and the relationship between risk and factors such as speed choice and alcohol consumption” (p. experiential. This has included the examination of age and gender. Christ. by far.

2004). Ranney. Haddon (1963).by the behaviour of drivers. weak. The lack of progress in trying to identify psychological factors that cause. as well as on the attitudes and behaviour of single drivers (p. 2005). the individual-centered approach directly focuses on traffic relevant performance and personality aspects. empirical findings to date about the relationship between driver characteristics. personality and traffic safety have been regarded by many as debatable. psychological factors may play different roles according to driver age (Dumais et al. 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. 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. 2004) and other contextual variables. 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. However. organisational climate (Caird & Kline. Further. (b) the choice of time periods for calculating the frequency of crash-related outcomes. 377). 2002. He conducted a meta-analysis of some 136 previous studies researching the effects of at least one psychological predictor of 20 . 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. and (c) the failure to differentiate between culpable and non-culpable crashes. unclear. prior accident experience (Lin et al. or at least predict. in reviewing early findings on human factors in this field. 641). conflicting or of relatively little importance (Iversen & Rundmo. While the system-centered approach aims at creating those road conditions that reduce the chance of accidents in advance. 1994). Lajunen & Summala. 1997. to a large degree.

especially considering the salience of transportation in the routines of daily life. 482). 2003). psychologists have given scant attention to this topic. 2002. 2003). driving behaviour and crash-related outcomes include: the use of self-reported crash data. 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. 321). 1997a).2 The Emergence of Traffic Psychology as a Scientific Discipline 2. 1961. the picture that emerges is indeed grave. motivation and behavioural performance as potential underlying causal factors in driver behaviour (Jonah. 2. and the influence of car and driver stereotypes on attributions of crash blameworthiness (Davies & Patel. accuracy of witness recall of crash details (Crombag.2. the use of inconsistent crash definitions. 1996. Underwood & Milton. 2005).1 An Applied Perspective Ever since Tillman and Hobbs (1949) stated that “a man drives as he lives” (p. Preston & Harris. the extent of exposure of drivers to the driving task (af Wahlberg. Nevertheless.2. 1965) but did not really gain momentum until the 1980s (Risser. Other methodological factors that may cloud the relationship between psycho-social variables. there has been an interest in driver personality.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. 1993). Wagenaar & van Koppen. It would seem that very few of the studies on accident predictors are actually possible to interpret in any straightforward way. the lack of replication of many studies. information processing. Novaco (2000) argued that: The field of transportation has always had a rich potential for psychology. 21 . and we are left with a very vague knowledge of what psychological variables can actually predict accidents (p.2.

but that complex traffic 22 .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.2 A Multidisciplinary Approach From the outset.) 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. Groeger (2002) argued that there is “no psychology which is specific to. Temes and Hermida (2001) found. predict and provide measures to modify road user behaviour at the levels identified with. in the field of traffic. in a Spanish survey. These interrelationshps provide a vast terrain for psychological research (pp. or peculiar to. attitudes about the origin and destination of the trip and resources for choosing alternative travel modes and schedules. that individuals tend to combine their interests in traffic psychology with some other area of specialisation such as educational psychology. 2002). According to Rothengatter (2001). 4). or the psychological support for intervention. 4) and describes it as an “interdisciplinary. anthropology and sociology. 246).654-655. conferences and coordination of professional affiliations ever since (Groeger. To wit. eoncompassing engineering. traffic and transportation.2. medicine. 2. Ochando. ergonomics. 3). traffic psychology has drawn from multidisciplinary perspectives. transportation planning. “the task of traffic psychology is to understand. This includes the research that serves this purpose” (p. psychology.” (p. Huguenin (2005) defines traffic psychology as “the psychological intervention. as a general objective to minimise the harmful effects of traffic participation” (p. Indeed. integrative and international viewpoint based on application in order to address changing situations and objectives” (p.2.

Garner and Zwi. 24). 1995. 1997. Johnston. the study of cognitive processes. 2003. commented that: From the perspective of the driver. Wilson. the road environment comprises the vehicle. Spielberger and Frank (1992) made similar comments with regard to the contribution of health psychology through the use of public health models and methodologies. Odero.behaviour is a very important and worthwhile test-bed for psychology and psychological theory and. the road infrastructure and other road users. 2000). and of cognitive control over vehicle and highway systems involved (Bridger. Peden & Hyder. Stanton (2007) noted that. 2004. It also includes the rules of the highway code Saad (2002) governing the use of the road infrastructure and interactions with other users. Much of the ergonomic research carried out to date has been focused on adapting motor vehicle conveyances. Parker (2004) pointed to the role played by social psychology in the area of road safety. the design of vehicle automation and a deeper understanding of why drivers behave as they do” (p. Ergonomics has made a contribution. ergonomics is concerned with identifying and designing technical and organisational means for facilitating the driver’s interaction with the road environment. as well. 1158). which are sometimes expressed in road markings and road signs (p. the design of driver interfaces and driver assistance systems with motor vehicles. Hyder & Peden. in particular. In a recent special edition. over the past ten years. a paradigm that has been applied increasingly to driving safety questions in developing countries (Dharmaratne & Ameratunga. emphasising the primacy of attitudes and attributions. which she described as the two main planks of social cognition. 2007. and that “ergonomics has much to offer in the design of driver education and training programmes. In the broadest sense. there have been 103 papers published in the Ergonomics journal alone. surrounding environments and 23 . both by providing a better understanding of human-machine interaction. 2002).

1997.3 2. a paradigm that Boff (2006) described as “Generation One” ergonomics. which focuses on symbiotic technologies that amplify human physical and cognitive capabilities. Studies of human factors engineering of intelligent transportation systems are becoming increasingly important in the design of in-vehicle safety systems and driver decision support technologies (Lenior.3. predict and modify road user behaviour. This involves the coherent grouping of general propositions for use as principles in explaining various classes of driving phenomena. 2004). particularly the notions of mental load. 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. and “Generation Three” ergonomics. Concepts are the building blocks for theory and may be defined as: 24 .1 Theories of Driving Behaviour Concepts. Increasingly.tasks to human capabilities and limitations. 2. 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. traffic psychologists frequently engage in theory-building. Neerincx & Schriebers. which assumes a necessary communication between person and machine led to a dialogue between the various designers of car interiors. in which the goal is to manage automation and dynamic function allocations. error and cognitive modelling. 2006. These applications are consistent with the paradigms Boff (2006) has described as “Generation Two” ergonomics. Noy. though. 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. Jannssen. “This school of though. Theories and Models In attempting to understand. Stanton & Young. Walker. 26). 2001). According to Barjonet & Tortosa (2001).

or both. which is then followed by a process of generalisation (Schneider. 1969). each ordering driving reality from its own particular set of empirical observations. 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. 2000. generalisable understanding of the driving process can be deduced. this may be due to 25 . 1995). Concepts can be linked together to form a theory. “theory” is a term used interchangeably with the word “model”. On the other hand. Concepts are formed by a process of mental abstraction. often providing a category for the classification of phenomena (Theodorson & Theodorson.. Ranney (1994) pointed out that it has never been clear. 1985). in traffic psychology. p. whether theories should explain everyday driving. there is no generally accepted theory which elucidates principles from which a broad. To a degree.2 Traffic Psychology: Slow Progress in Theory-Building Theory development in traffic psychology has not progressed well (Summala. the latter is defined more narrowly as “a set of assumptions or postulates. but for the purposes of this thesis. Healy. often in mathematical form.A word or set of words that expresses a general idea concerning the nature of something or the relations between things. many models have been proposed. Many of the theories that have been proposed have failed to generate testable hypotheses. or accident-causing behaviours. 2005. Ericsson & Bourne Jr. In traffic psychology. 2.3. p. Reasons for this are likely several. 2005). A-18) Often. which attempts to provide a generalised working construct that can account for empirical data or relationships” (Chaplin. 8) Any set of systematically interrelated concepts or hypotheses that purports to explain and predict phenomena (Robbins.

and emotional determinants. not all people act exactly alike and this is a function of their differing values. 2002). the driver’s aspirations are to reach destinations. risk adaptation theories. motives and personalities (Robbins. Notwithstanding these difficulties. but it is also a reflection that the driving task is a highly sophisticated multi-factorial process involving perceptual. cognitive. For over ninety years. minimise delay and driving time. Rothengatter. hierarchical theories of driver adaptation. or ever had sufficient knowledge of possible outcomes on which to base a deliberate action (p. Groeger and Rothengatter (1998) argued that. avoid obstacles. perceptions. 189). 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.3 The Individual Differences Approach Placed in similar situations. etc. it is highly improbable that a single theoretical stance is likely to be sufficient to account for behaviour in traffic. … Just because we as investigators have an understanding of safety as a goal. taskcapability frameworks and attitude-behaviour models (Keskinen et al. I believe it is but one of the goals a driver has.the imprecise definition of concepts.3. 26 . These may be classified as: theories of individual differences. Instead. 2005). feel in control. and most of the time is not especially influential. 2. attitudes. it does not mean that the driver had safety as a primary goal. enjoy driving. 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. five areas of theory attempt to explain and predict driving behaviour.. given the complexity of human behaviour. social. 2004.

1979). or “Big Five” personality model (Costa & McRae. However. Ulleberg (2001) found two high-risk groups. McRae &Costa. There have been theories of crash causation that have focused on particular groups of 27 . Similar studies of driver risk-taking and other individual differences have been largely absent with Asian populations and non-existent in Malaysia. conscientiousness.Trimpop and Kirkcaldy (1997). while the second high-risk group reported high sensation-seking. the extraversion variable has been associated with a higher frequency of traffic offences (Renner & Anderle. 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). 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. thrill and adventure seeking and tended to avoid socially stimulating situations when compared with violators. anxiety and driving anger. 1980) and other safety outcomes. “these findings have yet to be embodied in a general theory of differential crash risk. without driving violations had lower scores on measures of risk-taking behaviour. neuroticism. crash frequency (Pestonjee & Singh. According to Rothengatter (2002). for instance. Lajunen (2001) reported that countries with high extraversion scores had more traffic fatalities than those with moderate or low extraversion scores. Of the five factors examined – extraversion. the search for individual differences relevant to crash involvement continues to yield a large body of literature. irresponsibility and driving related aggression. 1990). In a large number of studies of specific samples from various countries. aggression. In an attempt to identify subtypes of young Norwegian drivers. poorer perception of traffic signs (Loo. extraversion was found to predict traffic accidents. the first of which was characterised by low levels of altruism and anxiety and high levels of sensation-seeking. Drawing from a large pool of data that included personality measures and both traffic and work-related statistics for 34 nations. but not occupational accidents. aged 16 to 29 years. 1995. 2000).

weight and perhaps even intelligence.finding. West & French. his or her accident proneness.152).1 Accident Proneness One concept that sought to integrate individual differences within a predictive theory relates to the “accident-prone personality”. in response to concern over the number of accidental deaths and injuries in World War I production industries (Blackler & Shimmin. 290). λ. it should be a reasonably simple matter to find 28 . the British government established the British Industrial Fatigue Research Board. 1920).3. The individual values of each worker’s λ became known as the degree of accident proneness. an idea that has had an uneven level of acceptance by ergonomists and traffic psychologists through the years. It provided a challenge to the psychology profession to devise a way to measure it. Research by board statisticians. could be modelled almost exactly by the Poisson distribution but then that. “irrespective of environment. occupational and otherwise. in certain cases. the average number of accidents. 1984). just as one can meaure height. sensori-motor skill. found first that the frequency of accidents. p. 2. and that this is due to some characteristic or summation of characteristics associated with corporeal dexterity.3. or higher conative or cognitive function” (Cresswell & Froggat. According to Haight (2004). 1993. personality. The designation of a high-λ individual as “accident prone” implied that. ‘Accident proneness’ had a nice ring to it. during and following the war years. If each individual has a unique λ-value. 1962. that individual is more likely at all times to incur an accident than his colleagues even though exposed to equal risk. The difficulty was that no one knew how to determine its value for a given individual. p. differed from person to person (Greenwood & Yule. In 1917. but none have attempted a more general integration” (Elander. but persists today.

195). inappropriate. 2004). 1997). Early work on the concept attempted to do just that. 2004). motivated largely by a desire to select lorry drivers in Europe who were less likely to become involved in costly roadway crashes (Barjonet & Tortosa. Farmer and Chambers (1926. 422). but did not take into consideration whether. inadequate or irrelevant. “Because crashes are so infrequent.out what that value is. 1939) and many others. produced a positive. Arbous and Kerrich (1951) and much later McKenna (1983) systematically destroyed the supportive literature. noting that. A study by Salminen and Heiskanen (1997) provided empirical support for this position. however. in successive years. None of the experiments. 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. Johnson (1946). that high-λ group would be comprised of the same individuals or of an entirely new cohort (Haight. but very low correlations between accident frequency at work. more probably psychological (p. subjects reported significant. Scores on the λ dimension. it was pointed out are highly sensitive to the length of the survey period. in any sample. in traffic or when playing 29 . 1991. 1956). replicable result that correlated substantially with the accident experience of individuals (Haight. 1929. by devising clever tests. as well. The theory of the accident-prone individual also came under attack on a conceptual basis. made an assumption that. 294). at home. 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. perhaps physiological. p. 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. in a Finnish telephone survey. with extensive critiques that concluded statistical analyses were almost all invalid. with shorter periods giving sharper contrasts (Moore. 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. The accident-prone concept.

no stable personality characteristics that can be identified with accident-proneness have been discovered. So. 562). This concept does not prejudge the issue of causation. the consensus position became that: Accident proneness as a concept has little use in practical accident prevention.3. moving away from the main conceptual criticism of traditional 30 . Ultimately. 8-9). roadway. and assumes that individuals may vary along a continuum with regard to factors that affect their risk of crash (Elander et al. sports and family settings. Stolk. pp. 1993). Despite the low repute in which many have regarded the accident proneness concept. It is seen as preferable to earlier formulations because it places more emphasis on contributing factors outside the person. therefore. Visser. Only 15% of the studies included in their analysis had been conducted on road user crash experience.3. it denotes an area of study rather than a theory. but the authors reported that the heterogeneous nature of sub-groups did not permit comparisons. it is still generating research and controversy (Vavrik. 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.. screened for operational and prevalence rates related to accident proneness within work. Pijl.2 Differential Accident Involvement McKenna (1983) suggested that the accident proneness concept should be replaced by the less historically loaded term “differential accident involvement”. 2. 1980. While their stated conclusion was that an accident prone group definitely existed. The concept itself is ill-defined. Neeleman and Rosmalen (2007) have published a meta-review of 79 studies. in no case did correlations between traffic crashes and other types of accidents exceed r =. because individuals can experience multiple accidents because of chance alone and also because of a higher exposure to risk independent of personal factors” (p. 1998). Alternative explanations must be found for persons experiencing multiple accidents (Lindsey.sports. “it is still difficult to identify the accident prone individuals that compose this group.05.

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.accident proneness (Chmiel. they adjust their behaviour to eliminate the discrepancy. 1988) proposed that a control mechanism operates to keep overall risk per unit time constant. A driver who enters a construction zone. After the relatively easy engineering measures were implemented to reduce the seriousness of the consequences of driver behaviour. when they perceive a discrepancy between the observed level of risk and the desired target level of risk. suddenly confronted with uneven pavement. but avoids the assumption of a stable phenomenon that accounts for more accidents in all situations. and that transient factors probably interact with stable traits of the individual in their causation. Elander et al. concluded that differential crash risk is not readily accounted for by previous crash rates. 2. 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. substantially. Wilde (1982. albeit not crash occurrence. 2000).3. experience more accidents than others. following their review of the literature. That is. However. 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. The introduction of divided highways.3.4. large earth-moving 31 . crash barriers.1 Risk Homeostasis Theory (RHT) In an attempt to explain these findings. Dewar (2002b) noted that the notion of differential liability allows for the observation that some individuals do. For example. people strive to maintain a target level of risk all the time and. in fact. researchers began to turn their attention to not-so-easy measures for changing driver behaviour. 2. compulsory seatbelts and vehicle design improvements reduced motor vehicle crash fatalities. in a study of driving on icy roads..

2008. 1986. and not on the specific measures taken in other sectors of the control system. 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. RHT proponents argued that drivers were adapting behaviourally to the effects of ABS by driving less safely and that this. Collectively. many of which have attempted to observe and comment on individual behavioural change after the risk variable is manipulated.” (Fuller. 1988. according to the theory. 1994) argued that this made the theory essentially untestable. RHT research of this nature has been used to argue that most engineering interventions and roadway regulations have little or no benefit (Smiley. given that human behaviour will continue to be motivated by internal homeostatic processes. Conversely. Ranney. Michon. a driver motoring along a wide. performing more dangerous manouevers and driving with significantly shorter headway distances than those driving without ABS (Aschenbrenner & Biehl. 2002) and that driver education programmes need to be extensively revamped (Wilde. 1994. When others (Haight. The central implication of RHT is that safety interventions need to be values-oriented and aimed at lowering the level of 32 . Huguenin (2001) noted that RHT has spawned a considerable number of studies. 14). at least until the target risk level was reached. reduced the predicted safety benefits of such systems (Wilde. for example. would perceive a level of risk above his target and would tend to reduce speed and increase vigilance. 2002). McHugh & Pender. p. Fosser & Sætermo. Wilde (1994) reframed the concept of target risk as an individual variable based on four perceived utilities. postulating that the number of accidents in any given country would only depend on the accident rate which the population is willing to tolerate. Wilde’s theory was couched at a societal level. 1997). flat. Initially. In two separate studies. is if the level of target risk is reduced. “the aggregate target risk in a community is what produces the accident toll and the only way in which this toll can be reduced. observers posing as passengers rated German taxicab drivers in vehicles equipped with anti-lock braking systems (ABS) as driving more aggressively. 2001. 1989. according to the theory.vehicles and warning flags. That is. in turn. Wilde. Sagberg. 2005).

p. 223). The notion that people have a constant point of acceptable risk. 1977). 1151). Fischoff. “Costs and benefits are central to the model. 1994. 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. or the nation” (Brown & Noy. Also. but they are not defined in psychological terms.. “It is unclear whether risk homeostasis occurs at the level of the individual. psychologically weighing at every moment the perceived and targeted risk levels inherent in every environment. In a review of research offered as support of the RHT. p. pay sufficient attention to risk. 53). 2008. Evans 33 . 2001. a tenet for which no convincing support has been yet generated (Michon. 1989. Criticisms have been aimed at Wilde’s theory on empirical as well as conceptual grounds. To the contrary. Corrigan & Coombs. Considerable criticism revolves around the imprecise nature of the theory itself. Lichtenstein. however. “The extent of risk taking with respect to safety and health in a given society ultimately depends on values that prevail in that society.” (Vaa. Rothengatter. Slovic. Robertson and Pless (2002) made the case forcefully that: … some drivers may sometimes slow down in rain. 2004). the notion of target risk implies that drivers are constant “comparers”. but that the RHT neither adequately explains nor predicts the circumstances under which it does. (p. 2004). 2002). General consensus is that behavioural adaptation to vehicle and environmental conditions often does occur (Rothengatter. 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. More than any other driving theory. 2002). it has been argued people are not sufficiently sensitive to changes in low risk probabilities to react behaviourally as RHT predicts (Fuller et al.. Wilde’s RHT has generated controversy and opposition (Keskinen et al. and not on the available technology” (Wilde.target risk that people are willing to tolerate. the community.

In other words. drivers avoid ‘feeling fear’ (hence. drivers compare the distance from hazards or time-tocollision to a subjective safety margin threshold and take action only when the threshold is exceeded. While overcoming many of the criticisms levied at RHT with regard to the concepts of target risk and the risk discrepancy comparative process. 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. Rothengatter (2002) has questioned how drivers can determine that a threshold has been exceeded if they do not constantly assess risk. experience ‘zero-risk’) when they drive by anticipating. Summala. 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. O’Neill and Williams (1998). zero-risk theory still retains some of its conceptual shortcomings. after a similar review.3.(1986) concluded that “risk homeostasis theory should be rejected because there is no convincing evidence supporting it and much evidence refuting it” (p. At this point. or expecting. for example. In addition. Summala’s zero-risk model of driver behaviour (Summala & Näätänen. 1987. and 34 . is a very basic human skill that can be carried out in the absence of extensive conscious processing.4. 92). a necessary and highly controversial assumption in Wilde’s theory. Only when the subjective risk reaches a level that was not anticipated will the drivers change their behaviour. Fuller (2005) has argued that the theory’s premise that safe margins are learned creates an implausible requirement to recognise. some degree of risk during the performance of this task. 1988) proposed that drivers do not constantly assess risk while driving. p. 26). 2004. they experience uncomfortable feelings of fear and abruptly change behaviour. 81). Rather. 2. Michon (1989) noted that most studies attempting to support the RHT deal with data only at the aggregate level. increasing safety margins” (Brown & Noy.2 Zero Risk Theory Another risk-based theory. Summala (1986) suggested that estimating time-to-collision.

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. 1997) refined his earlier theory into a hierarchical model of driver behavioural adaptation. Gregersen. 35 . Glad & Hernetkoskis. 1998. what is a virtually infinite number of roads and traffic scenarios. pre-meditated decision not to wear seatbelts. A major element in the zero risk theory was the influence of motivation. it may not manifest itself as a less cautious speed or headway choice but rather as a conscious. used to explain drivers’ tendencies to approach as closely as possible to the risk threshold. On the other hand. Meijman & Roghengatter. and when confronted with various environmental conditions or psychological processes. In an attempt to deal with this and to expand on the role of extrinsic and intrinsic motivators.3. 2002. age and social variables. The cube presented three dimensions of driver behaviour: a functional hierarchy. Reeder et al. A large number of studies show that external motives. level of psychological processing and a functional taxonomy of driving actions (see Figure 2. much of which arises from personality. 2. do appear to affect drivers’ willingness to accept risk levels that approach thresholds and. would vary depending on the combination of factors from the three dimensions. Keskinen. Hataaka. and specific driver actions. If behavioural adaptation were to take place in response to the presence of a supplementary restraint system (SRS). 1999). Summala argued that behavioural adaptation. very little if any research has been carried out with respect to intrinsic motivation.learn how to respond safety to.1). for instance. Summala (1996. as a result. their behaviour becomes less adaptive to prevailing circumstances (Delhomme & Meyer. in which he introduced a “task cube” to explain the driving process. Van der Hulst. 1996. such as time pressure.

Rothengatter (2002) questioned the concept of a hierarchy. 15).1: Task Cube (from Summala. seemingly concurrently.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. 1996) Keskinen et al. Headway control Obstacle avoidance Crossing management Passing and other maneuvers FUNCTIONAL TAXONOMY Figure 2. pointing out that a task hierarchy assumes that successful completion of the task at a lower level is required for successful performance of a higher-level task. but that is not 36 . a property absent within the task cube concept. 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. for example. (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. Even though it is true that the performance on one task can bear consequences for the performance for the other. criticised the model for being overly complicated and resembling “more a description or a list of important variables than a solid model” (p. at the same time. Automated) Navigation Speed and time control Guidance Vehicle control Lane keeping etc.

affective states).. Fuller argued that loss of control occurs when task demands exceed drivers’ capabilities. 2. 1976) by proposing that drivers attempt to match task demands with their capability to maintain control. either by modifying task demand or by altering their capability.g.sufficient reason to presume they are two distinct levels of the same task rather than two different tasks (p.1). Safety Compensatory action by others Crash! Capability (C) Loss of control C>D Control C<D Task Demands (D) Safety Figure 2. Most of the time.3. high speeds. 2000) 37 . Fuller (2000. drivers are able to manage the interface between demands and capabilities (see Figure 2.2: Task-Capability Theory (after Fuller. 2005) integrated competing components of the RHT (Wilde. However. unexpected changes in task demand (decreased visibility. this becomes more difficult when factors external to the driving task (e.6 Task Capability Interface (TCI) Theory In perhaps the most ambitious of the leading driving behaviour theories. 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. 1988) and the zero risk theory (Näätänen & Summala. Loss of control occurs at the point where capability is less than that required to carry out the task safely. 252). 1982.

Since 1985. Intention is determined by the summed effects of: (a) attitudes toward the behaviour. objects. time pressure). 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. 1985. 1991). Intention is the cognitive representation of an individual’s readiness to engage in a given behaviour. people’s behaviour is determined by their intention to perform the behaviour.Fuller’s theory has. It generally refers to the thoughts and feelings that impel us to behave in one way and not in another” (Parker.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. been regarded as potentially more productive than earlier risk-based theories. 40). 2. p. Fishbein & Ajzen. Langdridge (2004) describes the theory of reasoned action as one of the most important theories in attitude-behaviour research. traffic psychology has seen a resurgence of interest in the role played by attitudes. the notion of matching competence with task demand promises to be very useful in understanding driver behaviour.3. 2004. Two limitations have been noted. and is considered to be the immediate antecedent of behaviour. such that it is not capability but perceived capability that interfaces with task demand. however. subjective norms and behavioural intentions can be used to predict behaviour. 1985. According to the TRA. 126). 1975) and the subsequent theory of planned behaviour (TPB: Ajzen.3. (2004) have argued that it is deserving of more attention than it has received to date. neither of which was originally intended as a way of explaining driver behaviour. generally referring to a positive or negative 38 . Rothengatter (2002) has stressed that the perception of capability is often influenced by external factors (impairment. largely due to the focus that has been provided by the theory of reasoned action (TRA. p. 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. providing an account of the way in which attitudes.6.7 Attitude-behaviour Theories 2. institutions or issues (Chaplin. Generally. for the most part. and Keskinen et al. emotional state.

however (Sharma & Kanekar. According to the TPB.7. “Even very mundane activities.2 Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) Complications hindered the application of the TRA in circumstances where behaviours were not fully under volitional control. 1985. which can usually be performed (or not performed) at will. behavioural intention is the result of attitudes (“do I feel like this is a good thing to do?”). 2007). This extended framework was introduced as the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB. Ajzen and Fishbein (2000) argued that intention is the best predictor of behaviour.judgement with respect to behavioural performance (“accelerating to pass through a cross-junction against an amber light is bad/good”). subjective norms (“do others feel this is a good thing for me to do?”). p. denoting the subjective degree of control which individuals perceive themselves having over the performance of a behaviour. he incorporated the concept of “perceived behavioural control” (PBC). see Figure 2. 24). To deal with this uncertainty. 39 .” (Azjen. are sometimes subject to the influence of factors beyond one’s control. and a meta-analysis carried out by Sheppard. Hartwick and Warshaw (1988) found that the theory had strong predictive utility. 2.2).3. and perceived control (“do I really believe that I can do this?”). 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”). such that every intended behaviour is a goal whose attainment is subject to some degree of uncertainty. then.

The TPB has spawned a huge body of research. 40 . to the extent to which PBC reflects an individual’s level of actual control. PBC is considered a determinant of both the individual’s intentions and the individual’s behaviour. 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. In one study. when intention is held constant. greater perceived control (i.. including driving and “it has to be admitted that the theory of planned behaviour has stood up well. creating a proxy effect that increases the likelihood that behaviour will be successfully performed. 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. it will directly influence behaviour (Armitage & Christian. p. 253). 1989) Within the theory. Further. Its inclusion as a predictor of behaviour is premised on the notion that. on the performance of a wide range of behaviours.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.3: Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen. A belief that the described violations were not all that serious (attitudes).e. 2002. 2003). or sense of self-efficacy. 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. stronger feelings that “I can do it”) will heighten an individual’s confidence level.

Austin and Carson (2002). Attitude toward speeding.4 2. there has been no shortage of empirically-based models that show statistical relationships between specific variables related to given situations. (2005) in their Malaysian study (see sect. 2002). 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. vehicles. while Rautela and Pant (2007) modelled crash risk on mountain roads in India using geographical information system (GIS) data. Wállen Warner and Åberg (2006) used structural equation modelling to predict drivers’ everyday speeding behaviour using the TPB as a frame of reference.1. Gross Domestic Product per capita and alcohol consumption.2. Edwards (1996) developed a spatial model. This might be seen as evidence of the proxy effect earlier described by Armitage and Christian (2002).In another study.1 Descriptive Models of Driver Behaviour Statistical Models If traffic psychology lacks a general unified theory of driving behaviour. they found that real GDP per capita was related to the number of crashes.2). Scuffham (2003) used a different approach to model the changes in seasonal patterns of fatal crashes in New Zealand according to unemployment rate. Similar to later findings by Law et al. 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. to predict weather-related crashes in England and Wales. A large number of studies have reported epidemiological characteristics of drivers. but after controlling for distance travelled. based on data extracted from police record forms. 2. it was not significant (Scuffham & Langley.4. pedestrians and road environments in a range of 41 . for instance. roadway configuration and crossing design were weighted. subjective norms and PBC were all significant determinants of self-reported speeding. 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.

and have proposed expanding the matrix to better provide for the analysis of inter-relationships between each of the four basic elements. however. Nguntra. One way of accomplishing this may be through the creation of models that stress the mediational role played by certain V. R.. Koonchote & Tantiratna. concealing the interactions that underlie the behaviour of real traffic systems (Noy. some researchers have argued that the Haddon Matrix is limited by the way it considers each element independently.4). More recently. within specific situational contexts. Law. 1994).2. 1997) 42 .2 Process Models 2. Swaddiwudhipong. Richardson & Downe. 2000). 1997. E and especially H factors. the road (R) and the environment (E). Mahasakpan. 1998. Seow & Lim. Haddon (1970) proposed a framework in which each of these elements could be examined as part of an analytical matrix (see Figure 2.1 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).g. 1999).4. 2.locations and settings (e. the vehicle (V).4. This model has been instrumental in stimulating research designs and accident interventions for the last thirty yeasrs (Williams.4: The Haddon Matrix (Noy. PRE-CRASH CRASH POST-CRASH BASIC ELEMENTS OF A HIGHWAY EVENT Human (H) Vehicle (V) Road (R) Environment (E) Figure 2.

reckless lane transitions or overtaking. Factors within the distal context include not only road. it may influence crash risk through some other. 283). age. contribute directly to crash outcomes. are affected by specific or collective factors from the distal context and. (1993) discussed the problem of choosing predictor variables in studies of behavioural and personality influences on road-traffic crash risk. on the other hand.g. it may happen to correlate with some other factor that influences crash risk but play no role itself. speeding. the proximal context is made up of driver behaviours and attitudes (e. sensation seeking.5). Personality factors within the 43 . there are four possible explanations: the behavioural measure may directly influence crash risk. arguing that: Correlational studies suffer from the inescapable problem that causality cannot be established. substance abuse) that.2. 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. or crash risk may influence the behavioural measure (p. extraversion. when one observes a correlation between a behavioural measure and crash risk.2.. on one hand. driving experience) and psychological characteristics (e. vehicle and environmental conditions related to accident causation but a range of driver demographic (e. aggression).g. 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.. Therefore. more proximal variable. gender. Within the generic model. By contrast..g. relevant factors are grouped as occurring within either the distal context or the proximal context of the accident (see Figure 2.4. as well.2 A Contextual Mediated Model of Personality and Behavioural Predictors of Motor Vehicle Crashes Elander et al.

DISTAL CONTEXT  Road and vehicle condition  Demographic characteristics   Culture-specific factors. 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. it would be expected that relationships between the distal and proximal contexts would be stronger than those between the proximal context and crash outcomes. 2003) 44 . PROXIMAL CONTEXT  Safety skills  Aberrant driving behaviors  Violations  Errors  Speeding  Drinking and driving  Dysfunctional drinking e.5: Contextual Mediated Model of Personality. choice of preferred speed and dysfunctional drinking habits – and on the frequency of self-reported accidents. risk taking.g. psychological symptoms. Variables within the distal context would be expected to affect accident frequency indirectly and through their relationships with measures of proximal behaviour factors. Behavioural Predictors and Motor Vehicle Crashes (from Sümer. Sümer examined the effect of three distal elements – sensation seeking. depression. sensation seeking. hostility and psychoticism) – both on three proximal elements – aberrant driving behaviour. As such. e. cultural driving habits and beliefs  Relatively stable personality characteristics.g. aggression  Attributions regarding CRASH OUTCOMES accidents  Fatalism  Enforcement Figure 2. aggression and psychological symptoms (anxiety.distal context were assumed to be capable of creating generalized tendencies that increased risks of accidents within behavioural variables measured within the proximal context.

proximal variables (including safety skill levels.3 Core Concepts in the Contextual Mediated Model: Moderation and Mediation Inter-variable relationships within the contextual mediated model can have direct. Also termed intervening variables. If. such that path c′ is zero. 45 . Regression analyses can be used to test these causal paths to the outcome variable. Heppner & Mallinckrodt. mediators are variables that represent constructs proposed to explain the association between two variables (Hoyle & Robinson. 2006). 2004) and a distinction can be drawn between partial mediation and complete mediation (Wei. then the significance level of path c would be reduced to insignificance or a less significant level (path c’). while path a represents the effect of X on some mediator variable.2. process or transformation exists through which one variable influences another (Frazier. Tix and Barron.6(ii) illustrates the basic causal chain involved in mediation. for instance. then it can be concluded that complete mediation occurs. In Figure 2.6(i). In the case where X no longer affects Y after M has been controlled. called the outcome.4. 1986). 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. in which there are two causal paths feeding into the outcome variable: path c′ depicts the direct effect of X on Y. M. Mediation can be said to occur when some mechanism. moderating or mediating effects.2. the variable X is called the initial or predictor variable and it causes the variable Y. In Sümer’s (2003) generic contextual mediated model. 2003). which in turn exerts an effect on Y through path b (Baron & Kenny. driver propensities to commit errors or violations. drivers’ safety skills were a mediator of the effects of personality or cultural background on crash frequency. 2004). driver impairment and so on) were hypothesised to mediate the effect of distal variables on the frequency or likelihood of crash outcomes.

1986). Only if the interaction (path c) is significant. and the interaction or product of these two (path c). the impact of a moderator (path b). can the moderator hypothesis be concluded as supported (Baron & Kenny.7): the impact of a predictor. there are three causal paths that can effect the outcome.(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. these are not directly relevant conceptually to testing the moderator hypothesis. or independent variable (path a). or dependent. Baron and Kenny have further added that although the predictor and moderator can have significant effects on the outcome variable. variable (see Figure 2. or testing the moderating effect.6: Inter-variable Relationships in Mediation Models In contrast. a moderating variable is one that has a strong contingent effect on the relationship between independent and dependent variable (Sekaran. 2003). 46 .

mostly from taxi and heavy trucking. He examined their effects on three proximal variables: aberrant driving behaviour (violations. anger).Predictor Variable X a Moderator Z b Y Outcome Variable c Predictor X Moderator Figure 2. In turn. However.4 Studies of Driving Behaviour Using the Contextual Mediated Model In his initial study. and non-professional students who were mostly students. the effects of the proximal variables on the number of crashes experienced within a three-year period was examined. errors). dangerous drinking). Sümer also find that aberrant driving behaviour. he found that.7: Inter-variable Relationships in Moderation Model 2. choice of speed and alcohol use (antisocial drinking. more relevant to the model he proposed. a proximal variable significantly mediated the relationship between the three distal variables and the frequency of crashes. A number of questions may be raised about Sümer’s (2003) analysis. hostility. Using structured equation modelling.4. anxiety. No attempt was made to differentiate between these two groups. intensity) and aggression (physical aggression. Sümer (2003) identified three classes of distal variables: psychological symptoms (depression. they did have a significant association with both dysfunctional alcohol use and aberrant driving behaviours. hostility. His sample of 321 participants combined both professional drivers. sensationseeking and risk-taking (novelty. given wide 47 . while psychological factors did not predict speed choice. verbal aggression. Further.2. psychoticism).

personality model (Costa & McRae. violations) and the outcome measure was expanded to include the self-reported number of crashes and traffic offences committed over a three-year period. Sümer’s decision to use self-report data is subject to the usual validity considerations raised by several authors (af Wahlberg.variation in the number of kilometres driven annually by participants (SD = 14. extraversion (interpersonal warmth. 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. responsibility. or “Big Five”. Sümer’s model construction might also be questioned. al. in most cases. for high-λ individuals. 2005. while it has been accepted since the early accident proneness studies of the IFRB that crash frequency. conscientiousness (dependability. 2002. 2003. Day. the distal factors were: neuroticism (a tendency to experience negative affect and anxiety). Lajunen and Özkan (2005). including the three-year time-frame over which drivers were asked to report crash occurrence. The proximal factor was again aberrant driving behaviour (errors. trust). a negative-binomial distribution (Greenwood & Woods. Notwithstanding these methodological considerations. Edward. Finally.. lapses. 1920). 1990) to a similar analysis. applied the five factor. sensation seeking patterns. broad-mindedness). Greenwood & Yule. (1993) and others. Watson. Arthur. Results indicated that all five of the personality factors had indirect effects on crash risk through their effects on 48 . 1998). In a subsequent study. tends to fit a Poisson distribution or. Tubré & Tubré. Here. Sümer. 1919. It is questionable whether crash details can be recalled accurately for up to 36 months and requires the assumption that the psychological characteristics. 1993). sensation seeking). 1995. self-discipline) and openness (adventurousness. agreeableness (helpfulness. it was somewhat surprising that no attempt was made to control for differing levels of traffic exposure.739). in that the standard multivariate correlation methods applied as part of his LISREL analysis assumed a normal distribution of crash frequency scores. as recommended by Elander et al. Elander et. McRae &Costa. 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. Bell.

The authors recommended that “the contextual model should be refined considering other potential mediators. some researchers have worked with models that are conceptually consistent with the contextual mediated model. prior to the present one. self esteem. while the risky driving variables had strong and significant effects on accident involvement. for instance used the concept to examine predictors of psychological distress following the 1999 earthquake in Turkey. anxiety. Karanci. Sümer and Erol (2005) found that a contextual mediated model was successful in showing relationships between distal and proximal predictors of depression. perceived threat and gender on distress levels were partially or fully mediated by individuals’ feelings of coping self-efficacy. optimism.4. moderators and bidirectional associations between personality and accident involvement to better understand the underlying mechanisms” (p. 49 . proximal behavioural variables mediated personality factors. Both studies were concluded to have demonstrated support for the use of the contextual mediated model. They found that the effect of proximal variables. reported that driver anger. using a similar research design. navy.aberrant driving behaviours.5 Use of the Contextual Mediated Model in Other Research Sümer’s model has been applied outside the traffic psychology domain. phobia. In other words. material loss. yielding support for the contextual mediated model. Iverson and Rundmo (2002). Sümer. Berument and Gunes (2005). Although no other studies of driving behaviour. but weaker significant effects on self-reported accident involvement. Bilgic. psychotic tendencies and psychosomatic complaints among a large sample of noncommissioned officers in the Turkish army. hostility. for instance. air force and gendarmerie. In another study. within Sümer’s contextual mediated model) had direct effects on measures of more proximal risky driving tendencies. Sümer.2. 2. have acted on those recommendations. 225). sensation seeking and normlessness (all of which which might be classified as distal. including perceived control.

1. 2007) 2.8: Proposed Contextual Mediated Model for Safety Research in Agriculture (from Downe. 1995).... they have been less well studied than other groups and the general understanding of age effects is not clear. 1997. 2002.5.g. in a study of safety training methods and personality factors in Malaysian rubber and palm oil plantations. 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.5.1 Age Young drivers are significantly over-represented among those injured or killed in road traffic crashes (Ballesteros & Dischinger. Weinstein & Solomon. Yet.g. proposed the use of a contextual mediated model for further research on agricultural safety (see Figure 2. 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. Williams & Shabanova. Not only are they the most likely age group to be involved in crashes. Retting. heterogeneity in group composition: Part of this may be due to 50 .1 Distal Variables in the Present Study Demographic Variables 2. but young drivers are more likely to sustain crash-related injuries and to die in vehicular crashes (Massie.5 2.8). Type A. Odero et al.Downe (2007). uncertainty avoidance)  temperamental factors (e. 2003). Campbell & Williams. 2003.

In fact. 2007).The “young” category typically ranges from 16 to 25. for these difficulties. However. This was consistent with many other studies in which young drivers tended to overestimate their own skills and under-estimate crash risk (Dewar. in which they believed that they were better drivers and luckier in avoiding crashes. The factors of driving style and driving skill may account. 2002a.to 29-year old drivers in New Zealand and found a marked crash-risk optimism. Moscati. 221). drive while fatigued. overtake dangerously. 1986). Jonah. the contrary appears to be true. this is a reflection of lifestyle. specifically more likely to drive too fast. irresponsibility and driving related aggression. and by high levels of sensation-seeking. Jehle. 2001. The former is less experienced at driving. McDonald (1994) reported 51 . less experienced with the use of alcohol and has different social and motivational needs that may contribute to risk taking on the road.. 1997b. Matthews & Moran. The problems encountered by novice drivers are often attributed to age and inexperience together. follow too closely. p. are more likely to engage in alcohol use when driving and are less likely to use seatbelts when compared to other drivers (Lerner. comfort eating and time spent in non-organised activities with friends. Billittier. in many cases. not all young new drivers are alike (Dewar. at least in part. Vassallo et al. Bina. but there are a great many differences between a 17-year-old and a 23-year-old driver. Ulleberg (2004) found that drivers reporting higher preference for risk-taking were also characterised by low levels of altruism and anxiety. Graziano and Bonino (2006) have argued that. less emotionally mature. 2002a. Several reasons have been proposed for high age-related crash risk levels. Harré. Foster and O’Neill (2005) studied self-rated driving attributes of 16. tobacco smoking. Connery & Stiller. 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. Younger drivers tend to have a riskier driving style than others.

2007). 74 per cent had seen tem drive while very happy or excited (strong positive emotions). 1999. and that young drivers. angry or sad (strong negative emotions). Since many of the violations commonly committed by younger drivers – speeding. Young drivers may also be more prone to drive under the influence of strong emotional states. and 55 per cent had seen them exhibit behaviour described as “road rage” (Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and State Farm Insurance. so they have little spare attentional capacity” (p. 76 per cent had seen peers drive while very upset stressed. Justification of age-related hypotheses. age was hypothesized to interact with emotional states such as hopelessness and aggression. In the present study. Since previous research had highlighted the association between age. 2002). since safe driving among younger drivers has been shown to be more prone to the effects of emotional states. indirectly. risky driving and crash frequency (Lourens. capable of distracting attention from driving and increasing crash occurrence. as age decreased.that young drivers are less skilful in vehicle control tasks than older drivers. particularly with respect to controlling deviations. This means that “young drivers must devote a greater proportion of their attentional resources to conscious decision making and monitoring their driving. 52 .39). behaviour in traffic would become less safe and crash occurrence would be more likely. In a nation-wide survey of American teens. They have generally lower skill levels in acquiring and integrating information. and have poor information processing and attention-switching skills. Similarly. particularly under conditions of heightened emotionality. managing velocity and regulating acceleration. Stevenson et al. Ulleberg. they have cognitive schemata that are inaccurate and relatively undetailed. (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. on crash and injury occurrence. age was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. Vissers & Jessurun. are like to perceive the driving task with overconfidence and inadequate attention to risk. it was hypothesised in the present study that.

Hasselberg and Laflamme (2006) analysed Swedish police records and found the same ratio. 129). reported that crash incidence for men in the United States was nearly double that of women.failure to use seat-belts. and so on – were associated with greater risk of injury. Laapotti and Keskinen (1998) showed that when male drivers lost control of their motorcar. 2004. However. with respect to both driving behaviour and to crash involvement. Marked differences also occur between the genders in terms of the number of fatalities. MacGregor. Dewar (2002b) stated that “some of the reasons for this are obvious – men drive greater distances. it was also hypothesised that.. Raghunathan and Little (2001) noted that. for instance. Elliott. There appear to be differences in the types of crashes experienced. Kuhn and Layde (2001) found. self-reported injury would also increase. more often at hazardous times (e. as well.g.5. and behaviours predictive of fatalities. that males were significantly more likely to be involved in a loss-of-control accident. for instance. rush hour) and in hazardous conditions (e. as age decreased.1. p. darkness)” (p. it 53 . found that men had twice as high a risk as women of being involved in a motor vehicle crash during the late night hours. Smiley and Lee-Gosselin (1992). “In all studies and analyses. Shope.2 Gender A large number of studies have found differences between males and females. Åkerstedt and Kecklund (2001). Monárrez-Espino. This gender difference is most marked in the population under 25 years. Chipman. 2. men have been shown to have a higher rate of crashes than women. Tavris. male drivers incur their first crash earlier in their driving careers and are more likely to be held to blame for the incident. in addition to having a higher number of crashes. Waller.g. for instance.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. but is also evident among older drivers” (Social Issues Research Centre [SIRC]. Williams and Shabanova (2003) found that young American males were significantly more likely than young females to be responsible for crash deaths. without exception.

Dobson. in a sample taken in the U. 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. Neighbors and Donovan (2007). 525526). This is important. for instance. 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. reported more traffic citations and injuries. Brown. Welsh. Flyte & Garner. Ball. While there is much of value in such an approach. 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. Woodcock.usually led to a single-vehicle crash. to date. Male drivers drove too fast and under the influence of alcohol more often in loss-of-control crashes. Laapotti and Keskinen (2004a) indicated that. (b) females drive increasingly more. state of Washington. At the same time. (a) the number of female drivers is increasing. Lenard. Female drivers’ loss-of-control crashes usually took place under slippery road conditions and were more likely due to deficient vehicle handling skills. as marked changes in the roles of women in society have profound implications for the design of transportation systems (Waller. which typically took place during evenings and nights. worldwide. 2001). but for female drivers the loss of control usually resulted in a collision with another car. 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. found that while male drivers. they did not differ from female drivers in reported driving 54 .S. Lonczak. 1997. and (c) female drivers are involved in more motor vehicle crashes than ever before.

2003). Linderholm and Järmark (1998) reviewed studies dating from 1970 to 1984 and compared them to results obtained between 1985 and 1997. Laapotti and Keskinen (2004b) provided evidence in support of this view. Lourens et al. indirectly. commenting that “despite the fact that there has been a massive shift in the population of women drivers. 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. crash frequency and risky or aggressive driving behaviour (Monárrez-Espino. control of traffic situations. Laapotti.anger. on the other hand. Turner & McClure. alcohol consumption and for risky driving. gender was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. (1998) and Laapotti and Keskinen (2004). In a study of male and female drivers in Finland. et al. evaluated their driving skill lower.. had proportionally more crashes connected to inadequate vehicle manoeuvring. In other research. as per the traditional pattern. Waylen and Burke (1998) disagreed. Keskinen and Rajalin (2003) reported that Finnish females in 2001 drove less than males. committed fewer traffic offences and had a more positive attitude toward traffic safety and rules than males. on crash and injury occurrence. 2006. there is little evidence that the sex difference in the pattern of accident involvement is changing over the years” (p. Since previous research had highlighted the association between males. (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. it was hypothesised that males and females would differ on measures of behaviour in traffic. 55 . In a subsequent report. In the present study. and loss-of-control incidents. Forward. were less frequently involved in crash situations. McKenna. involved in proportionally more crashes connected to speeding. Justification of gender-related hypotheses. In a study of Dutch drivers. 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. showing that male drivers were. just as they had in 1978. though. Female drivers. 11). Consistent with the findings of McKenna et al.

1. Romano. Conducting curb-side inspections of taxicabs in Kuala Lumpur. for instance.3 Ethnicity A growing number of studies have examined the effect of ethnic differences on driving behaviour and crash outcomes. reported few differences between Australians and Finns. Lezotte and Lowenstein (2000) compared Hispanic and non-Hispanic white motorists in the state of Colorado. 2005). In one of the few studies reported. Levine. On the other hand. traffic safety regulations and traffic fatalities. But.S. Garrett. Goldweig and Warren. Marine. Lajunen. Corry. finding that the former group had higher fatality rates. that expanded the standards for collection of data on race and ethnicity in 1999 (Briggs. Despite the fact that countries’ regulatory frameworks were becoming increasingly similar. Hauswald (1999) studied the incidence of covert non-compliance with seat belt regulations among Malaysian taxi drivers.2. this has been the result of a change in reporting protocols within the U. more frequent histories of speeding offences and more extreme alcohol use. he found that 60% of drivers had positioned belts or shoulder straps in a manner that appeared to 56 . Being a non-wealthy Catholic country was associated with higher fatality rates than being a wealthy Catholic country. Very little cross-cultural research related to traffic safety has been carried out in Southeast Asia. differences in fatalities persisted. Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS). Summala and Hartley (1998). Schlundt. Melinder concluded that the type of religion and wealth were important distal factors. lower rates of safety belt use. Tippetts and Voas (2005) found no differences between African-American.5. Harper. A few studies have endeavoured to compare national driving cultures in terms of crash risk. To a large degree. being a wealthy Catholic country was associated with more traffic fatalities than were wealthy. Haliburton. nonCatholic countries. Melinder (2007) compared 15 Western European countries with regard to the relation between different sociocultural factors. White and Hispanic drivers regarding red light violations.

cultural differences can be more subtle. 2000. 1999). While religious affiliation. filial piety. Fatalistic. humility. Justification of ethnic difference hypotheses. brotherhood/sisterhood. ethnic-Chinese and ethnic-Indian (Williamson. regional distribution and socioeconomic status differs considerably between the three groups (Gomez. harmony with nature. 2005). Family centeredness. In a study of 324 employees sampled from a cross-section of Malaysian industries. Spirituality. respect for elders. Chinese-Malaysian Pre-determined future. The Malaysian population is comprised of three distinct ethnic groups: Malay. piety. Table 2. in fact.have them restrained but had not fastened the latch. Indian-Malaysian Pre-determination. family honour. face saving. prosperity.3: Key Value Clusters for Each Malaysian Ethnic Group Key Value Orientations Man’s relationship with God. Strong relationship orientation. hierarchical. respect for knowledge. Conscious of what other people say about us. hard work. However. polite behaviour. on crash and injury occurrence. Indirect communication. shame-driven.. Malay Differences have not always been consistent. Based on studies that have demonstrated ethnic differences in driving behaviour (Harper et al. courtesy. Fontaine and Richardson (2005) found that 82% of values were shared by all three ethnic groups. Strong relationship orientation. Roman et al.. dependence on family for direction in social and career decisions. respect for elders.2). Abdullah and Peterson (2003) have outlined value orientations for each ethnic group (see Table 2. Karma. They concluded that there were. indirectly. prosperity and integrity. it was hypothesised that ethnicity would have a significant effect on 57 . cooperation. Education. there was no statistical differences between ethnic groups in the frequency of this practice. gender was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. 1999). In the present study. few significant value differences between ethnic groups. religion. peace. respect for elders. family ties.

On the other hand. with different weather conditions.5.1 Experience Driver experience makes a difference in crash risk. and indicating that those recording higher mileage per year have fewer accidents per mile (Pelz & Schuman. passenger distractions different vehicles. etc. 2001). increased experience usually.5. such as driving at different times of the day or days of the week. in a given road and traffic scenario. or (d) not have had enough experience of dealing safety with the effects of human factors on their performance (Fuller.behaviour in traffic. A large number of studies have shown that. and as such. as drivers become more experienced. Given the absence of relevant prior research on Malaysian cultural groups. Keskinen. the motorist is less likely to encounter situations very different from those they have encountered before (p. they are less likely to make errors and commit violations that result in crashes (e. Laapotti. 166). allows many otherwise incompatible tasks to be performed together.2 Driver Characteristics 2. 1995. implies the driver has had a broader variety of driving experiences. 2002). 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 . Lajunen & Summala.2. As experience grows. Groeger (2000) reviewed the reasons for this: … the weight of practice more experienced drivers have makes much of what they do routine. journey lengths. (c) not have had enough practice in carrying out the manoeuvre correctly. inexperienced drivers may (a) not know the correct manoeuvre so they try a different manoeuvre which turns out to be unsafe.g. (b) not know how to carry out a particular manoeuvre correctly. although not always. Allied to this. Hatakka and Katila.. 1971). 2. directionality of the effect was not predicted.

Internal models have connections to motivational and emotional systems of the driver. 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. It assumes that. Hatakka. 1996. When using those at the top of the hierarchy. and sometimes confounded by gender differences. experience effects have not been controlled (Rothengatter. in many studies of age and gender differences. as young drivers generally have less experience than their older counterparts. Yet. as well as knowledge of risk elements and a cognitive map of control equipment in the vehicle and how it behaves. 2000) The effects of driving experience and age are closely linked. Internal models contain knowledge of route. and can be organised in a hierarchy that reflects the key purposes. 2004). environment. When drivers tap into models at the base of cognitive hierarchy. Experience can be gained through personal participation in traffic as a driver and through observing the behaviour of others. 2001). as individuals acquire experience.by Keskinen. they take actions based on whether they are perceived to reflect lifestyle priorities and values.9).9: Hierarchical Levels of Driving Behaviour (after Keskinen. or most important facets of driving at different levels (see Figure 2. including start and destination point and corresponding visual scenes. they tend to priortise conscious control of the vehicle over other elements of the driving experience. Hataaka and Katila (1992). 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. 59 . social context company MASTERING TRAFFIC SITUATIONS  Adapting to the demands of the present situation VEHICLE MANOEUVRING  Controlling speed. direction and position Figure 2. but also through verbal and pictorial description or by imagining the course of traffic events (Keskinen et al.

on the other hand. Studies of crash predictors among professional drivers have been undertaken for over fifty years (e. Young novice 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. 1949. 1948.and medium-severity traffic violation penalties as unjust than are non-professional drivers (Rosenbloom & Shahar. While motivational and differing skill levels are also important predictors of professional drivers’ crash risk. age and gender on motor vehicle crash risk. One way to understand experience effects is to study occupations for which driving is an important work component. Driving experience was considered a distal variable that would have an 60 . showed more problems than males connected to the lower cognitive levels of the driving hierarchy. Brown & Ghiselli. Ghiselli & Brown. and that taxicab drivers are more likely to regard low. (2001) used the cognitive framework to explain the differing effects of experience. was used in this study. Mintz. such as problems in vehicle handling skills. 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.. for instance. was inversely correlated with driving experience and numbers of accidents witnessed. frequently showing that they are lest frequently involved in motor vehicle crashes than other classes of drivers. found that risk taking within a sample of 130 drivers of minibus taxis in the Pietersburg area of the Republic of South Africa. Justification of driver experience hypotheses. the number of years since a driving licence was first obtained. 2004). 1954). and especially young male drivers.Laapotti et al. Peltzer and Renner (2003). all of which were seen to reflect deficient self-control and lifestyle management abilities. many studies have focused on the effects of experience. showed more problems connected to showing off driving skills to peers. taking risks and consuming alcohol or drugs. 2007). They found that young drivers failed in applying both lower and higher models of the hierarchy than did middle-aged drivers.g. Female novice drivers. A simple measure of driving experience. explained because adult identity is still under construction so life goals and living skills are still under development.

on crash and injury occurrence. crash risk is affected greatly by the time of day when.5. 2. driving occurs (Dewar. All of these will affect the likelihood of crash involvement. but measuring exposure is not always as simple a matter as computing asking for an estimate of distance travelled per unit time (Evans. Based on research indicating that more experienced drivers tend to have fewer crashes (Lajunen & Summala. McKenna. the concept is much less well developed. it was hypothesised that driving experience would have a significant effect on behaviour in traffic scores. Duncan & Brown. 1971). the miles they drive. indirectly. 1984). 2001. for instance.2 Driving Frequency and Traffic Exposure Many authors have discussed the effect of traffic exposure on crash risk and outcomes (Evans. Generally. 1984. (1993) noted that: People vary in the time they spend on the road. 1995. Second. Elander et al.effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. 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. and type of route where. technical or legal changes relating to road safety. 1993).2. 1986. First. Pelz & Schuman. In individual differences research.. the more one is going to be exposed to traffic situations in which a crash could occur. and the traffic conditions to which they are exposed. showed that the risk of crash involvement is five to ten times higher during late night 61 . Wilde. Åkerstedt and Kecklund (2001). 282). 1991). with greater experience associated with safer self-reported behaviour. and the problem of taking adequate account of individuals’ exposure to risk is only beginning to be properly addressed (p. Rothengatter. 2002a). it is accepted that the more one travels. there may be considerable random or systematic error in subjective reports about distance travelled (Elander et al.

Lourens et al. Mercer (1989) showed that. there is little evidence that drivers are capable of reporting different categories of time or route conditions. however. 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. indirectly. This was taken to be representative of traffic exposure. as defined by Elander et al. In keeping with recommendations made by Elander et al. in countries like the USA. (1999) have argued that.. 62 . the resulting ‘driver records’ in combination with exposure data turn out to be the best predictors of future crashes.. female drivers came out higher in number of crashes and in some types of traffic violations. Yet. on crash and injury occurrence. Bina et al. 2003). Because of earlier trends reported by Evans (1984) and McKenna et al. (1986). 2007). with the highest incidence being between 6:00 pm and midnight. Justification of exposure hypotheses. (1997) reviewed published and unpublished reports on roadway crashes in developing countries from 1966 to 1994. a simple measure of driving frequency was used as a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. Teoh & MCartt. 2007. Odero et al. Towner and Ward. 2007. Canada and Germany where a legal penalty point system is in place to track drivers’ violations and involvement in road crashes. young male drivers were strongly over-presented in terms of both crash frequency and traffic-related fines. Ferguson. After correcting for the number of kilometres driven. Evans (1991) and others. 2006.. Christie.hours than during the forenoon. In the present study. it was hypothesised that higher levels of driving frequency would result in less risky behaviour in traffic. although much research does not (e. 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. (1993). nor are there valid category weightings that would allow the prediction of risk. and found that approximately one-third of all traffic injuries occurred during the night. Cairns. without correcting for annual mileage.g. Williams & Shabanova.

or externals .1 Locus of Control 2.5. 2006. 1981) extended this concept in two ways: first. 1975. 15). Rotter’s (1966) original I-E conceptualisation of the locus of control construct viewed it as a unidimensional. such that it could be possible for an individual to score high on all three (see Figure 2.3. she assumed that the three resulting dimensions were conceptually independent. Originally conceptualised by Rotter (1966. Stanley & Burrows. Based on this multidimensional conceptualisation.g. Levenson constructed a scale has been used widely in studies of locus of control (e. 1991. people are thought to vary on a continuum between the two extremes of external and internal locus of control.. 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. 1990). Holder & Levi. view most events as dependent on chance or controlled by powers beyond human reach. or internals.3. In contrast.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. one to reflect the influence of fate or chance (C) and the second to reflect the influence of powerful others (P). 63 .10).3 Psychological Variables 2. 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. believe that very few events are outside the realm of human influence and that even cataclysmic situations may be altered through human action.1. 1999). she separated the externality dimension into two. according to the strength of their tendencies toward making attributions of internal or external 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.5. Levenson (1975.2. Hyman.5. people who attribute behaviour to an internal locus of control. bipolar continuum along which individuals could be placed. and second.

64 .10: Contrast between Rotter’s Unidimensional and Levenson’s Multidimensional Conceptualisations of Locus of Control 2. these results supported the idea that internals would be more cautious in their control efforts while externals would engage in riskier behaviour.Chance High Low Externality – Powerful Others High Figure 2. They found that subjects with high internal control seemed to prefer intermediate probability bets or extremely safe bets over so-called long shots.1. Sinha & Watson. According to Phares (1976). 2007) and has given rise to a number of other instruments measuring multi-dimensional locus of control. E Unidimensional Model I Externalizers Individuals believe that what happens is determined by fate.2 Locus of Control and Driving Behaviour Very early studies examined a link between locus of control and risk taking.3.Luckner. 1989. Multidimensional Model Low Internality High Low Externality . They also tended to bet more on safe outcomes than did the more externally oriented subjects.5. luck. 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. Liverant and Scodel (1960) studied betting preferences using a simple dice-throwing task.

Iversen and Rundmo (2002) also failed to find an association with risky driving or crash involvement. which focused heavily on situational scenarios. believing that fate will achieve its goals no matter what the individual does (p. 1987). however. If an individual views herself or himself as being responsible for both positive and negative outcomes. 39). Serious methodological problems may have plagued this study. French & Chan. 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. 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. but results have been inconsistent. 65 . 1999). as Cronbach’s alpha values for the scales of their transitional instrument were below accepted criteria and scale content. 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. only partially represented the original locus of control concept. however. A great many studies have investigated the effects of locus of control on driving behaviour. s/he will be more likely to take precautionary measures such as wearing a seat belt and being vigilant to roadway cues. 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. According to Brown and Noy (2004). Guastello and Guastello (1986) used the Rotter (1966) locus of control scale and their own transitional instrument in a study of American college students. In a subsequent study. On the other hand.More recent studies have examined the relationship between an external locus of control and risky behaviour within driving or workplace behaviour. Other authors explained an apparent link between external locus of control and crash risk on a motivational basis (Montag & Comrey.

In an important study. The same driving skill scores were positively correlated with an internal locus of control. when Lajunen and Summala (1995) gave Finnish university students a series of questionnaires that assessed driving abilities and personality. In a meta-analysis of information-processing. rather than examining its interaction with other predictors. an internal locus of control was found to be associated with lower levels of crash involvement and with higher levels of cognitive ability. On the other hand. Hoyt (1973) reported that internals reported wearing seat belts more often and experienced highway travel as more interesting and involving. driving skills were negatively correlated with externality scores. aggressive and ordinary traffic violations and driving errors. 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. 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). leading the authors to conclude that “if a relationship exists. In a much earlier study. 1260). In a similar study investigating personality attributes and driving behaviour. although scores on externality dimensions did not relate significantly to any of those dependent variables. Gidron. although internality was unrelated to DDB. offences. cognitive. Arthur et al. They found that. Verwey and Zaidel (2000) observed that people scoring high on measures of external locus of control made more road departure errors than those scoring high on measures of with an internal locus of control. (1991) argued that these equivocal results were due to overly simple research designs which tended to investigate direct effects of locus of control. This study provided support for the view that the effects of personality traits on driving 66 . That is. (p. it strongly moderated the relationship between hostility and DDB. hostility was associated with worse DDB to a greater extent among drivers scoring low on internality than among drivers scoring high on internality. it may not be of sufficient magnitude to be of value.

Richardson and Downe (2000) and others. Parsons and Schneider (1974) administered Rotter’s (1969) I-E scale to 120 male and female students in Canada.3 Locus of Control and Ethnicity Dyal (1984) argued that post-War geopolitical expansion and a growing interest in the role of attributions. Hsieh. 2. Japanese students had significantly higher external scores than in all other countries. Crittendon (1991) found that female university students in Taiwan were more 67 . Italy.3. reinforcement and sociocultural processes created fertile ground for cross-cultural studies using the locus of control construct. US-born Chinese and Caucasian Americans). as hypothesised. moderating and mediating relationships are investigated. Japan. India. is based on the notion that … luck. chance and fate are taken for granted in life. Hong Kong Chinese students were more externally controlled on Rotter’s (1969) I-E scale. while externality scores for Indian students were significantly lower than those in France.1.behaviour can be better understood by adopting a more holistic approach in which interactions. Noting that Chinese culture. This point had also been argued earlier by Arthur et al. Israel. which is considered to be full of ambiguity. Their results. France. complexity and unpredictability. Noy (1997). Germany. More recent research has continued to find differences in locus of control between cultures and between sub-groups within cultures. after correction for differences in socioeconomic status. whereas Americans scored high on internal control and Chinese-Americans were somewhere in-between. Shybut and Lotsof (1969) sampled three groups of high school students (Hong Kong Chinese. with situation-centred Confucian foundations. 122).5. (1991). Life situations may be viewed as being largely determined by circumstances outside personal control (p. In very early research. indicated that. and the USA. Canada and Japan.

ingratiation and bribery found in India requires effort. Indian students were more external than Canadians on personal control factors. Chinese and Indian ethnic groups were found. In very early research.externally-controlled and more self-effacing than either American females or Taiwanese males. a finding Carment interpreted as reflecting greater dependency on and conformity within the somewhat indulgent and closely-connected Indian family structure. all internal characteristics. He attributed this to the belief that dealing with widespread nepotism. but all three groups differed from the sample drawn in China. No published accounts of research conducted in Malaysia with regard to locus of control differences among members of Malay. they found that the three ethnic groups in Singapore had greater commonalities in the measured personality constructs than Singaporean-Chinese subjects had with the normative sample. Chinese of Malay extraction. This was very true for the locus of control variable. At the same time. only Cheung. due largely to high scores on items measuring political ideology and social system control. skill and ability. Howard and Lim (2006) have offered research evidence related to cross-cultural differences in locus of control within Malay. 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. and this was provided as part of a larger study comparing Singaporean ethnic groups to a Chinese normative sample from the People’s Republic of China. To the author’s knowledge. where no significant differences were found between those of Indian. 68 . Chinese and Indian populations. although there were no differences in internality nor externality involving powerful others. Using an English version of the Cross-Cultural Chinese Personality Assessment Inventory (CPAI-2). Cheung. 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.

Özkan & Lajunen. In the present study. 1995. First. 1975). 2007. Fox & Klerman. indirectly. 1987. Montag & Comrey. McMillan. 1997. on crash and injury occurrence. hopelessness has been consistently shown to be a predictor of suicidal intent (Beck. (2003). 2005). 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. it was hypothesised that internality would have a negative association with unsafe behaviour in traffic. Pentilla and Lonnqvist (1997) studied all fatal car crashes in Finland from 1987 to 1991 and found that 5. without objective basis. anticipate a negative outcome to any attempts that may be made to attain the individual’s major objectives or goals (Beck. given the large number of studies indicating ethnic differences in locus of control (Crittendon. Ohberg. locus of control was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and.9% could be classified as having an intentional suicidal component. it was hypothesised that locus of control would moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic. Weissman. it was hypothesised that Chinese participants would tend toward higher externality scores while Indian participants would tend toward higher internality. Cases usually 69 . 2. Hopelessness has not been previously studied as a predictor either of driving behaviour or of crash risk. Sinha & Watson.Justification of hypotheses about locus of control. et al. Niméus. 2007).5. Träskman-Bendz & Alsén. Kovacs and Weissman. 1991. 1975. while the two dimensions of externality would have positive associations. Based on the findings reported by Gidron et al.2 Hopelessness Rothengatter (2002) and Groeger (1997) have both noted the paucity of research on affect and driver behaviour. Gilbody.3. Given the strong research evidence suggesting an association between internal locus of control and less risky driving behaviour (Lajunen & Summala. Beresford & Neilly. but there are two conceptual arguments for doing so. Finally. Personality traits closely aligned with given mood states might well be expected to have an impact on the performance on driving tasks. 1973).

1962). They also classified a group of drivers whose highly negligent actions. including risky driving. whose crashes had resulted from extreme risks. usually when impaired by alcohol or drug use. have proposed that potentially self-destructive behaviours. 1990. mental disorders and alcohol misuse. 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 fact. for instance. 1962). in which hopelessness plays a significant part. Chioqueta and Stiles (2005) showed that hopelessness in Norwegian university students was positively predicted by high scores in neuroticism and depression.. assertiveness and positive emotion. In the present study. Selzer & Payne. Mendel. Firestone & Seiden. found that the most commonly reported mental state among Finnish drivers dying in crashes classified as suicidal had been “depression” and “hopeless”. Henderson. on crash and injury occurrence. locus of control and depression with university students in western Canada. 1974). 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. hopelessness has been associated with personality and behavioural factors that have been shown to be good predictors of driver behaviour and crash risk. and negatively predicted by extraversion. 1976. indirectly. hopelessness was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. Based on earlier findings about the relationship between depressive-suicidal states. finding that persons who perceived reinforcements to be a function of powerful others. it was 70 . 1998. Hernetkoski and Keskinen (1998). Very early on. chance or fate not only expressed greater pessimism about the future but were more likely to report depressive states. Prociuk. investigated the relationship between hopelessness. and crash risk (Ohberg et al. Justification of hopelessness hypotheses.involved head-on collisions between two vehicles with a large weight disparity and victims had often suffered from life-event stress. 1997. Breen and Lussier (1976). luck. Several authors. in a more detailed study. Second.

O’Connell (2002) has described the use of alcohol. there is no shortage of evidence to suggest a consistent and reliable association between aggressive driving and motor vehicle crashes (Blanchard. Wells-Parker et al. learned disinhibitory cues. 2000. learned cognitive scripts. 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. Tzamalouka. this concept became the basis for what is now known as the frustration-aggression hypothesis of aggressive driving. It was hypothesised here that hopelessness would moderate the manner in which locus of control affected behaviour in traffic. Mizell. Chapman. 2006). which acts to counter the influence of normative moral codes and to increase people’s impulsive responses to stimuli as one such disinhibitory cue.3 Aggression Since the 1980s.. Lynch & Oetting. Filetti. 2002). Although uncertainty persists as to whether road aggression is actually increasing. Demakakos. 2003. 1999) have argued that there has been a marked increase in the frequency of aggressive incidents and anger-related crashes. Novaco (1991) proposed that driver aggression is produced when environmental triggers interact with a variety of predisposing factors. Underwood.5. sparked by a number of highly publicised accounts of road rage and improved techniques for measuring anger and aggression in drivers. and deindividuation. Richards. Deffenbacher. Chliaoutaks. & Darviri. In a largely unrelated study. 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. attention to the issue of aggressive driving has grown exponentially. 2. 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. 2000. 1999.hypothesised that participants scoring high on a measure of hopelessness would be likely to engage in behaviour in traffic that was less cautious. 71 . Wright & Crundall. including subjective feelings of stress. Malta & Blanchard. Bakou. 2002. physiological arousal. While media reports and some authors (James & Nahl. Koumaki.3. Barton and Malta.

1962). More recently. Shinar (1998) argued that the frustration-aggression hypothesis provided an appropriate model for aggressive driving. cultural driving norms and situational conditions. Benjamin and Valentine (2006) conducted a meta-analysis of studies assessing personality variables and aggressive behaviour. it may equally be that the people involved would be aggressive in situations beyond driving – with driving being an opportunity for. 163). Groeger (2000). but needed to be expanded to account for the influence of personality factors such as Type A personality behaviour (TAPB). Snyder. stress induced by time pressure. They reported that trait aggressiveness and trait irritability influenced aggressive behaviour under both provoking and neutral conditions but that other personality variables.which creates a sense of anonymity and diminished personal responsibility. lack of control over events. angry thinking and trait anger influenced aggressive behaviour only under conditions in which the individual was provoked. the display of aggression (p. such as TAPB. does indeed have all the ingredients that might give rise to increased levels of anger and hostility. through the use of self-statements. and frustration of goals that comprises the driving task in the modern world. (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. Meichenbaum (1977) pioneered the use of cognitive restructuring. Schwebel et al. rather than a cause of. Bettencourt. as another. 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. Talley. However. Houston. Crowson. to better cope with stress and achieve behavioural change. 1976. raised the point that: It seems to me possible that the peculiar cocktail of personal challenge. Kurylo and Poirier (1997) created the Hostile Automatic Thoughts Scale to reflect the frequency 72 . Ellis. though. threat to own safety and self-eesteem.

2000. indirectly. aggression. 73 . of hostile automatic thought would moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic. Narda. McKee. Oetting and Swaim (2003) used the same approach to examine angry cognitions made by drivers under varying conditions of provocation.with which individuals make cognitive statements reflecting aggressive sentiments. Based on the extensive research on the association between aggression and unsafe driving behaviour (Galovski et. 2. aggression was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. 1998.1 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. TAPB is characterised by a sense of time urgency. hostility and difficulty achieving states of relaxation (Ben-Zur. Karlberg. Bettencourt et al. and specific content. 1985). 1999). Frueh & Snyder. on crash and injury occurrence. 1999. 1981. (2003). it was hypothesised that aggression would have a negative effect on behaviour in traffic. Kamada.6 2. Carbone. Those authors used the instrument to assess hostility and negative affect within a population of veterans diagnosed with combat-related posttraumatic stress disorder (Crowson. Undén. Later still. Dewar (2002b) noted that TAPB has been one of the variables most consistently linked to driving performance. 2006). that the total amount. consistent with earlier research by Deffenbacher et al. Justification of aggression-related hypotheses. Petrilli. Deffenbacher. 1999. James & Nahl. Kumashiro & Kume. It was also hypothesised. 2001). competitiveness. Rice. insecurity about status. Sato. In the present study. Williams & Haney. impatience. Magnavita. Lynch. Blumenthal. Miyake.. Thurman. 2006. Originally identified by Friedman and Rosenman (1974). al. Elofsson & Krakau. They found that perjorative labelling and vengeful or retaliatory thoughts correlated highly with self-reported aggressive driving.6. 2002. Sani.

was driving frequency. 1979) and number of accidents. similarly. 1990). Perry (1986) fond significant simple correations between scores on a commonly used measure of TAPB. Although their research design accounted for the influence of potential confounds. socio-professional category. focused on the time urgency component 74 . violations and self-reported driving impatience in a sample of 54 American students. gender. (2003) with respect to data collection time periods. Nabi et al. but not with accident risk. In none of these studies. Other authors have examined which of the behavioural dimensions of TAPB has the strongest impact on driving outcomes. however. Elander and French (1993) found that TAPB had a strong association with excessive driving speed. where Type A drivers were 4. and drivers’ attitudes toward traffic regulations – when examining the association between motor vehicle crashes and Type A scores in a prospective study of 20. it may have been flawed by methodological deficiencies discussed by af Wählberg (2003) and by Elander et al. Although there is some evidence as to the long-term stability of TAPB (Keltikangas-Jarninen. age. alcohol consumption. 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. Karlberg et al. Chiron. particularly in driving situations that require prudence.2 times more likely to have an accident than others. Raikkonen. (1998). the Jenkins Activity Survey (Jenkins.000 employees of a French oil and gas company. category of vehicle. They found a robust association between scores on a measure of TAPB and later serious crashes. studied police officers in Italy. driving style. Zzanski & Rosenman. 1989. 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.DeLorenzo and Sacco (1997). for instance. Chastang. In a correlational study of British drivers. Nabi. traffic exposure or driver gender controlled as variables. Lafont and Lagarde (2005). tested drivers on a TABP questionnaire in 1993 and then tracked their driving behaviour to record crash history from 1994 to 2001. however. West. did control for the effects of a range of potential confounding variables – annual mileage. Consoli.

Glass. Papacostas and Synodinos (1988) reported several further analyses of their original data. 1977). with higher BIT scores reflecting a stronger Type A orientation. all four BIT factors significantly predicted participants’ self-reported driving characteristics. ethnicity.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. on the other hand. only externally-focused frustration was consistently correlated with Type A behaviour. driving exposure and the place where they had learned to drive all had direct effects on Type A results. namely “externally-focused frustration”. then use of the Type A/B 75 . If all four BIT factors contribute to accident proneness. Miles and Johnson (2003). The BIT scale was positively correlated with the student version of the Jenkins Activity Survey (SJAS. Using an instrument with items at extreme ends of the Type A/B continuum. freeway urgency (excessive speed choice). At the same time. In a subsequent study. 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. specifically measuring the effects of drivers’ usurpation of right-of-way (lane violations and reluctance to yield).of TAPB that had the most significant influence on driving risks. Papacostas and Synodinos concluded that: Type A/B behaviour is consistently related to only one of the four driving factors obtained by the BIT.6. they examined the influence of TAPB on a number of driving outcomes. 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). Of the four BIT factors. emphasising the four individual dimensions of behaviour in traffic rather than the composite BIT total score. Gender. as measured by the student version of the SJAS. 2.

At the present time. In the present study. on the other hand. it will not be sensitive to “usurpation of right-of-way” which is related to aggressive driving. “freeway urgency’’ which manifests itself in speeding and frequent lane changing. no further use of BIT scale has been reported in studies of driving safety. To the author’s knowledge. aggression and the amount and content of 76 . though. including gender.construct as the basis of further investigation into the question of highway safety will provide only an incomplete picture. on one hand would have an effect on crash and injury occurrence and. in studying the effects of Type A behaviour on safe driving patterns to use the BIT scale instead of measures of TABP because the latter tended to allow only for the direct measurement of Type A-related hostility and were often insufficiently sensitive to the effects of other components of the behaviour pattern on driving. 1988) attempt to relate scores on their BIT scale to crash frequency or injury. locus of control. Similarly. the extent to which other personality factors influence the four components comprising behaviour in traffic was not investigated. They argued that it would be preferable. 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. In neither of their studies. did Papacostas and Synodinos (1985. participants’ behaviour in traffic was considered a proximal variable that. although ethnicity. would be influenced by drivers’ psycho-social characteristics. 13). hopelessness. ethnicity. Justification of BIT-related hypotheses. Specifically. thought to be critical in the relationship between TAPB and motor vehicle crashes. that are measured by the BIT scale. and “destination-activity orientation” which is possibly a cause of inattentive driving (p. gender and other demographic factors were shown to affect BIT subscales. driving experience.

since Papacostas and Synodinos (1988) found that all four component factors of BIT were related to driving characteristics. Many studies have suggested that drivers’ TABP is a factor in motor vehicle crashes (Perry. it was hypothesised that drivers’ scores on measures of usurpation of right-of-way. Further. 77 .. externally-focused frustration. 1993) and. 1985). freeway urgency and destination-activity orientation would each have positive effects on both crash and injury occurrence. Nabi et al. it was hypothesised here that BIT total scores would have a positive effect on both crash and injury occurrence. 2005. 2003. since the composite BIT score has been shown to be an accurate reflection of over-all Type A behaviour (Synodinos & Papacostas. West et al. 1986. Miles & Johnson..hostile automatic thought.

the research model was developed and tested in studies 1A. the effects of the same demographic and psychological variables as used in Study 1B were evaluated as predictors of self-reported BIT and then of self-reported crash and injury occurrence. gender and ethnicity) and psychological (locus of control and hopelessness) variables in predicting self-reported BIT and then on self-reported crash and injury occurrence (see Figure 3. using automobile drivers as the units of analysis. hostile automatic thoughts (see Figure 3. driving and psychological variables were linked to each other and to self-reported driving behaviour. 1B and 1C.1 Conceptualisation and the Research Framework Based on the discussion in the previous chapter. each study explored the extent to which demographic.CHAPTER 3 METHOD OF INVESTIGATION 3.2). with the addition of a third psychological variable. with the addition of a fourth psychological variable. In Study 1B. In Study 1C. Then. the present research attempted to support the notion that variables in the distal context (psychological factors) contributed to crashes and injuries. each of which sought to replicate and expand the previous one. 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. Study 1A investigated the effects of demographic (driver age. 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. 78 . 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. through their action on proximal variables (behaviour in traffic).1).3).

In Study 2, using motorcycle drivers as units of analysis, the research model was tested to investigate the effects of demographic (driver age, gender and ethnicity) and psychological factors (locus of control and hopelessness) in predicting self-reported BIT and then on self-reported crash and injury occurrence (see Figure 3.2).

In Study 3, using taxicab drivers as units of analysis, the research model was tested to study the effects of demographic (driver age, gender and ethnicity) and psychological factors (locus of control, hopelessness and aggression) in predicting self-reported BIT and then on self-reported crash and injury occurrence (see Figure 3.4).

79

DISTAL CONTEXT H2

PROXIMAL CONTEXT

OUTCOME

Driver Characteristics
 Driver experience  Driving frequency

Demographic Variables
 Gender  Ethnicity  Age

H3

H5

H4
Locus of Control
 Internality  Externality (chance)  Externality (Powerful Other)

H8
Behaviour in Traffic (BIT)
    Usurpation of right-of-way Freeway urgency Externally-focused frustration Destination-activity orientation

H1.1

Crash Occurrence Injury Occurrence

H6
Hopelessness (BHS)

H7

H1.2

BHS x Locus of Control

H9

Figure 3.1: Research Model (Study 1A and Study 2)

80

DISTAL CONTEXT
Driver Characteristics
 Driver experience  Driving frequency

PROXIMAL CONTEXT

OUTCOME

H2

Demographic Variables
 Gender  Ethnicity  Age

H3

H10
Aggression (AQ)
     Physical aggression Verbal aggression Anger Hostility Indirect aggression

Behaviour in Traffic (BIT)

Crash Occurrence

H4 H5

H11

   

Usurpation of right-of-way Freeway urgency Externally-focused frustration Destination-activity orientation

H1.1
Injury Occurrence

Locus of Control
 Internality  Externality (chance)  Externality (Powerful Other)

H1.2

H8

H6
Hopelessness (BHS)

H7 H12 H9

Locus of Control x AQ

BHS x Locus of Control

Figure 3.2: Research Model (Study 1B)

81

DISTAL CONTEXT
Driver Characteristics
 Driver experience  Driving frequency

PROXIMAL CONTEXT

OUTCOME

H2

Demographic Variables Gender, Ethnicity & Age

H3

H13
Hostile Automatic Thoughts (HAT)
 Physical Aggression  Derogation of Others  Revenge

H14
Behaviour in Traffic (BIT)
    Usurpation of right-of-way Freeway urgency Externally-focused frustration Destination-activity orientation

H1.1

Crash Occurrence

H10

Aggression Questionnaire (AQ) Locus of Control

H11

H1.2 H8

Injury Occurrence

H4

H5
Locus of Control x AQ

H6
Hopelessness

H7 H12

BHS x Locus of Control

H9 H15

HAT x AQ

Figure 3.3: Research Model (Study 1C)

82

DISTAL CONTEXT

PROXIMAL CONTEXT

OUTCOME

Driver Characteristics
 Driver experience  Taxicab experience

H2

Demographic Variables
Ethnicity & Age

H3

H10 H4
Aggression (AQ)
     Physical Aggression Verbal Aggression Anger Hostility Indirect Aggression

Behaviour in Traffic (BIT)

Crash Occurrence

H11

   

Usurpation of right-of-way Freeway urgency Externally-focused frustration Destination-activity orientation

H1.1
Injury Occurrence

H1.2

Locus of Control
 Internality  Externality (chance)  Externality (Powerful Other)

H8

Locus of Control x AQ

H12

Figure 3.4: Research Model (Study 3)

83

3.2

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.

3.2.1

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.

3.2.2

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).

3.2.3

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

84

3. a thought process that expects nothing. Galovski et al (2006) and others have noted that the definitions of anger. While Beck (1999) and others have reserved the term anger for the feeling that accompanies such an internal state. hostility and aggression are often inconsistent. It has been accepted for a long time that aggression finds its 85 . anger was defined as a negative internal state of physiological arousal and cognition that involves interactions between physiological. aggression is regarded here as referring to the hostile behaviour that occurs as a result of it.each of these dimensions independently and at the same time. It functions as a feeling of despair and discouragement. Lester and Trexler (1974). 25).2. In the present research. According to Farran et al (1995): Hopelessness constitutes an essential experience of the human condition. externality related to chance (C) and externality related to the influence of powerful others (P) was obtained. Weissman. overlapping and ambiguous. 1994). such that an individual might simultaneously believe that oneself and powerful others control an outcome. a separate score for internality (I). a future directed information-processing bias or schema which functions to distort individuals’ subjective experience of external reality (Velting.5 Aggression Spielberger et al (1995).2. motoric and verbal components (Sharkin. but not chance. affective. hopelessness was measured as a unidimensional construct. 3. For the purposes of the present research. For each of the five studies undertaken. cognitive.4 Hopelessness Hopelessness has been defined as a cognitive or motivational state characterised by negative expectancies. consistent with the way the variable has been described by Beck (1987a) and Beck. 1999). 1988) and tends to manifest itself under antagonistic conditions (Novaco. and a behavioural process in which the person attempts little or takes inappropriate action (p.

and. 2003. social alienation and paranoia. Ellis (1962) and Meichenbaum (1977). Lynch & Morris. Bergeron & Vallerand. emotional lability and temperamental gesturing. generally to the point where the needs or feelings of others cannot be taken into consideration. Deffenbacher. the following variables were examined: (a) physical aggression – the tendency to use physical force when expressing anger or aggression.2. 1997) – on the behaviour in traffic of drivers in Study 1C.expression in a range of behavioural manifestations (Buss & Durkee. 1996). Vallières. expressed through the presence of irritability. 2005). were also investigated. the three forms of hostile automatic thoughts were defined as: 86 . 1957. (b) verbal aggression – the tendency to be unduly argumentative and to use quarrelsome and hostile speech in dealing with others in antagonistic situations. 3. In the present research. (c) overt anger – the tendency to experience high levels of emotional arousal and a perceived loss of control. through fighting. (e) indirect aggression – the tendency to express aggressive impulses in actions that avoid direct confrontation. taken as a sum of measures of each of the foregoing.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). The present research examined the effects of a set of cognitive statements – described as hostile automatic thoughts (Snyder et al. Specifically. (d) hostility – including attitudes of bitterness. frustration. hitting or interpersonal violence. but it has only relatively recently been considered in light of driving aggression (Deffenbacher et al. Oetting. The effects of participants’ total aggression.

was defined as indicative of Type A Behaviour Pattern (TABP). (c) externally-focused frustration – consisting of emotional reactions to the actions of other drivers on the road (e.(a) physical aggression – cognitive self-talk that contained content indicating an intent or desire to violently attack. (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. and an expressed preference for operating powerful vehicles.2. A global measure of selfreported driving tendencies.g. and. hit or kill another individual. the BIT score. (b) derogation of others – cognitive self-talk that contained content which belittled.. motorcyclists and taxicab drivers sampled in the five successive studies undertaken. driving consistently in the fast lane and travelling above the speed limit. 3. frequent lane changing. 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. not allowing others to merge or overtake. characterised by excessive impatience. competitiveness. 1998).. (b) freeway urgency – including an expressed preference for freeway driving.7 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) The present research attempted to determine the effects of variables related to the self-reported patterns of driving behaviour among car drivers. being irritated by slow drivers) and of directive behaviours toward 87 . degraded or wished to be rid of another individual.

3 3. Then. 88 .2. travel frequency. In the resulting measure of this variable. to the extent of inattention conditions. while driving. In the resulting measure of this variable. in Study 1A. the influence of driving experience. to contemporaneous roadway and traffic 3. 3. 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. within the preceding twelve months and provided details about the nature of the crash. three demographic variables (driver age.3.. Then.g. the interrelationships between the demographic variables. (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. urging others to move faster or out of the way by sounding the horn). 3. a “1” was scored if the participant reported a crash and a “0” was scored if the participant did not report a crash. 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. gender and ethnicity) and two psychological variables (locus of control and hopelessness) on BIT was tested.2.1 Research Design of the Study Study 1A Specifically.them (e.9 Injury Occurrence Participants also indicated whether they had been forced to seek medical treatment for an injury incurred during the reported crash.8 Crash Occurrence Participants reported whether or not they had experienced a motor vehicle crash. and.

the influence of driving characteristics. gender and ethnicity) and four psychological variables (locus of control. three moderating effects were measured: (a) the moderating effect of hopelessness on the relationship between locus of control and BIT.2 Study 1B While again controlling the effects of driving experience and drivers’ self- reported travel frequency.3. and (b) the moderating effect of locus of control on the relation between aggression and BIT. 3. In Study 1B. hopelessness and aggression) on BIT was tested. Then. the interrelationships between the demographic variables. Then.3 Study 1C In Study 1C.1 illustrates the research design for Study 1A. the psychological variables and BIT were examined. the psychological variables and BIT were examined. the mediating effect of BIT on the relationship between psychological factors and crash occurrence and injury occurrence was tested.3. the interrelationships between the demographic variables. three demographic variables (driver age. hopelessness. the influence of driving characteristics. (b) the moderating effect of locus 89 . aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) on BIT was tested. In this study. Finally. travel frequency. three demographic variables (driver age. Figure 3. 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. Figure 3. Finally. In this study. gender and ethnicity) and three psychological variables (locus of control. Then.2 illustrates the research design for Study 1B. 3.psychological variables (locus of control and hopelessness) and BIT were examined. two moderating effects were tested: (a) the moderating effects of hopelessness on the relationship between locus of control and BIT. the mediating effect of the BIT on the relations between psychological variables and crash occurrence and injury occurrence was tested. the extent to which self-reported BIT predicted crash and injury occurrence in automobile drivers was assessed. Then. travel frequency. the moderating effect of hopelessness on the relationship between locus of control and BIT was tested.

Two measures of experience were included: (a) driving experience.4 illustrates the research design for Study 3.of control on the relationship between aggression and BIT. In Study 3.1 illustrates the research design for Study 2. or the length of time they had been licensed to operate a taxicab. the moderating effect of locus of control on the relationship between aggression and BIT was assessed. or the length of time they had held a valid automobile operator’s licence. Figure 3. 3. the mediating effect of the BIT on the relations between psychological variables and crash occurrence and injury occurrence was tested.5 Study 3 The final study used a sample of on-duty taxicab drivers. Figure 3. three demographic variables (driver age and ethnicity) and two psychological variables (locus of control and aggression) on BIT was tested. the psychological variables and BIT were examined. using a sample that indicated motorcycles as their primary mode of transportation. the influence of experience.4 Study 2 The research design for Study 1A was replicated. Then. 90 . the mediating effect of the BIT on the relations between psychological variables and crash occurrence and injury occurrence was tested. Finally. 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. First.3. the effects of both measures of experience were controlled and the extent to which self-reported BIT predicted crash and injury occurrence in automobile drivers was assessed. the interrelationships between the demographic variables.3 illustrates the research design for Study 1C. In Study 3. Then. Variables and analyses in Study 2 were the same as those carried out in Study 1A. and (c) the moderating effect of hostile automatic thoughts on the relationship between aggression and BIT. and (b) taxi experience. Figure 3. 3. Finally.3. This was justified for three reasons.

1.2: Travel frequency will have a negative influence on total BIT score H2.3: Taxicab experience will have a negative influence on total BIT score 91 . Third. the following fifteen hypotheses and sixty sub-hypotheses were formulated: Table 3. 3.3:Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.1: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1. potentially raising questions of reliability and validity. a risk that would have been unethical to impose both on the drivers and on the research assistants who were collecting the data.1: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.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. Second.2. 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.3: Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.1.1: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.2: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1. limitations were imposed on administration time by driver willingness to participate and by research cost considerations.4:Destination-Activity orientation will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.2.4 Formulation of Hypotheses Based on the conceptualisation and research framework. Gender was not included as a demographic variable in Study 3 because all taxicab drivers in the sample were male.2.4: Destination-Activity orientation will have a positive influence on injury occurrence Y Y Y Y Y 3 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y H2: Driver characteristics will influence behaviour in traffic H2.1.1.1: Research Hypotheses STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 H1: Behaviour in traffic will have a positive influence on motor vehicle crash outcomes H1. instruments employed to measure hopelessness and hostile automatic thoughts used language and response formats not conducive to verbal administration procedures.2.1: Driver experience will have a negative influence on total BIT score H2.2: Freeway urgency will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.2 :Freeway urgency will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.

2.3.1: Ethnicity will influence Locus of Control: Internality H4.4: Hopelessness will have positive influence on Destination-Activity Orientation H8: Locus of Control will influence behaviour in traffic H8.3: Age will have a negative influence on Hopelessness H6.1.2: Aggression will have a positive influence on Freeway Urgency H11.2: Ethnicity will influence total BIT score H3.3.3: Ethnicity will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H4.3.1 (continued) STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 3 H3: Demographic variables will influence behaviour in traffic H3.2: Gender will influences Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.1: Internality will have a negative influence on total BIT score H8.3: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Externally-focused Frustration H7.1: Gender will influence Aggression H10.3: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H4.2: Externality-Chance will have a positive influence on total BIT score H8.3: 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: Gender will influence Hopelessness H5.4: Aggression will have a positive influence on Destination-Activity Orientation 92 .2: Age will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.2: Ethnicity will influence Hopelessness H5.1: Hopelessness will moderate the Internality-BIT relationship H9.3: 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 H4.1.3: Externality-Powerful-Others will have a positive influence on Hopelessness H7: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on behaviour in traffic H7.2: Hopelessness will moderate the Externality(Chance)-BIT relationship H9.Table 3.3: Age will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others Y Y Y Y Y Y H5: Demographic variables will influence hopelessness H5.2.3: Externality-Powerful-Others will have a positive influence on total BIT score H9: Hopelessness will moderate the locus of control-BIT Relationship H9.1: Aggression will have a positive influence on Usurpation of Right-of Way H11.2: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Freeway Urgency H7.1.1: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Usurpation of Right-of Way H7.1: Gender will influence total BIT score H3.3: Hopelessness will moderate the Externality(Powerful-Other)-BIT relationship H10: Demographic variables will influence aggression H10.2: Ethnicity will influence Aggression H10.1: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Internality H4.1: Age will influence Locus of Control: Internality H4.1: Internality will have a negative influence on Hopelessness H6.2: Externality-Chance will have a positive influence on Hopelessness H6.2: Ethnicity will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.2.

5 3.2: Thoughts of the Derogation of Others will have a positive influence on BIT H14. using the same procedures as in Study 1.Table 3.1 Methods of Data Collection and Analysis The Sample Participants in Study 1 were undergraduate students at a private university in peninsular Malaysia.1: Thoughts of Physical aggression will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation H15. and those from the third round of data collection were included in Study 1C. Participants in Study 2 were undergraduate students at the same private university. within a 14-month period. with psychological tests and inventories administered to groups of students during lecture sessions. 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.5. registered in a freshman course offered within the Faculty of Management.1 (continued) STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 3 Y Y Y H12: Locus of control will moderate the aggression-BIT relationship H12.1: Internality will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12.3: Thoughts of Revenge will have a positive influence on total BIT score H15: Hostile automatic thoughts will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H15.2: Thoughts of Derogation-of-Others will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation H15.3: Thoughts of Revenge will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation Note: Y=YES 3. Data were collected during three consecutive trimesters.3: Age will have a negative influence on hostile automatic thoughts H14: Hostile automatic thoughts will have a positive influence on Behaviour in Traffic H14.2: Externality(Chance) will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12. All participants had a valid driving licence but had indicated that a motorcycle was the mode of transportation most of the 93 .1: Thoughts of Physical Aggression will have a positive influence on total BIT H14. Participants from the first round of data collection were included in Study 1A.2: Ethnicity will influence hostile automatic thoughts H13.3: 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. those from the second round of data collection were included in Study 1B.1: Gender will have a positive influence on hostile automatic thoughts H13.

This sample was combined from all three rounds of classroom data collection. although results were used to demonstrate teaching points related to the syllabus at a point later in the trimester. Data collection took place within the taxicab. In all cases. Drawing from the earlier Driving Habits Questionnaire (DHQ. 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. 1978). in the case of Study 3 participants. Participants were recruited during a curb-side introduction of the study by one of a group of four research assistants. Stokols.5. during a point to point trip. I try to urge its driver to move 94 . Stokals & Campbell.g. Novaco. 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.2 Research Instruments 3. For inclusion in the study. participation was voluntary and confidentiality was assured.1 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) Scale This 52-item measures time-urgent behaviour. by postal mail. Participants in Study 3 were taxicab drivers in the Kuala Lumpur area. Participants in Study 3 received the meter or negotiated fare for the trip.. 3. Synodinos and Papacostas (1985) developed 26 pairs of two-alternative items. while participants were driving. High total scores on the scale are considered to be indicative of Type A behaviour while low total scores were considered to be indicative of a type B approach to driving. with one of the items in each pair written to measure a TABP response and the other a contradictory statement (e.2.5. consistent with of a Type A Behaviour Pattern (TAPB) when driving (see Appendix A). all of whom possessed a valid driving licence and a commercial permit for the operation of a taxicab. Participants in Studies 1 and 2 were not remunerated. “ When a traffic light turns green and the car in front of me doesn’t get going immediately.

with a coefficient alpha of . I usually think about what I have to do when I get there.” “I usually get upset at drivers who do not signal their driving intentions. Items in Form A and Form B are presented in random order. In a later study.80.91) were found to be internally consistent.” “I often find myself checking the time while driving to work.on” versus “When a traffic light turns green and the car in front of me doesn’t get going immediately. based on a principal components analysis of earlier-reported data. Six of the items are answered on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree”. Freeway urgency 14 III.” “On a clear highway.” “When a motor vehicle cuts in front of me. Usurpation of right-ofway No. Synodinos and Papacostas reported that Form A and Form B (which correlated . Items were presented in two alternate forms (Form A and Form B). to school or to an appointment with someone. On each form.” “While travelling to work (or to school).” II.2: Dimensions of the BIT scale Factor I. I try to move that lane as soon as possible. Their analysis revealed four dimensions. I usually drive a few kilometres above the speed limit. Papacostas and Synodinos (1988) provided additional psychometric parameters of the BIT scale.” “I get extremely irritated when I am travelling behind a slow moving vehicle. then the item of the pair representing the opposite end of the continuum was placed in Form B and vice versa. as indicated in table 3. Externally-focused frustration 6 IV. 20 items are answered on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from “most like me” to “least like me”. I usually feel like pushing them off the road. Table 3. I just wait for a while until it moves”) for a total of 52 item stems. such that if the TABP alternative of an item pair was placed in Form A.” “I often blow my horn at someone as a way of expressing my frustration. Destination-activity orientation 8 Total 52 95 .2. of items 24 Sample items “When I am in a traffic jam and the lane next to mine starts to move.

A sample item is “When I get what I want. I will not be given leadership responsibility without appealing to those in positions of power”. 3. it’s usually because I worked hard for it”. 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. References to “miles per hour” were changed to “kilometres per hour”. A sample item is “I have often found that what is going to happen will happen”.Certain items in the original American version were re-worded to make them relevant to the Malaysian context and driving jargon. Participants scored all 24 items on a 6-point scale. passing lane were changed from “left lane” to “right lane” and the word “pass” was replaced with “overtake”. High scores on the externality-chance (C) scale indicate that respondents expect expect chance forces or luck to have control over their lives. ranging from +3 (“agree strongly”) to –3 (“disagree strongly”). 96 . 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.2.2 Levenson Locus of Control Scale This widely-used questionnaire is based on Levenson’s (1981) multidimensional view of locus of control. It contains three 8-item sub-scales that measure perceptions about the level of control exercised over the events and circumstances in their lives. 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.5. A sample item is “Although I might have good ability. The phrase “cross-junction” was added to items pertaining to behaviour at intersections. References to the faster.

4 Aggression Questionnaire (AQ) This questionnaire is a 34-item scale measuring constructs related to the expression of aggression.5. Each of the 20 statements is scored 1. Item scores are summed to yield a total score ranging from 0 to 20.” “I sometimes feel that people are laughing at me behind my back. 1982. if not. of items 8 5 7 8 6 34 Sample Items: “At times I can’t control the urge to hit someone.” “When people annoy me. High scores are taken to indicate a generally pessimistic view of the future and a high degree of hopelessness.” “I let my anger show when I do not get what I want.” “I get into fights more than most people.5.3: The Five Subscales of the Aggression Questionnaire Subscale Physical Aggression (PHY) Verbal Aggression (VER) Anger (ANG) Hostility (HOS) Indirect Aggression (IND) Total No. A total aggression score can be calculated from summed item responses. 5 = “completely like me”) that best represent how well the item describe them. 1996).” “If I’m angry enough. a sample item of which is “I look forward to the future with hope and enthusiasm”. Tanaka et al. 1974). anger.” 97 .2. Participants indicate a response on a five-point Likert-type scale (1 = “not at all like me”.” “I often find myself disagreeing with people.” “When someone really irritates me. Table 3. and five subscales measure physical aggression. hostility and indirect aggression (see Table 3. I may tell them what I think of them. Durham. Eleven items are keyed true to indicate pessimism about the future. 2005.3).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. I might give him or her the silent treatment. 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”. 1993.” “At times I feel I have gotten a raw deal out of life. I may mess up someone’s work. verbal aggression. 3. 9 are keyed false to indicate optimism about the future. Of the 20 true-false statements. if endorsed.” “At times I feel like a bomb ready to explode. or 0.3.2. Beck et al. High internal consistency has been reported across a range of samples (Benzein & Berg.

5 = “all the time”). Table 3.” “I want to get back at this person. 1997.88 for the five subscales (Buss & Warren. 1997.” “I just want to hurt this person as bad as s/he hurt me.High internal consistency has been reported with a coefficient alpha of .91 for physical aggression. I’d kill this person!” “I’d like to knock his/her teeth out” “What an idiot!” “This person is a loser. Snyder et al.5 Hostile Automatic Thoughts (HAT) This 30-item self-report index measures the frequency of recurring hostile thoughts. (1997) reported high internal consistency for all three sub-scales.4). 1996).88 and . with coefficient alpha values of . age.5. Cascardi & Pythress.94 for the total aggression scores and ranging from . 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. Boyd. 2000) and discriminant validity (Archer & Haigh. Previous studies have established high levels of concurrent validity (Harris.4: The Three Subscales of the Hostile Automatic Thoughts (HAT) Scale Factor Physical aggression Derogation of others Revenge Total No.2. High scores on a sub-scale indicated that type of hostile thinking had occurred to the participant frequently.5. Shapiro. 3. derogation of others and revenge – were identified and are included as subscales (see table 3. gender. of Items 11 10 9 30 Sample Items “If I could get away with it. ethnicity and history of motor vehicle crashes and injuries. Questions included details about the participant’s licensing and driving background.71 to .6 Personal Information Form (PIF) Participants also completed a 4-page questionnaire recording personal information.2.92.” Participants responded on a 5point Likert-type scale (1 = “not at all”. 2000). Three factors – physical aggression.” 3. 98 . derogation of others and revenge respectively. . Williams.

between the two forms of the BIT. upon request. (c) the last instrument in the package was the opposite for of the BIT from the one presented second. Levenson and BIT scale. (b) the second instrument was either Form A or Form B of the BIT scale. BHS. (c) not discuss answers with others as they were completing the questionnaires. BHS. (b) give honest answers that described themselves rather than putting the “best things to say”. (d) the remaining instruments used in that particular study were presented.6. Participants were provided with up to 60 minutes to complete the scales but in no cases did the average administration time exceed 45 minutes.3. Study 1C: PIF. Levenson. (d) read instructions for each questionnaire very carefully and complete them in the order they were distributed. 99 . the instruments were presented in the following order: (a) the PIF was the first one in the package.6 3. BIT scale. A brief written description of the purpose of the research and general instructions (see Appendix B) was distributed. Study 1B: PIF. BIT scale and AQ. After the briefing period. AQ and HAT. with an e-mail summary of results. Levenson. BHS. and (f) not spend too much time on any one answer. in random order. (e) put down the first response that came into their mind. Participants were informed about the study and invited to participate on a voluntary basis. In studies 1 and 2. packages of research instruments were distributed as follows: Study 1A: PIF. Instructions advised the participants to (a) answer all questions on each questionnaire.1 Procedure Studies 1 and 2 Data collection took place within a classroom or lecture hall during a regularly- scheduled class periods. Participants were assured of confidentiality and were de-briefed.

5. rel.2 Study 3 For study 3. research assistants verbally administered the PIF. 13. rel. 2002). Specific statistical tests have been summarised in Table 3. Two to four times daily. All four research assistants spoke fluent English and Bahasa Malaysia. AQ and HAT to determine validity using LInear Structural RElations software (LISREL. Over the course of the trip. approached at a taxi stand or booked over the telephone. AQ and Levenson scales. Structural equation models and path analyses were estimated using the same version of LISREL. 3. Independent-sample t-tests. with prior research experience were retained to assist in the study. Taxis were flagged down at roadside. aged 22 to 24 years. Confirmatory Factor Analyses (CFA) were performed on the BIT. four female final-year undergraduate students. The PIF was always administered first. BIT.6. 8. 100 . each research assistant hired a taxicab to drive to some location elsewhere in the Kuala Lumpur area. with the team of research assistants meeting regularly three times each week to calibrate administration procedures. data collection was confined to times between 8:00 am and 9:00 pm. Single-word substitutions in items were made in English or the driver’s first language if comprehension difficulties arose. the research assistant informed the taxicab driver about the study.5. Data collection took place in taxicabs. as well as at least two additional Malaysian languages. For safety reasons. analyses of variance (ANOVA). 2004). linear and multiple regression analyses and logistic regression analyses were used to test the hypotheses.3.0. as well. provided assurance of confidentiality and secured participation. with the remaining instruments administered in random order. Levenson Locus of Control scale. At initial contact.7 Analysis of the Data Data collected were entered and processed using Statistical Package for the Social Science (SPSS for Windows. This section provides a brief example of each one and details its use in the present research. Reliability coefficients of all instruments were calculated using SPSS.

1: Hopelessness influence the level of Usurpation of Right-of Way H7.5: Statistical Methods for Hypothesis Testing Data Analysis Methods The Direct Effect of BIT on Accident Involvement H1.2: The level of BIT influence the crash injury Logistic Regression Logistic Regression The Direct Effect of Driving characteristics on BIT H2.3: Hopelessness influence the level of Externally-focused Frustration H7.1: The level of BIT influence the crash occurrence H1.3: Age influence the Locus of Control Independent Sample tTest Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance The Direct Effect of Demographic Factors on Hopelessness H5.3: Externality (Powerful-Other) is positively related to Hopelessness Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression The Direct Effect of Hopelessness on BIT H7.2: Ethnicity background influence the level of Hopelessness H5.1: Gender influence the level of Hopelessness H5.2: Ethnicity influence the Locus of Control H4.1: Gender influence the level of 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: Gender influence the Locus of Control H4.2: Externality (Chance) is positively related to Hopelessness H6.Table 3.2: Hopelessness influence the level of Freeway Urgency H7.1: “Length of having driving licence” influence the level of BIT H2.4: Hopelessness influence the level of Destination-activity Orientation Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression 101 .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: Internality is negatively related to hopelessness H6.3: “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 H3.2: Ethnicity background influence the level of BIT H3.

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. 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. the lower the BIT level H8.1: Gender has a positive influence on hostile automatic thoughts H13.1: Hopelessness moderates the Internality-BIT relation Multiple Linear Regression H9.2: Ethnicity background influences the level of Aggression H10.1: Aggression influence the level of Usurpation of Right-of Way H11.5 (continued) Data Analysis Methods The Direct Effect of Locus of Control on BIT H8.2: Ethnicity influences hostile automatic thoughts H13.Table 3.1: Internality moderates the Aggression-BIT relation H12.2: Externality(Chance) moderates the Aggression-BIT relation H12.3: Aggression influence the level of Externally-focused Frustration H11. the higher the BIT level H8.3: Age has a negative influence on hostile automatic thoughts Independent Sample t-Test Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance 102 .1: The higher the Internality.2: The higher Externality (Chance).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 H10.1: Gender influences the level of Aggression H10.2: Aggression influence the level of Freeway Urgency H11.2: Hopelessness moderates the Externality(Chance)-BIT relation 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 H11.3: The higher Externality (Powerful-Other).

post hoc analyses were carried out using the Scheffé method (Klockars & Hancock. hopelessness.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. locus of control.5 (continued) Data Analysis Methods The Direct Effect of HAT on BIT H14. 103 . 2000). When significant differences were observed. hopelessness.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 One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) ANOVA is used to compare means for more than two groups. t-tests were used to determine whether participants’ scores on psychological variables (BIT. In the present study.Table 3.1 Independent-sample t-tests Generally. t-tests are used to compare the means of two groups. locus of control. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) differed for male and female drivers. ANOVA was used to determine whether participants’ scores on psychological variables (BIT. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) differed for drivers with different ethnic backgrounds.2: Thoughts of Derogation-of-Others have a positive influence on BIT H14.7. In the present research.1: Thoughts of Physical Aggression have a positive influence on BIT H14.1: Thoughts of Physical Aggression will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation H15. 3.7.

externality-chance (C) and externalitypowerful-others (P) have an effect on hopelessness.7. hopelessness. Also. the products of P x hopelessness scores were added into the regression equation. multiple regression analysis was used to test whether internality (I).4 Linear Regression Analysis This analysis is used to determine if a relationship exists between a dependent variable and an independent variable and.5 Multiple Regression Analysis This analysis aims to examine if there is a relationship between the dependent variable and independent variables. GLM univariate analysis of variance was used to determine whether there was an interaction effect between ethnic background and psychological factors (locus of control.7. Application of multiple regression analysis involves more than one single independent variable. R-square and coefficient values were then estimated to determine the significance of the moderating effect of hopelessness. hopelessness. linear regression was applied to examine the relationship between psychological variables (locus of control. In the present research. to test whether hopelessness moderated the P-BIT relationship. 104 .7.3. For instance. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) on behaviour in traffic (BIT). first P scores were entered into the regression equation.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. In the present research. 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. 3. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) and behaviour in traffic (BIT). the direction of the relationship (positive or negative). 3. the moderating effects of the variables were tested using hierarchical regression methods. if so. second.

the purpose of which was to distinguish the distal and proximal contextual factors related to crash outcomes.7 Structural Equation Modelling. The validity of this measurement model was dependent on its goodness-of-fit and on the construct validity of its component variables. Path coefficients were calculated to demonstrate correlates of unsafe driving according to their contextual proximity to crash and injury occurrence.3.7. 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. Goodness-of-fit indicates how 105 .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. 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). these variables were controlled as covariates in the logistic regression equation. on the other hand. to (a) assess the validity of the instruments. In the present research. seeks to determine the odds that an event will or will not occur. “1” was scored if a crash injury had occurred and “0” if no crash injury had occurred. 710). That is.7. each of the two outcome variables (crash occurrence and injury occurrence) was framed as a binary variable. logistic regression. and (b) examine the interrelationships among variables included in the research design. using LISREL. “1” was scored if a crash had occurred and “0” if no crash had occurred. The result was a measurement model described as a contextual-mediated model. as well as between several latent constructs” (p. 3. In the present research. Since driver experience and travel frequency were expected to have an influence on the outcome variables. SEM was carried out. Linear or multiple regression seek to measure the degree of influence that variables will have on a dependent variable.

Absolute fit measures are a direct measure of how well the model specified by the researcher reproduces the researcher’s data.. 745). Incremental fit measures included the comparative fit index (CFI).well the measurement model reproduces the covariance matrix among indicator items That is. Once a researcher’s theory is used to specify a model from which the parameters are estimated. the better the model is said to fit. Thus. According to Marsh et al. the estimated covariance matrix is compared mathematically to the actual observed covariance matrix to provide an estimate of model fit. the estimated covariance matrix (∑k) and the actual covariance matrix (S) would be the same. the χ2/df ratio the goodness-of-fit index (GFI). Incremental fit measures assess how well a specified model fits relative to some alternative baseline model. In the present research. than anyone would want to report” (Maryuma. 1998). in fact. The closer the values of these two matrices are to each other. these can be classified as absolute fit indexes and relative or incremental fit indexes. including: (1) two absolute indexes. For Study 1C. the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) and the root mean square residual (RMR). additional measures were used to compare the relative fit of two models under consideration. but a wide array of tests of the overall fit of SEM models – “more. 1998) – presently exists. the model fit compares the theory to reality as represented by the data. (Hair et al. If a researcher’s theory were perfect. the absolute fit measures included the χ2 statistic. (1988). 2006. p. the adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI) and the expected cross- 106 . The fundamental measure of fit is the chi-square (χ2) statistic (Byrne.

1998). (2006) have highlighted that for sample size greater than 250 (with a number of observed variables less than 12).1 Chi-Square (χ2).7. 112).7.10 indicate poor fit.7. 3. 3.7.00 in which values greater than .. 107 .7. an insignificant p-value can result in good fit. pp.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. the higher the probability associated with χ2. the ratio indicates a good fit. 1998.7. with unknown but optimally chosen parameter values. 2006). However. 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. Hair et al.validation index (ECVI). fit the population covariance matrix if it were available” (Byrne. RMSEA values can range from zero to 1. For a sample size less than 250 (and with number of observed variables that is less than 12). 3. Carmines and McIver (1981) have noted that. 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. one incremental index. and a measure of parsimony fit.2 Degrees of freedom (df) The df measure the amount of mathematical information available to estimate the model parameters and are calculated based on the number of unique covariances and variances in the observed covariance matrix (Hair et al. the closer the fit between the hypothesized model (established under the null hypothesis). 2006). when the ratio of χ2 to df yields a value of less than 3. an insignificant p-value is expected. the parsimony goodness-of-fit index (PGFI). Thus. the normed fit index (NFI).0.

Since the CFI is insensitive to model complexity. 108 . an RMR greater than .Root mean square residual (RMR) is another badness-of-fit measure. Thus.6 Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index (AGFI) An adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI.7. and a model with perfect fit would produce an NFI of 1.5 Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) and Comparative Fit Index (CFI) The GFI can range from zero to 1. 3.00.00 with value closes to 1. CFI is an improved version of the normed fit index.7. The AGFI penalises more complex models and favours those with a minimum number of free paths.00.7. 3.10 usually suggests a poor fit of the data for the model. 2006).7. but AGFI values are typically lower than GFI values in proportion to model complexity. the normed fit index (NFI. Bentler & Bonnet. 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.00 being indicative of good fit. The index ranges between zero and 1..7.00.7. it is known as one of the most widely used indices (Hair et al.00 with value more than . The index can range from zero to 1.4 Normed Fit Index (NFI) One of the original incremental measures of fit. 3. Tanaka & Huba. Values range from zero to 1. with higher values indicating better fit. 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.90 is usually associated with a model that fits well.

p.3..00. considering its fit relative to its complexity.8 Parsimony Goodness-of-Fit Index (PGFI) A third class of measures is sometimes recognised as the parsimony indices.7 Expected Cross-Validation Index (ECVI) The expected cross-validation index (ECVI.7. 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. 1994). A parsimony fit measure is improved by a better fit and/or a simpler model which. Values range between zero and 1. a PGFI value is meant only to be used in comparing it to another model’s PGFI value” (Hair et al. in this case. The ECVI also takes into account the number of estimated parameters for a given model. Browne & Cudeck. Although values range from zero to 1. 750). “a PGFI taken alone is not a useful indicator of a single model’s fit. it takes into account the actual sample size and the difference that could be expected in another sample. designed specifically to provide information about which model among a competing set of models is best. 109 .7. It should be noted that.00. 1982) uses the parsimony ratio to adjust the GFI in order to compare two models. Like other parsimony fit indices.7. based on the combination of fit and parsimony represented by the index. 2006. 3. James. it is most commonly used when comparing the performance of one model to another. The parsimony ratio is calculated as the ratio of degrees of freedom used by a model to the total degrees of freedom available (Marsh & Balla. 2006). The parsimony goodness-of-fit index (PGFI.. In such cases. Mulaik & Brett. means a model with fewer estimated parameter paths (Hair et al. and the model with the higher PGFI is considered preferable. the model with the higher ECVI value is generally regarded as presenting a better fit.7.

then it is possible to conclude the the data do not violate the normality assumption (Carver & Nash. the distribution is said to be negatively skewed (Ferguson. it is said to be positively skewed. the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to assess whether there was a significant departure from normality in the distribution of variable scores. 3. 2000).7. “It is conventional to speak of a distribution as leptokurtic if is more peaked than … the normal distribution. 37).05. If the opposite holds. In this case. the distribution of test scores to the normal distribution. Many parametric statistics assume that variables are distributed approximately normally and SPSS calculates values for skewness and kurtosis to assist in determing 110 . 1976. in this case. 1976).3.7. and platykurtic if it is less peaked. The normal distribution is spoken of as mesokurtic. p. Kurtosis refers to the flatness or peakedness of one distribution in relation to another.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. 1956). 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. It determines whether the scores in the sample can reasonably thought to have come from a population having the theoretical distribution (Siegel.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. When p-values for the Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic are greater than our α=.

normality of variable distributions. 1997). if skewness and kurtosis less than ±1. Barrett & Morgan. 111 . Marcoulides & Hershberger. the variable is at least approximately normal (Leech. A commonly used guideline is that. 2005.

4% 333 62.9% 977 100% 100% Female Total 112 . Table 4.6% 12. The contextual mediated model was tested using (1) regression analysis (SPPS) and (2) structural equation modelling (LISREL).1.1 4.9% 23.55). with a mean age of 20.4% 146 14. Then.5% 57. It begins with a discussion of reliability and validity tests of the instruments.9% 14.1: 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 33.4% 269 27.6% 15. with results of these tests reported in this chapter.5% MalaysianIndian 64 14. 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 4.6% 82 15. Thirteen of the participants did not complete all the questionnaires and two participants completing questionnaires reported that they did not have driving licences.13 years (SD = 1.1% 536 100% 54. Thus 977 participants were included in the analysis.3% 8.5% 27. descriptive statistics are presented and the results of hypothesis testing are reported. A contextual mediated model showing interrelationships between variables is introduced.1% 121 22.CHAPTER 4 ANALYSIS OF THE DATA This chapter presents the results of the research. Gender and Ethnicity Participants were 992 undergraduate students at an English-language Malaysian university.1 Description of the Samples Age.1% 562 57.9% Total 441 100% 45.5% 6.1% 34.5% Ethnicity MalaysianChinese 229 51. 4.1). Ages of participants ranged from 18 to 29 years.

with a mean age of 20.Female participants (approximately 55 per cent) slightly out-numbered males. In Study 1B. In Study 2. followed by Malay (27.25 years (SD = 1.5 per cent) and Malaysian-Indian (14. with a mean age of 20.5 per cent).9 per cent).63.89 years (SD = 1. range of 18 to 26). 302 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode of transportation to be the automobile comprised the sample.53. In Study 1C. with a mean age of 20.43 years (SD = 1. In Study 1A. Thus. 113 . 252 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. Malaysian-Chinese represented the highest number of participants (57.68. with a mean age of 19. 122 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode of transportation to be the motorcycle comprised the sample. range from 18 to 27). In Study 3. 149 taxicab drivers participated. range from 18 to 25).01 years (SD = 1.35. A crosstabulation between gender and ethnicity (see Table 4. 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.1) showed that most of the drivers were female Malaysian-Chinese. range from 18 to 29).

3% of the sample. 1.1 6.D.2: Age.01 20. Participants from East Malaysia comprised 5. 2 and 3 Gender STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 3 N 301 302 252 122 133 Mean Age 20.3 11. Table 4. Kuala Lumpur.5 114 .65.9 2.3: 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 % 12.4% of the sample.1. Table 4. Gender and Ethnicity of Participants in Studies 1. SD = standard deviation 4.7 4.19 S.3).89 20.responses from 133 taxicab drivers were included in data analysis.2.63 11. they hailed from across the country (see table 4.2 Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 1 Although participants in Studies 1A. range from 23 to 73).19 years (SD = 11.53 1.25 43. 1B and 1C were all students at a single Malaysian university.35 1.5 8. Descriptive data for each sample are provided in Table 4.2 7. Participants who had received their driving licenses in Selangor.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 .43 19. Johor or Perak made up 53. The mean age was 43.68 1.

1% of the sample.5 1.1. Participants who had received their driving licenses in Selangor.6 2.7 3.1.4 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 10.9% of the sample.1 9. but again they held licenses from various states (see table 4. Table 4.3 Geographic Distribution of the Sample in Study 2 Participants in Study 2 were all students at a single Malaysian university.9 0.9 7. Perak or Penang made up 50.2 3.7 100 4.4 0. Participants from East Malaysia comprised 4.7 11.5 14.8 9.Penang Perak Perlis Sabah Sarawak Selangor Terengganu 67 102 6 27 19 147 31 855 7.4).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. As the sample was 115 .6 100 4.0 7.6 1.8 5.4 4.2 17.8 11.2 2.

5). reliability was measured using Cronbach’s coefficient alpha. In the present research.70 or greater is generally considered acceptable (Nunnally.intended to be representative of Kuala Lumpur taxicab drivers. 116 .2 4.2. The closer Cronbach’s Alpha is to 1. 4.1 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. A Cronbach’s Alpha of . 2000). This statistic reflects the consistency of respondents’ answers compared to all the items in a measure (Sekaran. 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. 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. 1978). no attempt was made to determine the geographic location in which drivers had originally received noncommercial drivers’ licenses. The reliability of the measures used in this research was calculated for each of the three studies and values for Cronbach’s Alpha in all cases were found to be satisfactory (see Table 4. the higher is the internal consistency of the measure.

754 .772 α .733 .735 .741 .782 .742 .703 .727 .711 .734 .720 .707 .817 .737 .784 .701 .702 .881 α .890 .810 .827 .768 Not Applicable Not Applicable .904 .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 .906 .824 .727 .783 .910 .887 .715 .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.830 .740 .774 .718 .781 .756 .786 .749 .783 .726 Not Applicable Not Applicable α .747 .714 .740 .739 .788 . of Item α Study 2 (N=122) Motorcycle Drivers (student sample) Study 3 (N=133) Taxicab Drivers α .Table 4.782 .808 .701 Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable 117 .808 .798 .720 .715 .730 .811 .738 .

10 indicate poor fit (MacCallum et al. The root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) index measures the error of approximation in the population and determines whether the model.08 to . 1998).803 .916 .804 . 1998.800 . values ranging from .2. 1998). Byrne. 205).801 .808 Study 2 . only Form A was used. ordering or other test construction factors” (p.958 . it was also possible to measure reliability as a coefficient of correlation between Form A and Form B (Synodinos &Papacostas.953 . 2002) was used to establish evidence of construct validity for various measures. and those greater than . Reliability coefficients in all studies where both forms were used are acceptable since Form A and Form B were highly correlated.802 4. RMSEA values less than . we may be fairly certain that the measures are reasonably reliable.876 . 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.805 .4. depending on which is used (Byrne.929 . Sekaran (2003) notes that “if two comparable forms are highly correlated (.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 . Table 4. fits the population correlation matrix or covariance matrix. 1998).80.2. In Study 3. more than . The results of parallel-form reliability for the BIT instrument in different studies are shown in Table 4.804 . with minimal error variance caused by wording.05 indicate good fit. confirmatory factor analyses using LISREL (Jöreskog & Sörbom.804 Study 1C . 118 .2 Parallel-Form Reliability In the case of the BIT scale.811 .3 Validity Test Results In the present research.857 . 1985). with unknown but optimally chosen parameter values.6.10 indicate a mediocre fit.807 .903 .80 or above).806 .807 Study 1B .

00 1.96 1.99 .00 1.97 . This reflects that the model fits worse than no model at all.000 .99 . 1992).00 1.98 . it is possible to have negative GFI.2. GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index.054 . and destination-activity orientation.96 . Table 4. freeway urgency.95 1.1 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the BIT Scale In the present research.Jöreskog and Sörbom (1993) reported that. and both GFI and CFI were more than .077 .097 .96 .90.000 . A third statistic.00 1.089 .7.00 .93 .99 .00 1.92 1.100.7: 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 .90.00 1.00.92 . the higher the goodness-of-fit).97 1.070 .061 . the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) is estimated to indicate whether complete covariation in the data is achieved.98 Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation.00 . RMSEA values in each case were less than .91 . although the GFI index ranges from zero to 1.92 .00 .000 .00 1.96 .048 .99 . 4. indicating good fits. CFI= Comparative Fit Index 119 .000 .074 . If the value of CFI exceeds .97 1.00 1.098 . it is generally considered an acceptable fit to the data (Bentler.000 .99 .000 .097 .00 1.047 .000 .00 .00 . externally-focused frustration.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 1.98 . As shown in Table 4.000 .3.91 .024 .00 .98 1. drivers’ behaviour in traffic was measured by the four component factors of the BIT scale: usurpation of right-of-way.00 (the closer to 1. parameter values for all four of these factors were within acceptable ranges.

92 .98 .073 .00 .058 .083 .081 . hostility (HOS) and indirect aggression 120 .91 .085 .091 .93 .93 .8.2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Levenson Locus of Control Scale Locus of control was measured across three dimensions: internality (I).4. externality-chance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P).97 .3. Each component of the locus of control was measured separately. indicating good fits (See Table 4.91 . GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index. RMSEA values were less than .97 .98 .063 . CFI= Comparative Fit Index 4.92 .000 .030 .2.2.100. verbal aggression (VER).071 .052 .99 .98 Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation.98 Study 2 RMSEA Study 3 CFI RMSEA GFI GFI CFI Locus of Control  Internality  Externality (Chance)  Externality (Powerful-Other) .3.95 1.96 . Five component factors of aggression were measured: physical aggression (PHY).96 .085 .93 .96 .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) . anger (ANG).96 .98 . C and P scales were all within acceptable ranges.93 . Table 4.93 .059 . and both GFI and CFI were more than .93 .99 .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).95 .95 . CFA revealed that parameter values for I.92 .93 . under the assumption that locus of control is a multidimensional phenomenon.90.91 .081 .096 .

098 .098 .088 .98 .97 .97 .070 .2.92 .98 . Table 4.100.(IND).98 . and both GFI and CFI were more than . A total aggression score was arrived at by summing the five subscale scores.98 . CFA revealed that parameter values for all five aggression subscales were within acceptable ranges.97 .095 .90.088 .98 .95 . Table 4. indicating good fit (see Table 4. indicating good fits (See Table 4.98 .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 . GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index.97 .94 .073 .058 .9). RMSEA values were less than . CFI= Comparative Fit Index 4. CFI= Comparative Fit Index 121 .97 . derogation of others and revenge.97 .95 .98 .055 .089 .081 .083 .96 .10: Summary of LISREL Results on Validity for HAT (Study 1C) RMSEA Hostile Automatic Thought (HAT)  Physical Aggression  Derogation of Others  Revenge GFI CFI .090 .096 .96 Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation.070 .98 .98 . and both GFI and CFI were more than .98 .10).100.93 .90.081 . Three classes of hostile automatic thoughts were measured: physical aggression.97 .025 . GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index.047 .92 .97 .99 .96 .98 . CFA revealed that parameter values for all three measurement scales were within acceptable ranges.4 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the HAT Scale The HAT was only used in Study 1C (with automobile drivers sampled from a student population).96 .92 . RMSEA values were less than .98 .3.94 .97 .97 .97 Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation.

140) .278(.11: Normality Tests.323 (.146(. Marcoulides & Hershberger.297(.069) 1..140) -.192(.920(. Skewness and kurtosis values of ± 1 are acceptable (Leech et al.403(.099(.4.082 (.280) .280) -.190) 1.140) .154(.091(.408(.091(. but with a non-signficant platykurtic tendency for the locus of control data.085) 1.140) .805(.280) -.140) .099) 1.353(.204(.356 (. 2006).140) .140) . Normality can also be assessed by examining sknewness and kurtosis values (Hair et al..140) -.332 (.183) 1. values for the Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic were non-significant (p>.297 (.140) -.107) 1.280) .085) 1.280) .560(.278(.052) 1.034 (.064) 1.140) -.102) 1.140) -.195 (.280) .085 (.280) -.099) 1.241(.191) 1.203(.020 (. indicating that the distribution of scores did not depart from normality.280) . 2005.05).560(.511(. 1997).186) 1.280) . Table 4.064(.239 (.140) -.280) -.126(.409(.428) .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 .094 (.719(.280) -. In all cases.280) .280) -.080(.656(.280) -.183) 1.409(. Table 4.331(.091) 1.140) -.140) -.022 (.219 (.351 (.107 (.280) .140) -. 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) .246(.280) -.064(.410(.179(.179(.140) -.582(.010 (.260) .140) -.280) .057) 1.875(.11 indicates that variable distribution fell within these limits.105 (.280) .256 (. Skewness and Kurtosis Data were studied to determine whether they were normally distributed and therefore capable of satisfying parametric assumptions.037(.226 (.188(.106) 1.140) .192) 1.120) 1.280) -.085 (.099(.379(.3 Normality.962 (.140) .126(.297(.280) .140) .453(.

210) .417) -.131(.210) .913(.153) .841(.001 (.986 (.142(.106(.362(.266 (.209(.354 (.852(.426) .911 (305) 1.366) 1.159(.024 (.359 (.138(.417) -.501(.070 (.359 (.537(.417) -.120(.210) .270) 1.417) .417) .022 (.259) .223 (.435) -.276(.153) .417) -.360) .153) .306) -.417) .306) .003 (.392(.153) .277(.852(.130(.567(.417) -.113 (.297 (.293 (.Table 4.187) 1.106(.360) -.952(.324(.306) .417) .306) -.219) -.052) 1.994(.088 (.104) 1.256(.799(.540(.510) 1.435) -.973(306) .100) .478(.370(.443(.435) -.210) -.972(.153) .306) -.979(.375) 1.306) .153) .219) .913 (.978(.567(.423(.052) 1.719(.640(.153) -.317) 1.807 (.279 (.962 (.210) .153) .153) .219) -.024 (.265) 1.053(.715(.497(.247) .435) -.219) .098) 1.053(.822 (.306) -.435) -.295(.236(.267) .919 (.847 (.805 (.360) .195 (.101) 1.157) .110 (.153) .210) -.153) 983(.099) 1.435) -.435) -.463(.219) .629(.128) .812(.338 (.147(.276 (.713(.327 (.154) -.366(.210) .435) .503(.469) 1.198(.959 (.153) .156(.247) 1.417) -.948(.030(.244(.106 (.417) -.451(.153) .681(.210) -.011 (.084) 1.300(.219) -.533) .138) 1.467(.321) 1.884(.006(.940(.306) -.057) 1.962(.214) 1.915(.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 .051) .102) .306) .271(.210) .306) .007(.128 (.022 (.210) .414(.051) 1.147(.210) .153) .064) 1.264) .048(.306) -.135) 1.11 (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 1.062(.098) 1.160 (.186(.360) .417) -.219) .219) .153) -.

3 per cent being hospitalised. with 44. Male and female automobile drivers reported involvement in one crash with almost the same frequency. (3) injuries requiring hospitalisation (see Table 4. column c).12. column b). males were more than twice as likely to report involvement in two or three automobile crashes.13). injury occurrence was much higher. However.12.4 Crash and Injury Occurrence Data Participants in all studies indicated whether they had experienced an accident within the preceding twelve months in which their vehicle had sustained more than RM100 damage and. column a). if so.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. 124 . For motorcycle drivers.12. 1B and 1C selfreported that they had been involved in at least one motor vehicle crash over the preceding year (see Table 4. (2) injuries severe enough to require out-patient treatment at a medical clinic (see Table 4. Table 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. whether the accident had resulted in (1) no injuries or injuries insufficiently severe to seek medical attention (see Table 4.

involved in two crashes Total Ethnicity No.14) Regardless of ethnic background. involved in one crash Total Ethnicity No. male motorcycle drivers reported higher crash occurrence than female motorcycle drivers. 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. involved in one crash Total Ethnicity No. involved in three crashes Total Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Gender Male Female 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. Gender and Ethnicity in Study 2 (N=122) Motorcycle drivers Ethnicity No.13: Crash Occurrence Frequency. involved in two crash Total Ethnicity No.14: Crash Occurrence Frequency. Gender and Ethnicity in Study 1 (N=855) Automobile Drivers Ethnicity No.Table 4.

Most of these correlations were significant (p<. and destination-activity orientation. However. Study 1C. freeway urgency.15 shows means. All distal and proximal variables were positively correlated except I which was negatively corrected with other variables. Table 4. 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. Also. proximal and outcome variables within the sample of automobile drivers. externally-focused frustration.17 shows means. Although VER was significantly correlated with crash occurrence. it was not correlated with injury occurrence. proximal and outcome variables within the sample of automobile drivers. BHS was not significantly correlated with verbal aggression (VER).16 shows means.5.05).05). 126 . Most of these correlations were significant (p<.5 4. proximal and outcome variables within the sample of automobile drivers. standard deviations and relationships between distal.4. I was significantly correlated with all variables except with VER and hostility. crash occurrence and crash injury. All distal and proximal variables were positively correlated except internality (I) which was negatively corrected with other variables. Table 4. Hopelessness (BHS) was the only independent variable that was not significantly correlated with crash occurrence and injury occurrence. standard deviations and relationships between distal. standard deviations and relationships between distal. Table 4. All distal and proximal variables were positively correlated except I which was negatively corrected with other variables.1 Distal and Proximal Variable Data Results of Study 1 Study 1A. in Study 1B. All these correlations were significant (p<. 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. Study 1B.05).

08 2.476 .625** .342** -.202** .339** .562** -.278** .416** 1 .45 6.566** 1 -.57 4.662** 1 .435** .23 2.01 level (2-tailed) 127 .155** .340** .331** 1 * Correlation is significant at .316** .471** .345** 1 -.97 43.716** .209** 1 .69 24.58 .376** .442 1 -.482** .186** .64 7.247** .306** .15: Means.405** .391** -.371** .942** 1 .152** .147* .147* -.388** .191** . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 9.901** .04 26.05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .D.036 .280** .246** .52 34.44 4.376** .396** .027 1 .434** .22 3.818** 1 .239** .88 7.3455 .00 165.129* .211** .96 19.201** .544** -. 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.76 3.513** .5 5.218** .749** .553** -.231** .533** .Table 4.381** .78 .516** 1 -.2691 6.804** .

279** .50 5.82 7 13.386** .298** .338** .380** .369** .84 5.697** 1 .099 .358** .586** .140* .347** 1 -.4960 17 .587** 1 -.97 4 4.355** .731** .3079 .496** .162** .14 4.515** .013 1 .06 3 2.366** .028 -.418** .028 .9 28.56 2 4.491** .4624 1 -.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 .491** .312** 1 -.509** .334** .276** .382** 1 -.271** .53 19.91 15 27.401** .452** .842** 1 .355** .448** .331** .669** 1 -.268** .86 6.376** .324** .816** .489**.103 -.414** .225** .408** .343** .341** .173* .176* .310** .847** .602** 1 .150** .584** -.25 8 18.00 14 19.01 level (2-tailed) 128 .84 7.213** .438** 1 .051 .964** 1 .236** .039 .278** 1 -.195** .779** 1 -.294** 1 .D.521** .380** .157** .089 -.69 8.430** .66 3.411** .403** .48 3.45 5 87.688**.762** .444** .254** .43 12.393** .148* .518** .103 -.555** .55 9 21.343** .22 4.531** .331** .342** .355** .240** .434** .213** .65 Proximal Variables1 11 170.400** .167** .481** .5 6 17.272** .41 3.921** .337** .159 -.463** .153** .5695 .855** .213** .514** .067 -.286* .003 .461** .505** .9 12 71.443** .378** .200** .172** .523** .97 Outcome Variables2 16 .319** .462** .335** .372** .275** .071 .178** .363** .816** .60 10 16.540** .254** .440**.85 9.516** . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Distal Variables1 1 9.254** . Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1B (n=302) Mean S.05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .550** .445** .9 13 46.407** 1 -.353** .Table 4.147** .48 5.172** .16: Means.520** .763** .542** .

364** .9 -.069 .275** .424** 1 12 18.70 1 2 4.261** .323** .81 -.392** .120 .377** .259** .78 8.530** .191** 1 3 .324** .192**.095 .109 .270** .166** .038 .277**.64 -.230 .481** .288** .385** .423** .178** .373** .271** .314** .241** .356** .189** .203** .366** .033 .58 9.075 .051 .42 3.137* .422 -.85 19.193**.501 .545** .016 .446** .97 -.401** .355** .258** .17 -.264** .367** .348** 1 6 16.530** 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 .281** .31 3.31 -.210** .265** 1 19 25.518** .057 .254** .095 .189** .278** .209** .476** .228** .277** .395** 1 11 65.305** .150* .357** .162**.483** .202** .379** .151* .221** .296** .52 7.342** .725** .17 -.838** .293** .241** .343** .38 5.278** .531** 1 10 16.181** .402** .229** .345** .306** .139** .856** 1 17 43.11 12.37 6.387** .91 -.349** 1 16 67.292** .119* 1 21 .448** .224** .183** .250** .98 4.615** .252** .00 -.Table 4.235** .103** .270** .69 -.8 -.158** .291** .484** .588** 1 14 20.216** .183** .304** .277** 1 8 19.199**.592** .402** .281** .235** .292** .210**.227** .456** .298** .549** 1 Proximal Variables1 15 161.390** .307**.221** .343** .167** .304** .364**.354** 1 5 88.18 -.747** .86 -.003 .745** 1 7 13. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1C (n=252) Mean S.-181** .313** .03 5.222** .109 .370** .434** .508** .451** .228** .310** .224**.506** .268**.804** .130** .191** .422** 1 9 22.246** .192** .226** .641** 1 4 4.735** .183** .01 level (2-tailed) S 129 .150* .251** .70 8.749** .03 -.565** .81 5.166** .254** .286** .306** .89 5.428** .230** .308** .862** .110 .320** .526** .378** .302** .185** .186** .80 17.7 28.106 .36 -.219** .516 .081 .196** .412** .263** .D.383** . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Distal Variables1 1 10.895** 1 13 26.340** .230** .70 3.05 -.67 7.49 6.05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .296** .131* .199** .368** .079 1 Outcome Variables2 20 .294** .151* .454** .259** .275** .174** .202** .413** .141* .296** .218** .101**.082 .245** .212** .311** .076 .338** .465** .17: Means.404** .148** .7 -.9 -.502** .534** 1 18 19.

Similar to observed results in study 1A. proximal and outcome variables within the sample of motorcycle drivers in Study 2. but it was not correlated with crash occurrence or injury occurrence. and destination-activity orientation. 1B and 1C. Hostility (HOS) was significantly correlated with all other variables except with crash occurrence and crash injury.2 Results of Study 2 Table 4. externally-focused frustration. crash occurrence and injury occurrence. 130 . The BIT subscale measuring destinationactivity orientation was significantly correlated to crash occurrence but not to injury occurrence.BHS was significantly correlated to the total BIT score and to BIT subscales: usurpation of right-of-way. Of these negative the BIT subscales measuring freeway urgency and externally-focused frustration were significant. However. 4.18 shows means. BHS was significantly correlated with total BIT score and with all of the BIT subscales.5. all BIT subscales. freeway urgency. All distal and proximal variables were positively correlated except internality (I) which was negatively corrected with the BIT total score. it was not correlated with crash occurrence or with crash injury. standard deviations and relationships between distal.

325** .150 -.167 .233** .05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .323 23.758** 1 .367** .291** .630** .259** .081 8.356** .028 1 .415** .580** 1 .409** .183* 1 .251** .264** .614** .413** .500** .562** 1 .226** .374** .01 level (2-tailed) 131 .371** -.621 3.212* .317** .941** 1 .035 3.313** 1 .192* -.55 175.314** .76 48.50 73.182* -.4966 1 .376** .D.201* .4683 .14 27.428** .485 11.043 .122 7.535** 1 .139 .418** .232** .66 5.750** . 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.917 3.219** .072 .349** .5738 8.18: Means.200* -.269** .413** 1 . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 3.383** .290** .165 .6803 .48 5.795** 1 * Correlation is significant at .240** .06 20.880 .025 -.179 7.876** .111 -.334** .Table 4.66 1.30 .

19.4. correlations between I and distal. Differing from Studies 1A. BIT total scores had a significant positive correlation with crash occurrence but not with injury occurrence. In general. In this study. proximal or outcome variables in Study 3 were weaker than those observed in Studies 1 and 2. 1B. verbal aggression (VER) and anger (ANG) were significantly correlated only with crash occurrence. Externality-chance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P) scores were significantly and positively correlated with crash occurrence and injury occurrence. As indicated in Table 4. nor a weak negative correlation between I and P achieved significance.5. AQ subscales were significantly and positively correlated with each other. 1C and 2.3 Results of Study 3 Table 4. While physical aggression (PHY) and hostility (HOS) were significantly correlated with crash occurrence and injury occurrence. 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.19 shows means. However. 132 . but remaining I correlations with BIT and AQ subscales did not achieve significance. standard deviations and relationships between distal. proximal and outcome variables within the sample of taxicab drivers in Study 3. neither an observed weak positive correlation between I and C.

82 11.149 .99 10.84 2.166 .025 -.454** .095 .165 .128 .060 -.604** .31 8.114 .048 .276** .222* .023 -.65 75.028 .153** 1 .12 4.172** .156 .4 5.194* 1 .148* .721** .150** .42 66. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 3 (n=133) Mean S.156 .245** .240** .404 .161 -.120 .149 .235** .116 .067 .528** 1 .807** .401** -.19: Means.151 -.117 .193* -.229** . 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 12.147** .013 .54 11.324** .091 -.32 3.178** .0301 .521** .35 11.032 1 .643** .173* .864** 1 .070 -.117 .091 .039 .05 3.06 2.749** .213** .235** .023 .17 20.576** .030 .622** .872** .2000 .106 .171 .658** .117 .32 7.121 .13 3.373** .371** .072 -.271** .182* -.338** 1 .853** .10 1.08 15.289** 1 .D.213** .646** .109 -.071 .636** .261** .588** 1 .072 .263** .240** .257** .51 3.82 5.3 6.204* .200* .74 15.43 8.292** .561** 1 .180** .092** .141 .45 19.018 -.816** .020 .054 .194* .05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .254** -.236** .060 .15 32.418** .Table 4.177 1 .021 1 * Correlation is significant at .152 .121 .040 .88 1 .103 .167** .07 8.197* .378** 1 .268** .225** .234** .275** .618** 1 .01 level (2-tailed) 133 .255** .443** 1 .061 .246** .286* 1 .11 15.112 -.218* .

01 B=. Study 1C: B=.4.102. p<.063.01. While controlling driver experience and driving frequency. and externally-focused frustration. p<.20).01 134 . freeway urgency. analyses were conducted to test whether BIT scores influenced crash occurrence.238.6 Hypothesis Testing This section reports the results of analyses to test the hypotheses formulated in chapter 3 (see Table 3.01 B=.1 through H1.01 B=. p<.01 Study 1B B=.01 Not Significant Study 2 B=.01 Study 3 B=.135. p<.095.080. p<. 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=. Study 2: B=. These results supported H1.172. p<. Study 1B: B=.1. p<. p<.278. but not destination-activity orientation. p<. p<.01 B=. results of logistic regression analyses indicated that usurpation of right-of way.090. These results supported H1.146.041.01 B=.088 p<.095. that behaviour in traffic influences crash occurrence.6.01 B=.063.3 inclusive. p<. p<. H1.202. p<.1.01 and Study 3: B=.048.04. p<.180.1 Hypothesis 1: Behaviour in Traffic Influences Motor Vehicle Crash Outcomes First. p<. p<. 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<. 4.4 was not supported. For the destination-activity factor. p<.01 B=. Table 4. were significantly related to crash occurrence (see Table 4. When the relationships between the four component factors of the BIT scale and the likelihood of a crash outcome were tested. p<.315.01 B=.01).1.120. p<.01. p<.1.125. p<.117.01 B=.1).01 Study 1C B=.01 B=.01 B=.01 B=.01 B=.034.01.229.01 B=.

120. When the relationships between the likelihood of injury occurrence and the four component factors of the BIT scale were tested. p<.01). Table 4.01 B=. p<.22. p<.01.01 B=.038. When driver experience and travel frequency were controlled. 1B and 1C (see Table 4.165. p<. p<. p<. 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=.21).01 B=.118.01 Study 1C B=.05 Study 1B B=. p<.01 B=.01 B=.035. that behaviour in traffic would influence injury occurrence. Study 1C: B=.24.01 B=.01 and Study 2: B=.054. p<.01 B=.01.2.21: 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=. p<.6. p<. p<. logistic regression analyses indicated that usurpation of right-of way.075 p<.140.035.01 Not Significant Study 2 B=. Table 4.074.23 and Table 4.01 B=.019.01 B=.091. p<. externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation were significantly related to traffic crash injury in all studies except Study 3 (See Table 4. freeway urgency.033 p<.158.064.01 B=. These results supported H1.095. Study 1B: B=. respectively). 135 . p<.Behaviour in traffic also influenced injury occurrence in all studies except Study 3.01 B=.069.059.01 Study 3 Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant 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. p<.087. p<. p<. p<.

52 25.32 28.92 157.98 171.01.43 20.15 161.98 33.22: 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<.68 26.03 25.25 5.82 33.32 147.41 167.73 170.31 161.06 19.56 175.184** 136 .30 22.35 33.35 4.64 26.35 155.60 185.77 165.29 21.320** 64 110 41 17 69 173.48 171.01 N M SD F 186 88 18 9 161.50 28.600** Table 4.35 24.23: 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<.05.25 25.44 178.89 21.88 28. * p<.16 3. N M SD F 221 60 19 2 168.Table 4.77 8.074* 110 81 37 45 29 181.82 168.64 27.

and those who almost never travelled (p<. * p<.73 24. In Study 1B.01). drivers who travelled everyday had significantly higher total BIT scores when compared to those who travelled several times a week (p<. the effect of travel frequency on total BIT score was significant.Table 4. Drivers who travelled everyday had significantly higher total BIT scores when compared to those who almost never travelled (p<. In Study 1C.00 14. In Study 2.01). 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<. Drivers who travelled about once or twice a week had significantly higher total BIT when compared to those who almost never travelled (p<.29 15.01 14.39 19.73 157.05). Drivers who travelled every day had significantly higher total BIT scores when compared to those who travelled several times a week (p<. On the other hand.61 165.01).05) and about once every two weeks (p<.01).00 16.01).53 17.52 3.24: The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores in Study 1C (N=252) Variable Driver Experience 3 years or less 3 to 5 years 5 to 7 years More than 7 years Driving Frequency Everyday Several times a week About once or twice a week About once every two weeks Almost never Note: ** p<.05).12 161. N M SD F 187 46 16 3 159.88 167.81 167.345* 67 69 33 45 38 170.12 154. 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. about once every two weeks (p<.060** In Study 1A.14 15.77 16.25).05).06 160.06 8. 137 . motorcycle drivers’ experience was not significantly related to total BIT scores (see Table 4.01.

81 175.381 10.81 22.94 20.26). it is concluded that Hypothesis 2. 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.80 22.33 78. * p<. taxicab driver experience was not statistically related to total BIT score.26 10.56 3.920 (N.63 1.65 73. the direction of the difference was opposite to what had 138 .64 24.89 20.437 (N.55 10.09 15.62 10.S.37 9.55 73. In other words.05.47 5.81 161.50 184.S) Therefore.753* 38 48 27 20 77.S) 52 32 7 17 14 182.97 8. N. However.Table 4.74 77.01.27 14.58 188.26: 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<. * p<. However.71 168. that drivers’ demographic characteristics would significantly influence total BIT scores was supported in studies of automobile drivers.01. Not significant N M SD F 77 31 10 4 174.316 1.31 78.31 2.52 172.528** In Study 3. Not significant N M SD F 3 16 23 91 82.50 24.82 162.25: 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<.05. both driver experience and taxicab experience were tested.68 20. N.S. Table 4.859 11.60 72. It was found that the driver experience was statistically related to total BIT score (see Table 4.

the direction of the effect was consistent with the hypothesised relationship between driver experience and total BIT score. 1C and 2 differed between different ethnic groups (see Table 4. only H2. driver experience and travel frequency actually increased total BIT scores. where male automobile and motorcycle drivers scored significantly higher than female drivers. Contrary to the two sub-hypotheses. in that driver experience significantly influenced total BIT score but taxicab experience had no statistically significant effect. In Study 3. In Study 2. travel frequency actually increased total BIT scores.2 was supported in that travel frequency significantly influenced total BIT score but driver experience had no statistically significant effect. ANOVA results for age. only H2. the longer the taxicab operator had been driving. the lower was the total BIT score. 1C and 2. In this case. ANOVA indicated that mean total BIT scores in Studies 1A.1 was confirmed.3 Hypothesis 3: Demographic Variables Influence Behaviour in Traffic The direct effects on total BIT scores of three demographic variables – gender. ethnicity and age – were investigated.6. For ethnicity. t-tests indicated that mean total BIT scores differed significantly between male and female participants. 139 .been predicted by H2. Hypothesis 2 was partially supported in the study of taxicab drivers. 1B. however. though. Again.27).2. 1B. Contrary to the subhypothesis.2. the observed effect was opposite to what had been predicted by H2. indicated no significant differences in mean total BIT scores.1 and H2. In Studies 1A. Hypothesis 2 was partially supported in the study of motorcycle drivers. 4.

In Study 1A and Study 2. in that gender and ethnicity significantly influenced total BIT scores.56.2 were confirmed.562.01 F=1. In Study 1C. p<. p<.05 F=11. it was found that female automobile drivers scored significantly higher levels on the I dimension when compared to male automobile drivers. however.05).99. results showed that gender had no influence on the three dimensions of locus of control: Internality (I). p<.62. Externality-Chance (C). N.6.1 and H3. t(250) = 2. 4. H3. In Study 1B. Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers scored significantly higher total BIT scores than Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers (p<. p<.00.2 was confirmed.66.05).05.05 F=4.44. 1C and Study 2. Note: Not significant In Study 1A.9.68.01). H3. p<. p<.01 F=2. and Externality-Powerful-Others (P). N. For taxicab drivers studied in Study 3. p<. p<.12. in that ethnicity significantly influenced total BIT scores.S. age had no statistically significant direct effect on total BIT scores. In Study 1B.05.01 F=1. post hoc analyses indicated that MalaysianChinese automobile drivers and motorcyclists scored significantly lower total BIT scores than either Malaysian-Indian or Malay drivers (p<. p<. N.74. Study 1C t=3.98.3 was not supported.S Study 3 Not Applicable F=3.81. Study 1B t=2.01 F=9.4 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=.01 F=8. In all studies. p<.S.S. N.S. Study 2 t=3.Table 4. male 140 . In Study 3. N. it is concluded that Hypothesis 3 was partially supported in studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers. Malaysian-Indian taxicab drivers had significantly lower total BIT scores than either Malaysian-Chinese taxicab drivers (p<.01 F=19.53. Therefore.27: Effects of Demographic Factors on total BIT Scores Study 1A Gender Ethnicity Age t=2. so the null hypothesis could not be rejected and H3.

01). p<. F(2.941.05.05) and Malaysian-Indian drivers scored significantly higher on the P dimension than did drivers in all other ethnic groups (p<. ethnic group differences were significant only with respect to I subscale scores.05 respectively. 298) = 3.01 respectively). In Study 1B. all ethnic groups had significantly different mean I. p<. 299) = 3.05 and F(2. ethnic group differences were significant only with respect to P subscale scores. 298) = 3. post hoc analyses showed that Malaysian-Indian drivers scored significantly higher on the C and P dimensions than did Malaysian-Chinese drivers (p<. In Study 2. In Study 1A. 2 and 3 the age variable had no significant direct effects on any of the three dimensions of locus of control. Post hoc analyses indicated that Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers had significantly lower I scores than did either Malaysian-Chinese or Malay drivers (p<. F(2.01 respectively.476. 299) = 5.01). 141 .462. p<.05.503. F(2. Post hoc analyses showed that Malaysian-Indian motorcycle drivers scored significantly lower than all other ethnicity groups on the I dimension (p<.527.566. p<. 1C. t(120) = 2. t(299) = 2. F(2. For Studies 1A. Malaysian-Indian drivers had significantly higher scores on the C dimension than did Malay drivers (p<.05).05 and F(2.041. p<. 249) = 3. 1B.05 respectively. 119) = 5.490. 298) = 6.370. E and P scores.01. p<. ethnic group differences were significant only with respect to mean C and P subscale scores.automobile and motorcycle drivers scored significantly higher on the P dimension than did female automobile and motorcycle drivers. p<. In Study 1C.05). p<. F(2.05 and p<. Consistent with findings in Study 1A. Post hoc analysis showed that MalaysianIndian automobile drivers scored significantly higher than did Malaysian-Chinese drivers (p<.

was not supported in either Study 1 or Study 2.05.5 Hypothesis 5: Demographic Variables Influence Hopelessness The direct effects of gender. Malay motorcycle drivers had a significantly higher BHS score when compared to Malaysian-Chinese motorcycle drivers (p<. Therefore. 1B and 1C found no significant differences in mean scores of hopelessness (BHS) between male and female automobile drivers.3.2 and H4.3 were supported. based on the results of t-tests and ANOVA. In Studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers.3 were not supported. Independent sample t-tests on data from Studies 1A. externality-chance and externality-powerfulothers. In Study 1. p<.3. externality-chance and externality-powerful-others. H5. H4.1. t(120) = 2. Hypothesis 5 was not supported with respect to automobile drivers in Study 1. in that gender was observed to significantly influence the externalitypowerful-others scores. that gender and ethnicity influence hopelessness.2. 4.01).6.3 was supported.2. H4. it was observed that age had no significant effect on any of internality.2. Hypothesis 5 was partially supported in Study 2 with the sample of motorcycle drivers.Therefore.1. Female motorcycle drivers scored significantly lower than male motorcycle drivers. it was found that the gender and ethnicity of motorcycle drivers did have a significant direct effect on hopelessness. Age was found to have no influence on BHS scores with the sample of motorcycle drivers in Study 2. were supported. that age influences hopelessness. so H4. Hypothesis 4 was partially supported in studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers. H5. in Study 2. 142 . ethnicity and age on hopelessness were investigated. 1B or 1C.1. ANOVA results found no significant differences in mean BHS scores between ethnic groups or different age groups among automobile drivers in Studies 1A. However. that ethnicity significantly influenced internality.3.3. H4.1 and H5. H4.079.2. In addition.2 and H4.

6. p<.290.01 and B = . it is concluded that Hypothesis 6 was supported in studies of automobile drivers. In Study 1C.28). I had a significant negative effect on BHS scores (B = -.01) but externality-chance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P) had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = . were supported.254. p<. H6.3.1. p<. that the three locus of control dimensions influence hopelessness.01. 4. H6.342. In Study 1B.01) but C and P had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = .1.354.4.371. p<.01. but C and P had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = .7 Hypothesis 7: Hopelessness Influences Behaviour in Traffic In studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers.254. Therefore. that internality would influence hopelessness.01 and (B = . with higher levels of internality related to lower levels of hopelessness and higher levels of both externality dimensions associated with higher hopelessness. H6. respectively).01 and B = .6.306.3. p<. respectively). were supported. p<.01.186. 143 . 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. H6.01 respectively).01 and B = . no significant effects were observed between I and BHS scores in the sample of motorcycle drivers. p<.6 Hypothesis 6: Locus of Control Influences Hopelessness In Study 1A. In Study 2. p<. p<. was not supported.2 and H6. I was found to have a significant negative effect on BHS scores (B = -. p<.01) but C and P had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = . internality (I) had a significant negative effect on hopelessness (BHS) (B = -. that externality-chance and externality-powerful-others would influence hopelessness.341.239. with the sample of motorcycle drivers.312.2 and H6. Hypothesis 6 was partially supported in Study 2. p<. respectively).

247. p<. the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = .151. p<.01).254.254. freeway urgency (B = .01). p<. p<.141. externally-focused frustration (B = .275.01 B=. p<.280.151.01 B=. p<. p<.01 B=. freeway urgency (B =.01 Study 1B B=.4.280.191. p<.141.317.153.01 B=. p<. p<.247.01 B=.S. it is concluded that Hypothesis 7. the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = . 1C and 2. H7.05 B=.01) and destination-activity orientation (B = . In Study 1B. p<.232. it was observed that the higher the hopelessness scores.05) but not for freeway urgency.01). N. p<. p<.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=. In Study 1C. H7.200. with both automobile and motorcycle drivers.3 and H7.151.05 Study 2 B=.287. p<. p<.191.05 In Study 1A.01). externally-focused frustration (B = . p<. H7.232. the higher the hopelessness scores.01 B=.151.01 B=. p<. was supported in Studies 1A. freeway urgency (B = .01). p<.415.2. p<. p<.01 B=.099.01).1.05). p<. that hopelessness would have a significant positive effect on freeway urgency was not supported in Study 1B. externally-focused frustration (B = . externally-focused frustration (B = .Table 4.418.01 B=. p<. p<. it was observed that the higher the hopelessness (BHS) scores.275.287.05).01 B=. p<. p<. p<.317.01) and destination-activity orientation (B = .01 B=.05) and destination-activity orientation (B = . the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = . that hopelessness would have a significant positive direct effect on usurpation of right-of-way.349.153.288. p<.01). meaning that H7 was only partially supported for that study. p<. p<. p<.05 B=.278. B=. p<. p<. 144 .157. p<.05).349.157.415. the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = .01 B=. externallyfocused frustration and destination-activity were supported in both Studies 1 and 2. p<.01 B=.05) and destinationactivity orientation (B = .05 Study 1C B=. that hopelessness would have a significant positive influence on total BIT scores. the higher the hopelessness scores. In Study 2. Therefore.

01 B=.6.1.006. that the higher the subscale score for I. that locus of control would influence total BIT scores were supported in Study 1.3. 145 . p<. p<.01 B=. the higher were mean total BIT scores automobile drivers in Study 1.339. p<. but not H8.3.625. p<.208.01 B=-. B=. with internality observed to exert a positive effect on BIT and the two externality dimensions to exert negative effects.3 that externality-powerful-others would influence total BIT scores.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=-. Table 4. H8. motorcycle and taxicab drivers).2.01 B=.315.05 B=. N. that internality would negatively influence total BIT scores was supported. p<.1. Hypothesis 8 was partially supported for motorcycle drivers in Study 2.044. but not of the motorcycle and taxicab drivers in Studies 2 and 3 (See Table 4. H8. but not of the sample of taxicab drivers in Study 3. B=. p<.S.388.01 B=. provided support for hypothesis H8. p<.077.29).2.239. results indicated that the higher were subscale scores for P. where only H8. With regard to H8.2 and H8.01 B=-. the higher were mean total BIT scores of automobile and motorcycle drivers in Studies 1 and 2. N.01 B=.297. H8.1. p<. p<. p<.168.1 and H8.178.01 B=. the lower were mean total BIT scores.S. Hypothesis 8 was partially supported for taxicab drivers in Study 3. results indicated that the higher were subscale scores for C. Therefore.01 B=-.229.01 B=.336.8 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.753. that internality and externality-chance would influence total BIT scores were supported.4.01 B=-. p<. Results of multiple regression analyses (in studies of car. it is concluded that Hypothesis 8 was supported for automobile drivers in Study 1. N.S. With regard to H8. p<.

F=4.1). p<. p<. 146 .704. In Study 1C.1).01 respectively (see Figure 4. it was found that Malay automobile drivers with high externalitychance scores had significantly higher BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of way than did Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers with low externality-chance scores. Mean Score on Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) 175 Ethnicty Malay MalaysianChinese 170 MalaysianIndian 165 160 155 150 low high Internality Figure 4.1: Interaction Effects between Ethnicity and Internality on BIT In Study 1C. p<. freeway urgency and externally-focused frustration than did Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers with high internal control. F=4. F=7.01 (see Figure 4.710.05. p<.909.01 and F=8.01 (see Figure 4. p<. =8. results revealed that Malay automobile drivers with high internal control had significantly lower scores on BIT subscales measuring usurpation of right-of-way.Additional analysis: Interaction of ethnicity and locus of control on BIT. Scores for the three locus of control dimensions – internality. 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. 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.2).272.581. Further.

p<.00 68. in Study 2. R2=.9 Hypothesis 9: Hopelessness Moderates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Behaviour in Traffic For Studies 1A.05. However.05. Residuals Normality: Skewness=. B = . F=4.282. 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 4.444. Kurtosis=-.327. First. Hopelessness moderated the relationship between internality and the total BIT score and between externality-chance and to total BIT score.033.3). the results of hierarchical regression indicated that the R2 value changed after the internality x hopelessness interaction was added in the regression model (R2=. 1B and 1C. 147 .Mean Score on Usurpation of Right-of Way Ethnicty 74.00 low high Externality (Chance) Figure 4. hopelessness did not moderate the relationship between locus of control and BIT.537) and the moderator (hopelessness) showed a significant result.00 64. multiple regression showed mixed results.2: Interaction Effect between Ethnicity and Externality-Chance on Usurpation of Right-of Way 4.00 Malay MalaysianChinese 72.034.6.00 66.00 MalaysianIndian 70.00 62. p<.

Kurtosis=-. R2=.01. p<. Effect for drivers with high hopelessness score BIT Level Effect for drivers with low hopelessness score Externality (Chance) Figure 4.4).4: Moderating Effect of BHS on the Externality (Chance) -BIT Relationship 148 .371).167.3: 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=.459.463. and the moderator (hopelessness) showed a significant result.608. F=18.01. B = .070. 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. Residuals Normality: Skewness=.BIT Level Effect for drivers with high hopelessness score Effect for drivers with low hopelessness score Internality Figure 4. p<.

p<.01 (see table 4. Hopelessness did not moderate the locus of control-BIT relation for automobile drivers. p<. p<. verbal aggression and indirect aggression (see Table 4. Table 4.6.690. and t(250) = 2.01 t=2.820.01 The relationship between ethnic background and aggression was tested for automobile drivers in Studies 1B.10 Hypothesis 10: Demographic Factors Influence Aggression Analyses tested whether gender.603. p<. N. p<. p<. Mean total AQ scores differed significantly between male and female participants in Studies 1B and 1C. In Study 1B and Study 3. results indicated that male automobile drivers scored significantly higher than female drivers on measures of physical aggression. and H9. However. ANOVA revealed no significant differences between ethnic groups in mean total AQ scores. In Study 1C.467. that hopelessness would moderate the relationship between externalitychance and total BIT scores. the H9. t= . When mean subscale scores for the five AQ component factors were tested.1.05 t=.677.S. were supported.210.01 t=2.603. p<. t(300) = 2.521. N. N. In both studies.S t=1. p<.S t=2.31). 249) = 5.30: Direct Effects of Gender on AQ Total and Subscale Scores Total Aggression (AQ) score Physical Aggression (PHY) Verbal Aggression (VER) Anger (ANG) Hostility (HOS) Indirect Aggression (IND) Study 1B t=2.01 t=-. p<. p<.164.01.690.187.2. N. Hypothesis 9 was partially supported in Study 2.480. male automobile drivers had significantly higher total AQ scores than did female automobile drivers.032.298.01 t=4. that hopelessness would moderate the relationship between internality and total BIT scores. ethnicity and age exerted direct effects on drivers’ Aggression Questionnaire (AQ) scores.780. mean total AQ scores differed significantly between ethnic groups. F(2. p<. it is concluded that Hypothesis 9 was not supported in Study 1.Therefore.30).05 Study 1C t=2.05 t=4. Post hoc analysis showed that Malaysian-Chinese 149 . With motorcycle drivers.05 respectively. however. 4.S t=2. 1C and 3.

p<.automobile drivers in Study 1C had significantly lower total AQ scores than did Malay or Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers (p<.01). F=2.398. p<.804.S.561. Malaysian-Chinese and Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers were also significantly different.S. 299) = 4.01. 299) = 5.564.01). N. N. F=.05 Study 1C F=5.182. F=1. ANOVA revealed no significant differences between ethnic groups in mean scores in any of the AQ subscale scores. F=1.432.763. Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers had significantly lower IND scores than drivers from other ethnic groups (p<.422. 249) = 10.01 F=. F=2. N.904. F=1.S. N.629. Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers had significantly lower IND scores than drivers from other ethnic groups (p<. F=1. F=2. 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. F(2. N. In Study 1B. F(2. F=2.31: 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.S. p<.567.01 F=2.01). N. Similar to the findings in Study 1B. F=5. the mean verbal aggression (VER) scores of Malay.S.521. N.01). p<.S.041. 150 .S. mixed results were found. N. p<.S.021.526. Table 4. Malaysian-Chinese and Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers were significantly different. In Study 3. F(2.077. N.S. N.S.S.155.01.S. N.041.S. mean IND scores of Malay. N.05. N. Malaysian-Chinese and Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers were significantly different.S F=10.57. In Study 1C. The mean indirect aggression (IND) scores of Malay. Malay automobile drivers scored significantly higher VER scores than drivers from other ethnic groups (p<. When AQ subscale scores were tested for Study 1B and Study 1C.01 Study 3 F=1. p<.432. N. F=4. F=1.632. p<.

H10. in studies of both automobile drivers and taxicab drivers.2. that aggression would have a positive influence on total BIT scores.2 (that ethnicity would influence aggression level) was supported only in Study 1C and only with respect to total AQ.29). In Studies 1B and 1C. The higher the total aggression scores. were all supported. H11. H10. H11. H11. 4. total BIT scores and scores on usurpation of right-of way and freeway urgency subscales were higher. freeway urgency. that aggression would have a direct positive effect on the usurpation of right-of way. it is concluded that Hypothesis 10 was partially supported. respectively.Therefore.4. externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation. with regard to the taxicab drivers sampled in Study 3. externally-focused frustration. However.3 (that age would negatively influence aggression) was not supported. In Study 3.1. 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. was supported. 151 . freeway urgency. only H11. however. H10.3 and H11. it is concluded that Hypothesis 11.6.11 Hypothesis 11: Aggression Influences Behaviour in Traffic In Study 1B and Study 1C. VER and IND) of five component factors among automobile drivers sampled in both Studies 1B and 1C.3 and H11. 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. and destination-activity orientation (see Table 4. Therefore. that aggression would have a direct positive effect on externally-focused frustration and on destination-activity orientation. the higher were automobile drivers’ total BIT scores and scores on the four components. This means that when taxicab drivers’ aggression scores were higher.32). VER and IND subscale scores.4. were supported.1 (that gender would influence aggression) was supported with respect to measures of total aggression and to the same three (PHY.

it was found that there was an interaction effect between ethnicity and verbal aggression (VER) on freeway urgency. p<. p<. B = .01.S.491.01 B=.370.01 B=.5). Additional analysis: Interaction effects of ethnicity and aggression on BIT. Similarly. However. F=3.01. p<.540.483. B = .121.01 B=. but that this does not apply to taxi drivers.01 respectively.05 (see Figure 4.01 B=.520. and B = . the higher were total BIT scores.01 B=.461. 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. and B = .Table 4. This implies that when automobile drivers have higher levels of ANG and IND.01 and B = . p<. p<. Malay automobile drivers with high VER scores tended to score 152 . indirect aggression (IND) was also found to have significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1B and Study 1C.01 B=. no interaction effects were found in all studies – Study 1A. p<.01 B=. Also.505. p<.380.204.428. B = . p<.01 B=.01 Study 1C B=.216. p<.370. B=. but not in Study 3. p<.01 and B = .01.183. p<.05 B=. When the interaction effect of ethnicity and hopelessness was tested on the BIT and its four component factors.01.263.565.01 B=.01 respectively. respectively. p<.01.324.01.387. respectively.438. p<. p<. p<. B = . With both automobile and taxicab drivers. p<.545. Study 1C and Study 3.881.235. p<. hostility (HOS) was found to have a significant positive influence on BIT in Study 1B. p<.32: Effect of Aggression on Total BIT Scores and on BIT Component Factors Study 1B B=. p<.S. Study 2 and Study 3.05 B=. p<. Linear regression analyses indicated that physical aggression (PHY) had a significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1B. Study 1C and Study 3. but not in Study 3. their total BIT scores tend to be higher. p<. p<.048.01 Study 3 B=. N. the higher the levels of PHY and HOS. B = .263. p<.229. N.385. B = . Verbal aggression (VER) was found to have no significant influence on total BIT scores. 1C. p<. Results of regression analyses also showed that anger (ANG) had a significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1B and Study 1C. 1B.

01. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-. 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.00 44.362. respectively. and B=-.003. p<.00 46. for Study 1B.6. F=100.significantly higher on freeway urgency than did Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers with high VER scores.00 42. aggressive drivers with low internal locus of control would 153 .100. Kurtosis=-.01. p<.00 IndianMalaysian 48. Study 1C and Study 3.12 Hypothesis 12: Locus of Control Moderates the Relationship between Aggression and Behaviour in Traffic 4. p<. p<. In other words.5: Interaction of Ethnicity and Verbal Aggression on Freeway Urgency 4. B=-. R2=.516.076.00 Low High Verbal Aggression Figure 4. R2=.131. Mean Score on Freeway Urgency Ethnicty 52.645.6.05.01. B=-.929.12.271. F=81. The moderating effect of I was significant. Kurtosis=-.961.00 Malay ChineseMalaysian 50.1 Internality as a Moderator Hierarchical regression analyses revealed that internality (I) moderated the relationship between aggression and total BIT score. and R2 values changed after the I x AQ interaction was added in the regression models (R2=. Residuals Normality: Skewness=.297.316. p<.01.172. R2=.

271.360. the hierarchical regression revealed that externalitychance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P) moderated the relationship between aggression and total BIT score. Effect for aggressive drivers with low internality score BIT Level Effect for aggressive drivers with high internality score Aggression Level Figure 4. p<.507. F=78. R2=. p<. and the moderating effects of C and P were 154 . and the moderating effects of C and P were significant. F=94. R2=.01.117. p<. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-.2 Externality-chance and Externality-powerful-others as Moderators In Study 1B and Study 1C. R2 values changed after both the C x AQ and P x AQ interactions were added in the respective regression models (R2=.387. 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=. Consistent with the findings from Study 1B.297. p<. Kurtosis=.794.088. Kurtosis=-.01.897. This applied to both automobile drivers and taxicab drivers.have higher BIT scores compared to drivers with high internal locus of control (see figure 4. respectively). B = .369.431.12.757.069.01 respectively. R2=. respectively).01 and B = .01. Kurtosis=-. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-463.6.606. Residuals Normality: Skewness= -. Kurtosis=. R2=.297. F=71. p<.015.694.6).01. R2=.271.109. In Study 1B.6: Moderating Effect of Internality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship 4. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-.015. R2=. F=91.704. p<.

01 and B = . p<. 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.significant. p<. H12.1. hierarchical regression results showed that neither C nor P moderated the relationship between aggression and total BIT scores for taxicab drivers in Study 3.2. and the moderation effect was not significant.3. Therefore. and H12. Effect for aggressive drivers with high externality scores BIT Level Effect for aggressive drivers with low externality scores Aggression Level Figure 4.7: Moderating Effects of Externality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship However.332. with the samples of automobile drivers study for student car drivers.302. it is concluded that the Hypothesis 12 was supported in Studies 1B and 1C. B = . externality-chance and externality-powerful-others 155 . H12.7). This means that aggressive taxicab drivers with high scores on either the C or P locus of control dimensions did not differ greatly in total BIT scores from taxicab drivers with low scores on the C or P dimensions. that the internality. R2 values did not change after either the C x AQ or P x AQ interactions were added in the regression models.01 respectively.

343.05. male automobile drivers scored significantly higher on HAT subscales measuring statements about physical aggression. No significant differences were observed between age groups with respect to total HAT scores or to scores on any of the three HAT subscales.01 and revenge: t(249) = 3.01 but not on about the derogation of others. On the subscale measuring statements about revenge. that internality moderates the relationship between aggression and total BIT scores was supported.885.314.05. t(250) = 3. with the sample of taxicab drivers. 249) = 5. H122 and H12.13 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. There were no significant differences between ethnic groups with respect to hostile statements about the derogation of others. 248) = 3. 4. Post hoc analysis indicated that Chinese-Malaysian automobile drivers had significantly lower scores on the subscale measuring statements about physical aggression than did either Malay automobile drivers (p<. p<.737. 249) = 4. p<. There were also significant differences between ethnic groups on subscale scores measuring statements about physical aggression F(2. t(249)=2. p<. 156 .3.01.01). Also. p<.dimensions of locus of control moderate the relationship between aggression and total BIT scores were supported. Hypothesis 12 was only partially supported in Study 3. F(2.1. p<.05). Only H12. and about revenge F(2. Post hoc analysis indicated that Chinese-Malaysian automobile drivers had significantly lower total HAT scores than either Malay or Indian-Malaysian automobile drivers (p<.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.279.6.05).01. Chinese-Malaysian automobile drivers had significantly lower scores than IndianMalaysian automobile drivers (p<. p<. However. ANOVA results showed that ethnic groups differed significantly with respect to mean total HAT scores.263.

p<. were supported. linear regression analyses indicated that total HAT scores predicted total BIT scores. B = .01.01 and B = .01. derogation of others and revenge) positively influence total BIT scores.224.379.01. p<. freeway urgency.14 Hypothesis 14: Hostile Automatic Thoughts Influence Behaviour in Traffic In Study 1C. (that thoughts about physical aggression.01. H13.01 and destination-activity orientation.1. it is concluded that the Hypothesis 13. H14. p<. 4. p<. B = .3. p<. that age would influence hostile automatic thoughts. the higher the scores on the three classes of hostile automatic thought. it is concluded that the Hypothesis 14. was partially supported. B = .307. the higher the total HAT scores. Therefore.413.192. that demographic variables would influence hostile automatic thoughts. B = . B = .2. p<.3. p<.2 and H14. that gender and ethnicity respectively would have significant direct effects on hostile automatic thoughts. on total BIT score were also tested.Therefore. B = . The effects of HAT subscales measuring the three classes of hostile automatic thoughts.394.6. externally-focused frustration.01. were supported.277.1 and H13. the higher were total BIT scores. derogation of others and revenge had a significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1C B =. p<. and also scores measuring the four BIT component factors: usurpation of right-of-way. 157 . with the sample of automobile drivers studied. was not supported. This means that. This means that. Linear regression analyses indicated that subscales measuring thoughts about physical aggression.364.01. was supported. H14. H13. the higher were automobile drivers’ total BIT scores and scores on the four components. that hostile automatic thoughts would influence behaviour in traffic. respectively.

01.8: Moderating Effect of Externality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship It was observed that two of the HAT subscales.4. p<. 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. B = .8). In other words. Kurtosis=.297. The R2 value changed after the HAT-Physical Aggression x AQ interaction was added in the regression model (R2=.809. R2=.188. Normality Residuals: Skewness=. also moderated the relationship between aggression and BIT.05.072). 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. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-.911.002.-554. p<. F=57. R2 values changed after the HAT x AQ interaction was added in the regression model (R2=.085). Kurtosis=. and the moderating effect of HAT-Physical 158 .013. Physical Aggression and Revenge.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.01. Effect for aggressive drivers with high HAT score BIT Level Effect for aggressive drivers with low HAT score Aggression Level Figure 4.565.297. F=55. p<. R2=. and the moderating effect of HAT was significant.6.

01.16 Summary of Hypothesis Testing The following table provides summarised results for the hypotheses and subhypotheses in this study (see Table 4. 4. H15. B = .475. that hostile statements about physical aggression and revenge respectively moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic.6. was supported.33). H15. Kurtosis=.2. were supported. p<. and the moderating effect of HAT-Revenge was significant.3. Therefore. was not supported. p<. p<. that total HAT score would moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic. it is concluded that Hypothesis 15.026.092).1 and H15.01.297. Normality Residuals: Skewness=.01.207. The HAT subscale measuring thoughts about the derogation of others did not 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.294. B = .246. However. 159 . R2=. F=59.Aggression was significant. The R2 value also changed after the HATRevenge x AQ interaction was added in the regression model (R2=.

S N.4: Destination-activity orientation will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H2: Driver characteristics will influence behaviour in traffic H2.2: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.2.S S N.3:Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.S P.2: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.S N.S N.2.1.S S S S S N.S 160 .1: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.3.1: Age will influence the Locus of Control: Internality S S S S S S S S S S S S S S P.1.Table 4.S N.S 2 S S S S S S S S S S S P.S N.S P.S S S S P.S N.1: Driver experience will have a negative influence on total BIT score H2.1: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.S.S 1C P.1.1.S N.S N.2.S S S N.1.S N.3: Gender will influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H4.S N.2: Taxicab experience will have a negative influence on total BIT score H3: Demographic variables will influence behaviour in traffic H3.2.S P.2: Freeway urgency will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.S S S N.S N.S S S S S N.S N.S N.S N.4:Destination-activity orientation will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.S N.2: Ethnicity will influence total BIT score H3.1: Gender will influence total BIT score H3.2.2: Traveling frequency will have a negative influence on total BIT score H2.2 :Freeway urgency will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.S N.S S S N.3: Age will have a negative influence on total BIT score H4: Demographic variables will influence the Locus of Control H4.2.S P.S S S N.1: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Internality H4.S S N.S N.S P.S N.S S S S S N.2.S S N. S N.S 1B S S S S S S S S S S S S S S P.S S N.2: Ethnicity will influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.S 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: Ethnicity influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H4.1.S S S N.1: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.S S P.S 3 P.3: Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.1: Ethnicity will influence the Locus of Control: Internality H4.S P.S N.S N.S S S S S S N.1.S N.

S S N.S N.S S S N. blank=Not Applicable N.3.S N.S N.S STUDY 1C N.2: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Freeway urgency H7.1: Internality will have a negative influence on Hopelessness H6.S S S S S S S S P.1: Hopelessness will moderate the Internality-BIT relation H9.2: Externality-Chance will have a positive influence on Hopelessness H6. N.S S N.S S N.S N.2: Externality-Chance will have a positive influence on total BIT H8.S P.S N.S N.S N.S N.3: Externality-Powerful-Others will have a positive influence on Hopelessness H7: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on behaviour in traffic H7.3: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Externally-focused frustration H7.3: Age will influence Hopelessness H6: Locus of Control will influence Hopelessness H6.S S S N.S P.S N.S N.Table 4.S N.S N.3: Age will influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H5: Demographic variables will influence Hopelessness H5.2: Age will influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.S N.S 2 N.1: Internality will have a negative influence on total BIT score H8.2: Hopelessness will moderate the Externality-Chance--BIT relationship H9.S N.S N.S= Partially Supported.S N.S 1B N.S S S N.1: Gender will influence Hopelessness H5. P.S N.S 161 .S S S S S P.S= Not Supported.S N.S P.S N.S S S S S S S S S S S S S S N.S P.S N.S N.S S S N.S N.S N.S N.3: Age will have a negative influence on Aggression S=Supported.S 3 N.2: Ethnic background will influence of Hopelessness H5.2: Ethnic background will influence Aggression H10.S N.S N.S N.3: Hopelessness will moderate the Externality-Powerful-Others--BIT relationship H10: Demographic variables will influence aggression H10.3: Externality-Powerful-Others will have a positive influence on total BIT score H9: Hopelessness will moderate the Locus of Control-BIT relationship H9.33 (Continued) 1A H4.S N.1: Gender will influence Aggression H10.S S S S S S S S S S S S S S N.S N.S S S S S S S N.3.S P.S N.4: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Destination-activity Orientation H8: Locus of Control will influence behaviour in traffic H8.1: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Usurpation of right-of way H7.S N.S P.S N.

S S S N.S 162 .3: Aggression will have a positive influence on Externally-focused frustration H11.3: Thoughts about Revenge will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship S=Supported.S S 2 3 P.1: Gender will have a positive influence on hostile automatic thoughts H13. N.S S N.S N.S P.33 (Continued) 1A H11: Aggression will have a positive influence on behaviour in traffic H11.3: Age will have a negative influence on hostile automatic thoughts H14: Hostile Automatic Thoughts will have a positive influence on behaviour in traffic H14.1: Aggression will have a positive influence on usurpation of right-of way H11. P.S S S N.2: Ethnic background will influence hostile automatic thoughts H13.2: Externality-Chance will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12.2: Aggression will have a positive influence on Freeway urgency H11.2: Thoughts about the Derogation-of-Others will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H15.3: Externality-Powerful-Others will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H13: Demographic variables will influence Hostile Automatic Thought s H13.S S S S S P.1: Internality will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12. 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.S= Partially Supported.1: Thoughts about Physical Aggression will have a positive influence on total BIT score H14.Table 4.3: Thoughts about Revenge will have a positive influence on total BIT score H15: Hostile Automatic Thoughts will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H15.S S N.S N.4: Aggression will have a positive influence on Destination-activity orientation H12: Locus of Control will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12.1: Thoughts about Physical Aggression will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H15.S= Not Supported.2: Thoughts about the Derogation of Others will have a positive influence on total BIT score H14.

C. (2) usurpation of right-of-way. Hopelessness (BHS). BHS. HAT I. HAT Proximal Factors F1. This contextual mediated model was tested six times and the goodness-of-fit indices for these models are indicated in Table 4. P.52 (Jöreskog and Sörbom. BHS. All proposed models measured: (1) internality.00000 .38 100.7. freeway urgency (F2). Study 2: motorcycle driver. F2. F2. 4. F2. F4 χ2 49. C.4. externally-focused frustration (F3) and destination-activity orientation (F4) Of the six models tested. Table 4. HAT I. 163 . 23 28 33 38 24 33 p-value GFI .045 . These models were re-specified by adding different proximal context factors.34. Externality Powerful-Other (P). F4 F1. F2.00000 .58 35. F4 F1. Hopelessness. F3.93 . F3. AQ I. 2002).34: SEM Comparison (Study 1C) Distal Factors 1C1 1C2 1C3 1C4 1C5 1C6 I. F3.00000 .93 .102 .f. two were worthy of further examination. Model 1C5 had better fit but necessitated dropping one of the component factors.02 d. P.97 .96 .087 . Aggression (AQ). F4 F1. F3. AQ.060 Note: Internality (I). C. Hostile Automatic Thought (HAT).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. P.00111 .90 110. e.00126 .g. hopelessness or subtracting the latent variables in order to obtain the optimal goodness-of-fit index.96 RMSEA . Three studies (Study 1C: automobile driver. 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. BHS I. P I. F3. F2. externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation as proximal context factors. C. Usurpation of right-of-way (F1).068 . F4 F1. F3 F1.97 63. C. AQ and Hostile Automatic Thought (HAT).093 .80 104. and (3) crash occurrence and injury occurrence as outcome. P. F2. C. externality (Chance) and externality (Powerful-Other) as distal context factors. Externality Chance (C).93 .05522 . freeway urgency. AQ.1 Study 1C The contextual mediated model in this study was tested with four distal factors – Locus of Control. P. AQ.

.22 respectively (see Figure 4. and PGFI=. AGFI=.3.26.98). RMSEA=. 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. goodness-of-fit was characterised as very good (χ2=63. 5. goodness-of-fit was characterised as excellent (χ2=35.13.28 and . AGFI=.10).14. The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=.29 and . Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thought had effects on BIT. Externality (Chance).51 and PGFI=.=24. .060. For Model C6. The five distal variables accounted for 67% of the variance in BIT scores.97. ECVI=.f. GFI=. subsequent additional analysis was carried out to calculate a range of comparative fit indices. 164 .97.02.045. GFI=.=33.26. d. values were: NFI=. with path coefficients = -. RMR=. The five distal variables accounted for 70% of the variance in BIT scores.94.043.043. .97. Making a decision to select one of these models over the other raised a number of interesting points.96. . RMSEA=. ECVI=.10). d.96. For Model C5. retained all four of the BIT component factors and fit indices were acceptable. To aid this discussion.92) on accident involvement. . An alternate model. C6. The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=. Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thought had effects on BIT.42. Externality (Powerful-Other). CFI=.91. but not as good as for C5. The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that all possible paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant: Internality.35.32.99) and constituted the best fit of all six of the tested models.f.92) on accident involvement. Externality (Powerful-Other). with path coefficients = -. Externality (Chance). .48. CFI=.5. which are detailed in sect.42.23 respectively (see Figure 4. For Model C6. For Model C5. RMR=.destination-activity orientation (F4). values for these additional indices were: NFI=.

043 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.99 P-value = .92* Accident Involvement .63* .9: Contextual Mediated Model 1C5 (Three BIT Factors) 165 .13* Externality (Powerful Other) BIT1 BIT2 BIT3 .05 BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way.f =24 CFI=.51* . BITF4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4.045 RMR=.26* Crash Occurrence Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) .32* Externality (Chance) .57* Injury Occurrence .97 GFI=.79* .58* .97 d. *p<.22* Hostile Automatic Thought Model Statistics χ2=35. BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration.29* Aggression (AQ) .005522 N=252 RMSEA=.Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome Internality -. BITF2=Freeway Urgency.

13* Externality (Powerful Other) BIT1 BIT2 BIT3 BIT4 . BITF2=Freeway Urgency.31* Externality (Chance) . *p<. BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration.Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome Internality -.f =33 CFI=. BITF4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4.39* .02 GFI=.50* .63* .060 RMR=.56* .92* Accident Involvement .00126 N=252 RMSEA=.96 d.22* Hostile Automatic Thought Model Statistics χ2=63.043 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.29* Aggression (AQ) .26* Crash Occurrence Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) .58* Injury Occurrence .98 P-value = .10: Contextual Mediated Model 1C6 (Four BIT Factors) 166 .77* .05 BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way.

ANG.00000 GFI RMSEA . Aggression (AQ). The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=.00000 . F3 F1. Verbal aggression (VER).93 . HAT-R PHY. HOS. F2. VER.081 . freeway urgency (F2). path coefficients = . Hostile Automatic Thought-Revenge(HAT-R). CFI=. HOS. ANG. HAT-D. It was found that both structural paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant: Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thought have effects on the Behaviour of Traffic (BIT). Hostile Automatic Thought-Derogation of others (HAT-D).=61. HAT-D. VER. The proposed contextual mediated model was tested five times (see Table 4. HAT-P. F3. HAT-R Proximal Factors F1.35: Different Contextual Models (Study 1C) Distal Factors PHY.92 .In addition. The results for the goodness-offit indexes are shown as follows: Table 4. GFI=. HAT-R PHY.13 respectively.66).91. Angry (ANG). IND. HAT-P.66 131. HAT-R PHY.91 . Indirect aggression (IND).91 . Hostile Automatic Thought was found to have a direct effect on the AQ (path coefficient=.73 169.65 and . Usurpation of right-of-way (F1). Hostile Automatic Thought-Physical aggression (HAT-P). HAT-D. IND PHY. VER. HAT-P. HOS.080 .00000 .94 169.35).80) on the accident involvement. ANG. F3.00000 . ANG. using automobile drivers sampled in Study 1C.41. d. IND.95). HOS.00111 . F4 χ2 108.f. F2. F2. HAT-P. RMSEA=. IND. HOS. F4 F1. externally-focused frustration (F3) and destination-activity orientation (F4) As depicted in Figure 4. the contextual mediated model was tested using Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thoughts and their latent variables (component factors) as distal context factors.91 .f. F2.084 .078 Note: Physical aggression (PHY). F4 F1.41 d. F2.084 . HAT-D. the final model has provided a reasonable fit to the data (χ2=153. ANG.10. IND.078.66 153. 42 61 50 61 61 p-value . F3. F3 F1. 167 . Hostility (HOS).

41 GFI=.65* Crash Occurrence Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) .058 Note: Values showed are path coefficients. BIT2=Freeway Urgency.Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome Physical Aggression .66* .60* Injury Occurrence Physical Aggression .58* .80* Accident Involvement .69* Anger .078 RMR=.83* . BIT4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4.62* .f =61 CFI=.05 .82* Revenge BIT1=Usurpation of Right-of way.63* Indirect Aggression . *p<.61* .91 d.95 P-value = .65* . BIT3=Externally-Focused Frustration.29* Hostility .11: Contextual Mediated Model Study 1C (Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thoughts) 168 .13* Model Statistics χ2=153.000 N=252 RMSEA=.72* .68* Aggression (AQ) BIT1 BIT2 BIT3 BIT4 .90* Derogation of Other Hostile Automatic Thought .

94 .058 . C. the final model for the student motorcycle drivers did not include hopelessness. d.4.047.062 Note: Internality (I).95 . C. CFI=.12). Usurpation of right-of-way (F1). F3. P. Internality and Externality (Chance) the Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) but not Externality (PowerfulOther).07580 . The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=. F2. The contextual mediated model was tested using locus of control and hopelessness as distal context factors.94. GFI=. The four distal variables accounted for 49% of the variance in BIT. C.047 . P I.17631 . 169 . path coefficients = -.36). F3. BHS I.f. Externality Chance (C).06722 . F2.98). F4 F1. The goodness-of-fit indexes for these models are shown as follow: Table 4.f.36: Different Contextual Models (Study 2) Distal Factors Proximal Factors χ2 29. p-value GFI RMSEA I. freeway urgency (F2). BHS F1. RMSEA=. F4 39.33 33. F3 F1. Compared to the Study 1 for student car drivers. the participants were motorcycle drivers. The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that three paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant. Externality Powerful-Other (P).12 d.94 .65 and .7.12. P.86 23 28 23 . The proposed contextual mediated model was tested three times (see Table 4.66) on the accident involvement.=28. 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. F2.80 respectively (see Figure 4. Hopelessness (BHS).2 Study 2 In Study 2.

57* Internality -.12: Contextual Mediated Model Study 2 170 . *p<.78* .88* Crash Occurrence .89* .70* BIT4 .Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome BIT1 BIT2 .12 GFI=.66* Accident Involvement Externality (Powerful Other) .17631 N=122 RMSEA=.05 Injury Occurrence Model Statistics χ2=29. BIT2=Freeway Urgency.047 RMR=. BIT3=Externally-Focused Frustration.f =23 CFI=.046 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.80* Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) . BIT4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4.95 d.83* BIT3 .65* Externality (Chance) .05 BIT1=Usurpation of Right-of way.99 P-value = .

37: Different Contextual Models (Study 3) Distal Factors I. P.39. Internality and AQ. P. Usurpation of right-of-way (F1). F3. GFI=.f.93 . C.37). The four distal variables accounted for 12% of the variance in BIT. the participants were taxi drivers. AQ F1. P Proximal Factors F1.03084 . C. Hopelessness (H). The contextual mediated model was tested using locus of control and hopelessness as distal context factors. AQ F1.59 17 .20 and . AQ and only crash occurrence as outcome has provided the best goodness-of-fit to the data (χ2=31.f.027 I.4.061.3 Study 3 In Study 3. RMSEA=.00524 . F2. This contextual mediated model was tested four times (see Table 4. p-value GFI RMSEA Crash Occurrence. C.06743 .39 21 . F2.22 23 .079 Injury Occurrence I. The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that two out of four possible paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant. F4 Crash Occurrence 31. 171 .82 28 .95).95.7.068 Injury Occurrence Crash Occurrence. F2. F4 Crash Occurrence 18. have effects on the Behaviour in Traffic (BIT).20 respectively (see Figure 4. but not Externality. path coefficients = -.13). C. F3.40) on the accident involvement. CFI=. Externality Chance (ExC).95 . F2. F4 Outcomes χ2 d.061 Note: Internality (I). The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=. Externality Powerful-Other (ExPo). 37.97 . freeway urgency (F2). externally-focused frustration (F3) and destination-activity orientation (F4) Model included locus of control. AQ F1. F3.94 . F3.=21. I. The goodness-of-fit indexes for these models are shown as follow: Table 4. d.35265 . F4 50.

40* Crash Occurrence Externality (Powerful Other) . *p<.61* BIT4 .95 P-value = .03 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) . BIT2=Freeway Urgency.Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome BIT1 BIT2 .053 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.061 RMR=. BIT3=Externally-Focused Frustration.39* Internality -.20* Externality (Chance) . BIT4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4.39 GFI=.13: Contextual Mediated Model Study 3 172 .95 d.06743 N=133 RMSEA=.f =21 CFI=.74* -.13 .63* BIT3 .20* Aggression (AQ) Model Statistics χ2=31.05 BIT1=Usurpation of Right-of way.

8 Testing Mediational Relationships Using SPSS The mediating effects of BIT on: (1) the relationship between hopelessness and accident involvement. 4. (4) the relationship between hostile automatic thoughts and accident involvement were tested using the four-step procedure proposed by Baron and Kenny (1986).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.38). BIT was a complete mediator for the relationship between AQ total score and crash occurrence. 4. Step 3=mediator has a significant effect on the dependent variable. Not applicable = mediating effect could only be tested when conditions in Step1.2 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 4.8. Table 4.4. (3) the relationship between aggression and accident involvement. and. 2 and 3 are satisfied. (2) the relationship between locus of control and accident involvement.39). consistent with path analysis results.1 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hopelessness and Crash Outcomes In all studies. hopelessness did not significantly influence the crash outcomes (see Table 4. Step2=independent variable has a significant effect on the dependent variable.8. 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. the mediating effect of BIT on hopelessness and crash outcomes relationship could not be estimated. 173 . Therefore.

1B and 1C.BIT was a partial mediator for the relationship between aggression and injury occurrence.8.8.3 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. Table 4.40). in Studies 1A.41).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: 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. Exceptions to this were found only with respect to the relationship between P and both crash outcomes in Study 1A.4 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Crash Outcomes For automobile drivers. where the 174 . Externality-Chance (C) and Externality-PowerfulOthers – and crash outcomes (See Table 4. behaviour in traffic (BIT) had complete or partial mediating effects on the relationship between the three locus of control dimensions – Internality (I). Table 4.

For motorcycle drivers in Study 2. For taxicab drivers in Study 3.mediating effect of BIT total scores could not be estimated because requisite conditions in the second step of the analysis were not satisfied. BIT had a complete mediating effect on the relationship between C and both crash outcomes. With respect to the relationship between I and the crash outcomes and the relationship between P and the crash outcomes.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 . C or P and the two crash outcomes. BIT had no mediating effects on the relationship between I. no mediating effect of BIT could be estimated since requisite conditions in the second step of the analysis were not satisfied. Table 4.

9 Comparison of Automobile Drivers. Study 1C vs. p <. p <.01.05.41: 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. With respect to the three dimensions of locus of control. Study 2: t(422)= -2.01.Table 4. Study 1A vs.837. automobile drivers scored higher than motorcycle drivers on I. Study 1A vs. p <. Study 2: t(421)= -3.442. Study 2: t(372)= -3.01. Study 1A vs. Study 2: t(421)= 7. p <. scores for distal variables (locus of control and hopelessness).9.01.426.01. Study 2: t(372)= 8. 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. Automobile drivers in Studies 1A.663.993. Study 1C vs. It was found that there were significant differences in scores for hopelessness.1 Differences between Automobile Drivers and Motorcycle Drivers In a subsequent analysis. Study 2: t(422)= 8.01. Study 2: t(421)= -4. Motorcycle Drivers and Taxicab Drivers 4. There was no significant difference in scores on the P dimension between automobile drivers and motorcycle drivers.162. p <. Study 1B vs. 176 . p <. Automobile drivers also scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers on C. Study 1B vs.665. p <. 1B and 1C scored significantly lower on hopelessness than did motorcycle drivers.

402. Study 1B vs. p <. respectively.211. p <. p <. 177 .01.801. There were no significant differences scores on either C or P between the automobile drivers and taxicab drivers.01.01.775.9.Automobile drivers scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers with respect to the total BIT score. Study 2: t(421)= -7.926. p <.3 Differences between Motorcycle Drivers and Taxicab Drivers Taxicab drivers scored higher than motorcycle drivers on the I locus of control dimension. Study 1C vs.704. and on all four BIT subscales: “usurpation of right-of way”.261.01. p <.01.861.01. p <. t(986)= 5. p <. p <. automobile drivers scored higher than taxicab drivers with respect to crash occurrence. t(253) = 2. 4. Automobile drivers scored higher that taxicab drivers on total BIT scores. t(986)= 7.01.433. and t(986)= 35. Automobile drivers scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers in injury occurrence. Study 1A vs. p <. Study 1B vs. There were no differences between motorcycle drivers and taxicab drivers on the P dimension.614. “externally-focused frustration” and “destination-activity orientation”. Study 1A vs.577.186.01. 4.01.01.01. Study 2: t(372)= -5.2 Differences between Automobile Drivers and Taxicab Drivers With respect to locus of control. Study 1C vs. t(986)= 34.484. t(986)= 30. Automobile drivers scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers in crash occurrence. t(986)= 37.01. Also.01. p <. p <. Study 1A vs. Study 2: t(421)= -3. p <. Study 1C vs. Study 2: t(372)= -6.837. Study 2: t(421)= -8.687. p <.977.01.200.747. t(253)= 8.01. t(986)= 6. p <. Study 2: t(422)= -4. p <.01. p <. taxicab drivers scored higher than automobile drivers on the I dimension. Study 2: t(422)= -6. “freeway urgency”.01. Motorcycle drivers scored higher than taxicab drivers on C. p <. t(986)= 3.9.01. p <. and to injury occurrence. Study 2: t(372)= -7.

p <. p <.01. “externally-focused frustration” and “destination-activity orientation”. p <.737. p <. 178 . respectively. t(253)= 31.01.982.567. t(253)= 11. and t(253)= 37. p <. and all four BIT subscales: “usurpation of right-of way”. p <.946. p <. t(253)= 39. t(253)= 8. t(253)= 35.01.881.977.01. t(253)= 8.01.016.01and to injury occurrence. drivers scored higher with respect to crash occurrence. “freeway urgency”.01. Also.Motorcycle drivers had higher total BIT scores than taxicab drivers.

(1993).1). human factors that conceptually might be expected to have a strong influence over driving behaviour and crash occurrence end up. While it has been generally assumed and frequently stated that driver characteristics. In an earlier study. Evans. 1993. Papacostas and Synodinos (1988) investigated four dimensions of driving behaviour conceptually related to the Type A behaviour pattern (TABP)..2. not directly on driving behaviour and crash outcomes but rather on some intervening variable located more proximally to the event (see sect. Parker (2004) and others have stressed the importance of examining crash causation from a broader. age and personality may be the most important factors in crash causation (Bridger. externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation. 1991). ethnic and driver experience differences with respect to 179 .4. including gender. Elander et. The present research applied Sümer’s concept of a contextual mediated model. exerting weaker influence or more equivocal results than anticipated (Dewar. Often. multi-factorial perspective.1 A Contextual Mediated Model for Understanding Factors Influencing Unsafe Driving Traffic psychologists. al. Elander et al. 2002b).CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION 5. 2. in which the roles played by variables in mediating and moderating effects of personality factors are more closely examined than in the past. Composite BIT scores were comprised of measures of usurpation of right-ofway. They found gender. freeway urgency. in which a set of personality and demographic factors are thought to exert effects. upon examination. 1995. researchers have been frequently frustrated when attempting to quantify the effects of psycho-social variables on either driving behaviour or crash outcomes. 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.

180 . particularly between psychological variables and crash outcomes. the term “cause” conveys the notion of a single causative element. Since high BIT scores indicated driving behaviour consistent with TABP. the proximal variable. alter the outcome or probability of occurrence of crashes and these have been classified into broad categories using different schemes (Evans. in the deterministic sense in which it is used in the physical sciences or engineering. hopelessness. In the contextual mediated model. which somewhat complicates our attempt to stay true to our title: “Cause and Prevention of Roadway Crashes”. BIT composite scores are also expected to mediate the effects of locus of control. In the present research. if different. Type A individuals were significantly more likely to have found themselves involved in traffic crashes and. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts on crash and injury occurrence. BIT scores are considered proximal to the crash event. The matrix proposed by Haddon (1972) is one example. A rich variety of individual factors exists which. Results reported here suggest an elaborate relationship. One recurrent complexity that arises when trying to understand traffic safety. Further. 1991). and did so in all cases but hopelessness. but did not examine the effects of BIT scores on crash outcomes. were significantly more likely to have been injured while driving. But findings were more complex than that. significantly predicted selfreported crash occurrence in all replications and with all classes of drivers studied.total BIT score and component scores. As a result. it predicted self-reported injury occurrence in all cases. Every aspect of the traffic system is in some way connected to every other aspect. All too often. is that factors interact with each other. This was true with respect to both the composite BIT score and individual scores of each of the four component factors. BIT. though. for automobile drivers and motorcyclists. In other words. except with taxicab drivers.

… 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

181

demographic variables were observed to interact with BIT scores and the remainder of this discussion is devoted to a consideration of these findings.

5.2

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’

182

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

183

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.

184

5.3 5.3.1

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.

185

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. 2.5.2.1). 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

186

but the externality-chance dimension had no significant effect.3. the continued operation of their vehicle is fundamental to their livelihood so motivational factors may take precedence over attributions of external control.16. 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. affected driving behaviour and decisions about the use of public roads.7 months. This would be an error more likely to be made by younger novice or less experienced drivers. For taxicab drivers. respectively). In the present study. Hijar and Tovar (2005) have noted that social capital. as it did with the less experienced university students in the other groups. SD=11. Because of occupational demands. SD=131. social trust and norms that promote coordination and cooperation. although driving frequency was not measured for taxicab drivers. 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. SD=1. respectively). They were also more experienced (266.1. taxicab drivers were considerably older (43.1 months.01years. and 36. By virtue of their age and occupation. Of course. Malaysian-Indian automobile 187 .2 years. the extent to which an individual is connected to others through interpersonal networks.53.25 years.66) than the automobile drivers and motorcyclists (20.6 months as licensed drivers. For taxicab drivers. SD=. SD=1.10) than the automobile drivers and motorcyclists (28.63. it might be assumed that taxicab drivers could well have a broader social network. Inclán.5.hierarchy. 20. as well.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. internals reported that they engaged in safer behaviour in traffic. SD=22. there are other possible influences. 5. traffic exposure and other variables on the effects that internality and externality exert on driving behaviour.

He attributed this to the socio-political environment of the time. findings with regard to locus of control differed from Carment’s (1974) earlier results. along with selfpromotion skills. in which members look to each other and especially to maternal figures within the home. individuals would be more likely to develop attributions of internal control. for support in effecting the life outcomes that are important to them. corrupt practices. There were no significant differences between Malay and Malaysian-Chinese participants on any of the three locus of control dimensions. financial matters and social affiliations are made. He explained this by pointing to the close and interdependent Indian family structure. that the Indian students were strongly external with respect to matters in their personal life. The finding that Indian- 188 . Since perceived success under such circumstances might be expected to be largely due to personal proficiency in such areas. when compared to Canadian students. spousal selection. or at least strongly influenced by outside forces. were necessary to succeed. Research completed some thirty years earlier by Carment (1974) found that university students in India were strongly internally-controlled. 2003. however. Devashayam. in terms of political ideology and interaction with the social system. Carment (1974) also found. perhaps due as argued earlier. which would have led young Indians to perceive that skills in overcoming systemic barriers. With the Indian-Malaysian sample studied in the present research. rife with bureaucracy. influence peddling and status-related privileges. 2005). to cultural values of intra-family dependency and parental influence that have persisted within the Tamil and other Indian communities in Malaysia (Abdullah & Peterson. In an environment where career choice. Participants scored high in terms of attributions about the controlling nature of fate and powerful others.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). it is easy to see how expectancies for the external control of life outcomes can develop.

and. as a result. have been largely limited from participation in social and political processes that would necessitate that sort of social skill development and. although they were consistent with more recent research by Sinha & Watson (2007). Gomez. 1966. 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.5 million in 1991 to 11. the reasons for this commonality in outlook are probably multi-factorial.3. Willford (2003) concluded that Indian-Malaysians. (2006) found greater commonalities in personality traits.5% annually from 9. Salih &Young. the proportion of the population residing in urban areas increased from 51% in 1991 to 55. 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. but two possible influences stand out. 5. an internal locus of control. 1999. In reference to Carment’s explanation of the earlier results. Again. where Cheung et al. than between Singaporean-Chinese and Chinese participants from China. Closer proximity of cultural groups can be assumed to increase contact and transmission of knowledge and awareness of value systems (Hofstede.7 in 1996. 1999) where one’s skills at manipulating the system may have fostered a need for greater internal control.8 million in 1996. Armstrong (1987) argued that urbanisation has affected 189 . 1999.Malaysian participants scored lower in internality was contrary to Carment’s earlier conclusions with individuals from India. 1998. This is consistent with recent findings among Malay and Chinese ethnic groups in Singapore. 1981). The size of the urban population in Malaysia increased by 4. as a group. Sendut. by extension. Indeed. including locus of control. Nandy. 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. 2002.

Oetting & Salvatore. Government initiatives have aimed at re-positioning Malaysia as a highly networked information economy and society. Lynch. including perhaps attributions about the control of events. 2002. Consistently. 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. Miller & Rodgers. 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. in which members of ethnic groups are encouraged to adopt a ‘Malaysian outlook’ on life. Nonetheless. Parkinson. 2003. 2001) In the present research.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. Lawton & Nutter. King & Parker. Jenkins. 318). 2000. aggression had a strong influence on behaviour in traffic. Dukes. there is a large body of evidence that aggression plays a significant role in unsafe driving behaviour and in crash outcomes (Deffenbacher. Miles & Johnson. by the enraged driver. more recently. Brown (2007) has examined educational practices in Malaysia within the context of ethnicity and nation-building.women’s friendship patterns. 2008. 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. Clayton. 5. Huff. among automobile drivers and motorcyclists. driving in a more urgent fashion and concentrating more on destination activities than on road and traffic 190 . 2002). participants scoring higher on a measure of total trait aggression reported driving patterns that involved right-ofway violations. bringing them closer together in outlook. 2001. feeling more frustrated at external sources.

With taxicab drivers. Deffenbacher. but had no significant effect on externally-focused frustration or destination oriented activity. on a journey by journey basis. but that there was no evidence that the drivers who generally experienced higher level of congestion also experienced more anger. Further. While there are plenty of studies establishing the link between aggression and driving behaviour. either verbally or as unspoken thoughts (“self-talk”). Parker. 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. Underwood et al.conditions. particularly where drivers felt that they were not at fault in the incident. a little less strongly when they thought about taking revenge (“I want to get back at this person”) and least 191 . (1996) and Deffenbacher. Oetting et al. Finland and the Netherlands. 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. (2003) found that drivers engaging in hostile automatic thoughts tended to report more aggressive and riskier driving. during such incidents. physical aggression. (1999) found that near accidents provoked feelings of anger. higher aggression levels related to a strong tendency to commit right-of-way violations and to drive more urgently. verbal aggression and indirect aggression. Lajunen & Summala (2002) similarly found that traffic density may play a role in triggering anger and aggression among drivers sampled in three countries: Great Britain. found that drivers were more likely to report anger when congestion was present. Angry and aggressive driving episodes have been related to hostile cognitive statements that drivers make. Petrilli et al. Underwood et al. Male drivers tended to score higher than female drivers with respect to total aggression. 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”). the more dangerously they behaved in traffic.

perceiving another person’s slow driving as purposeful may lead to the emotional experience of anger. (b) schemas (underlying general assumptions about life). one’s interpretations of the environment lead one to react emotionally toward features within the environment (Galovski et al. but not when they involved the derogation of others. 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. although still significantly. Each class of hostile automatic thought can be thought to represent a reaction to these three factors (Snyder et al. 1997). the world and others). a cognitive distortion which stimulates a cognitive response related to physical aggression or revenge. as well. These moderating effects were significant when the content of the cognitions involved physical aggression or revenge motives. 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. Not only did drivers’ angry cognitions have a direct effect on their behaviour in traffic. and (c) cognitive distortions (ways in which people misinterpret their environment).. Such responses. were also modified by the drivers’ locus of control. in the samples studied here. The effects of aggression on behaviour. In essence. 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 . but they were found to moderate the effects of aggression on behaviour in traffic. when entertaining cognitive statements that made derogatory comments (“What an idiot!”) about other drivers. 2006).strongly. however.. That is. and that cognitive event in turn triggers an aggressive or punitive type of traffic behaviour.

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. and particularly with negative emotion. 1995.e. Similarly. It is moderated by cognitive processes. true to operant learning principles. receive positive reinforcement – when I see the shocked look on his/her face!”). A driver’s mental workload is increased by the number of task demands with which one must contend in performing a function and. language comprehension can be regarded as a mental task which. 2004. 401). This last finding replicated and extended earlier research by Gidron et al. 1979. has a workload associated with it” (Bridger. 1990... in the form of hostile automatic thoughts. has been shown to be difficult to process (Dodge & Coie. “in ergonomics. Meichenbaum. the original cognitive behaviourists tended to regard cognitive statements as internal mental stimuli that. but there may be more to it than that. 1994. The relationship between aggression and driving behaviour is both important and complex. evoked specific behavioural responses that then became subject to contingent reinforcement (Kanfer & Goldstein. 193 . Certainly. 1977). Hochschild. so I’ll overtake him/her at high speed on the inside and feel great – i.are determined by chance or fate. 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. (2003). aggressive drivers of both automobiles and of taxicabs who had low levels of internality (i. Language loaded with emotional content. Generally. this process may be instrumental in the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic (“I’d like to knock his/her teeth out. Finally. like any other mental task. or self-talk. 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. Downe & Loke. Novaco.e. p. and also by attributions regarding locus of control. 1987.

so too does the mental effort required (de Waard & Brookhuis. 2000. Mercado & Tapia. Tomkins. and attempting to exercise control over. Lambie & Marcel. 1993). 1997). internal locus of control and tendencies toward more dangerous behaviour in traffic.Robbins. As drivers contend with heightened feelings of aggression and increased internal chatter. 1979) and disruptive to attentional processing of external stimuli (Adolphs. 2005). 162). 2002.g. p. lane control in driving) will drop if effort investment is insufficient or ceases.1) defined multivariate thinking as “a body of thought processes that illuminate interrelatedness between and within sets of variables” and proposed that 194 . The present research has demonstrated linkages between hostile automatic thoughts. This can happen both in conditions of very high task demand and in conditions where the driver’s state is affected (p. Performance (e. 2000. Martin. as well as other task demands of driving in traffic. Taylor & Fragopanagos. Stein. 1996. In fact. 1999. 2002. they may well reach a “red line” at which more mental effort is required than is available. MartinLoeches. Hinojosa. subject to ambiguous interpretation (Chan. and at the same time processing feelings of responsibility arising from one’s internal locus of control requires the investment of mental effort.1 Advantages of Using SEM Harlow (2005. aggressive emotionality. 5.5 Testing the Contextual Mediated Model Using Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) 5. Dien. Making sense of. Tavris (1989) referred to anger as the “misunderstood emotion”. an overburdening of cognitive workload capacity or both. Watson & Wan. Additional studies are needed to investigate whether this relationship is best explained through an internal stimulus-response process. As the costs of achieving or maintaining a certain target level of performance increase. Trabasso & Liwag. As de Waard (2002) has argued: There are limits to the investment of effort.5. Carretie. hostile automatic thoughts.. 2004.

leaving only common variance” (Hardy and Bryman. The earliest use of SEM has been attributed to Swedish Statistician. researchers are attracted to the benefits that SEM can offer. variables but also determine which specific predictors are most important in predicting dependent variable outcomes (Maruyama. or dependent. By estimating and removing measurement error. Having the characteristics of multiple regression analysis. SEM can not only tell how well the predictors. 2000). explain criterion. the SEM depicts all of the relationships among constructs. the reliability of measurement can thus be accounted for explicitly within the analysis. Karl Jöreskog. 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. including dependent and independent variables.434). similar to the variables representing factors in a factor analysis. Gavin and Hartman (2004). p.. involved in the analysis. Second. factors represented by multiple variables.. Hair et al. 2006). 2006). or latent. 2004. advanced the idea of combining features of econometrics and psychometrics into a single model (Klem. According to Williams.. 2004. 2006). SEM is deemed to be a unique combination of factor analysis and multiple regression analysis (Hair et al. the growth in application of SEM techniques has paralleled researchers’ access to computer based data analysis software programs such as LISREL. When composing a model. or independent variables. who in 1970. using SEM to examine relationships among factors allows the relationships to be free from measurement errors “because the error has been estimated and removed. Structural equation modelling (SEM). a multivariate technique. EQS and AMOS. 1998). First. In addition. Finally. and perhaps most important.multivariate methods provide a richer and more comprehensive examination on the variables. The constructs may be comprised of unobservable. 195 . allows the simultaneous estimation of multiple equations (Hair et al.

the comparative fit index (CFI).5. fit indices such as chi-square statistics. and the root mean square residual were included. 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. etc) 196 . Shook. Therefore. Ketchen. (2004) noted that. but that very few studies have used multiple fit indices. model re-specification by citing theoretical support for the changes made is desired. despite the prominence of SEM as a statistical tool. Shook et al. SRMR. TLI. several alternative models were tested against different propositions in order to arrive at a model with the best possible fit. when assessing the fits of measurement models. CFI or TLI) One goodness-of-fit index (GFI. (2004) commented on inconsistencies in the way SEM results have been reported in the literature. RMSEA or SMRM) One incremental fit index (i. Hult & Kacmar (2004) and Williams et al.e. etc) One badness-of-fit index (RMSEA. (2006) have argued that no single ‘magic value’ for the fit indices has been found to differentiate good from poor models. there is a lack of consensus on how best to evaluate the extent to which a proposed model fits the data. GFI. Williams et al. Although many researchers have used SEM to examine a theoretically proposed model. In the present research. It is therefore not practical to apply a single set of cutoff rules to the measurement models. (2004) has been critical of most studies. (2006). CFI. 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. as suggested by Hair et al.5. Hair et al.e. the goodness of fit index (GFI).2 Goodness of Fit SEM is considered a confirmatory analysis for testing and potentially confirming theory. Sümer (2003) added that.

2009) that have tended to select the model that has the best fit indices. Sambasivan & Ismail.5. Maruyama.. 2006). GFI. Structural equation modelling should. Md-Sidin.90. It is argued here that. 2006. CFI. As a general rule.g.08 and a χ2 /degrees of freedom ratio less than 3.3 Best Fit or Best Model It is important to test multiple plausible rival models. the model with the best goodness-of-fit indices is selected over alternate models. RMSEA and the χ2 /degrees of freedom ratio. This has become such a widely accepted principle that decisions over model selection have become almost automatic (Klem. it should not be used as the sole indicator of SEM fit because it is affected by sample size (Hair et al. 1998). 2000). CFI and CFI) greater than . Although chi-square is the most fundamental absolute fit index. provided competing models both present a pre-determined standard for goodness-of-fit.. 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. 1998. RMSEA lower than . be a process that balances utility with statistical 197 . 2001.00 have been recommended to indicate good model fit (Hair et al. 5. 2000) and there are many examples of research studies. we would argue. it has been stressed repeatedly by several authors no definitive set of rules has been established for model selection (Byrne.In the present research. the fit indices for assessing the model included χ2 value and the associated df. 2001. significant p-values can be expected. It is widely agreed that selection of the model should be a very good or an excellent fit. Fit index values (e. Sümer (2003) reported that some researchers have used critical χ2 /degrees of freedom ratios from 2 to 5 to indicate an acceptable fit. At the same time. both dealing with traffic psychology (Sümer. it may be advisable to select one that offers the most useful information even if indices are slightly lower than its alternative. so that stronger evidence supporting the correct specification of a model can be adduced (Thompson. 2003) and other disciplines (Elangovan. Hair et al. 2006) such that for analyses of sample sizes more than 250..

as suggested by Byrne (2001). 4. Both models were judged to have an excellent or very good fit. Thus. 158). it is concluded that the selection of Model 1C5 would be preferable 198 . However. assessment of model adequacy must be based on multiple criteria that take into account theoretical. Sobel and Bohrnstedt (1985) pointed out that exclusive reliance on goodness-of-fit indices is unacceptable. and practical considerations (p.9) included all four components of the BIT scale. while Model 1C6 (see Figure 4. “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. There is some support for this position in the literature. Index coefficients from the original and subsequent analysis are shown in Table 5. Model 1C5 (see Figure 4. they can in no way reflect the extent to which the model is plausible. two structural equation models.10) excluded the fourth factor.3). this judgment rests squarely on the shoulders of the research. Byrne (2001) argued that: Fit indexes yield information bearing only on the model’s lack of fit. statistical.7. destination-activity orientation. In some cases. provided the chosen one meets pre-determined standards for goodness-of-fit.1. 1C5 and 1C6. More importantly. the choice between the two would be Model 1C6 given its superior index coefficients. In the case at hand. If selection criteria were to be based solely on goodness-of-fit parameters. a finding that was further supported by additional subsequent analyses using a further series of goodness-of-fit indices. stating that. it makes sense to choose a model with a slightly poorer fit but more useful information over the best-fitting model. of intervariable relationships for high-risk undergraduate automobile drivers were compared using an initial set of goodness-of-fit indices (see sect.soundness. when taking into consideration “practical considerations”. 88).

48 30. P. 199 . F3 & F4 BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way. 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 0.499 0.97 1.91 0.97 0. BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration.02 0. BITF4=DestinationActivity Orientation Outcomes: Crash Occurrence.42 11. HAT Proximal Context: BITF1.99 0.1: Goodness of Fit Statistics for Model 1C5 and 1C6 (Initial and Subsequent Analyses) Model 1C5 Distal Context: I. AQ. BITF2=Freeway Urgency.51 Very Good Model 1C6 Distal Context: I. BITF2=Freeway Urgency.98 0.060 0.909 0.96 0.96 1.02 0. Given that multivariate analysis revealed a significant association between this BIT component and crash outcomes.97 0.034 97.043 129. Fit Statistics (Threshold values) Outcomes: Crash Occurrence. BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration. F3 BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way. F2. Injury Occurrence Degrees of Freedom RMSEA GFI Chi-sq/Df RMR AIC NFI CFI AGFI PGFI NCP ECVI Overall model fit 63.39 Best because it includes important information about destination-activity orientation behaviour that would be lost if Model 1C6 were chosen. F2. P.Table 5.97 0. C. HAT Proximal Context: BITF1.045 0. AQ. Injury Occurrence 35.02 0.94 0. C.

Results of this and other research have demonstrated that. Hair et al. Parker. 1996). For practical reasons. Nahn & Shapiro. When dealing with systems that are safetycritical. 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. when variables do not improve the AGFI and PGFI. while for Model 1C6. 2006). the decision was made to select Model 1C5 over Model 1C6. 200 . (2006) have noted that models with a higher PGFI are preferable over competing models because they have a better fit relative to their complexity. but still acceptable. goodness-of-fit.It can be argued here that safety research demands a somewhat different standard in terms of model construction and selection. Schwebel. Kayumov. Manstead & Stradling. this is an important component to retain in a contextual mediated model of behaviour in traffic even if it does render a lower.. farther along. provide the key to reducing injuries and saving lives (Reason. 2006. Reason. the standard should be to include as much relevant information as possible. Further discussion in this section refers only to Model 1C5. in particular. a central psychological feature of the TABP in driving is not overlooked and the BIT framework is kept intact.1). 1995.48. 1990. they should be dropped. Storey. By selecting Model 1C5. it is 0. et al. based on the notion that each variable included may.42. However. Sambasivan (2008) stated that. 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. when drivers do let their attention wander from current road and traffic conditions they are at increased risk of experiencing a crash outome (Moller. the PGFI coefficient for Model 1C5 is 0. in this analysis. one that favours the maximum use of information in the cause of saving lives.

externality-powerful other.66).1).g. aggression. Total scores of BIT were significantly correlated with crash occurrence (r = .35 and . Rothengatter. . externally-focused frustration. 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.18) and injury occurrence (r = -.28 and .26. Internality was significantly but negatively correlated with BIT (r = -. 1991.29). As observed from the investigation of structural paths. externality-powerful other. 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. on crash outcomes. 2003). aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) had significant effects on BIT scores (path coefficients = . internality and aggression had direct effects on BIT and indirect effects. In Study 1C. indicating that driving behaviour is closely related to involvement in motor vehicle crashes.5. crash occurrence (r = -. four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way.5. Sümer. . The results suggested that the alternative model. . with five distal factors (internality. Examination of the predictive relationship between distal and proximal variables yielded support for the contextual model and were consistent with previous findings (e.45).6. Evans. externality-chance. and hostile automatic thoughts). Distal factors (locus of control: internality. 2001. This suggested that automobile drivers with high levels of 201 . via BIT.4.14.21).23 respectively) and the BIT displayed a significant effect on crash outcomes (path coefficient = . They appeared to be the strongest predictors among the five distal factors (path coefficients = -. indicating the importance of this factor in crash outcomes. for automobile drivers sampled.35. the base model (with only locus of control variables) was compared against five alternative models (see section 4.28 respectively).5.34) and injury occurrence (r = . freeway urgency. externalitychance.4 Testing the Contextual Mediated Models Using SEM 5.

202 . with hopelessness removed as a distal factor but four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way. and destination-activity orientation) comprising the proximal factor and two latent constructs (crash and injury occurrence) comprising the crash outcome variable. freeway urgency and externally-focused frustration) for the proximal factor. was significantly and positively correlated with BIT (r = . and four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way. the base model (with only the locus of control variable) was compared against two alternative models. The second alternative model also had four distal factors but only three latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way.25).41).66) directly predicted crash outcomes. externally-focused frustration. on the other hand. The first alternative model had four distal factors (locus of control: internality.55). 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. crash occurrence (r = .internality were more likely to have low total BIT scores. as well as low probability of crash and injury occurrence. had a better fit than other alternative models. freeway urgency.20) and injury occurrence (r = . which sampled motorcyclists. externality-chance.80) indirectly and the proximal factor-BIT (path coefficient = . freeway urgency. and high probabilities of crash and injury occurrence. Aggression.4. 5. One of the most compelling findings in Study 2 was that externalitychance scores had the highest correlations with BIT (r = . Results indicated that the first alternative model. crash occurrence (r = .23) and injury occurrence (r = . Investigation of the path parameters revealed that only two of the distal factors.5. externally-focused frustration. internality and externality-chance (path coefficients = -.24).2 Study 2: Motorcyclists In Study 2. and destination-activity orientation) as proximal factors. Aggressive automobile drivers tended to have high level of BIT scores.65 and . externality-powerful other and hopelessness).

4. The second and third alternative models only had one latent construct. for crash outcomes. externally-focused frustration. The first alternative included four distal factors (internality. and destination-activity orientation) as proximal factors. externality-powerful other. the base model (with only the locus of control variable) was compared against three alternative models (see sect.20 and .5 What Can be Learned from Testing Contextual Models with SEM? The use of SEM provided support for the contextual mediated model. Both dimensions of external locus of control had insignificant results. freeway urgency. the results of measurement model analysis showed that one of the distal factors. However. Finally. via BIT. the result was slightly different as a belief in chance as an outcome determinant had a significant effect on BIT scores. four latent constructs (usurpation of right-ofway. had no significant effect on BIT scores. 4. Results indicated that the third alternative model.5. with four distal factors (internality. such as internality. on the two latent variables comprising crash outcomes. had significant direct effects on the four latent constructs that comprised the proximal variable (BIT) and. aggression). externally-focused frustration. and destination-activity orientation) comprising the proximal factor and one latent construct (crash occurrence) comprising the outcome variable. internality and aggression (path coefficients = -.6. to measure outcome. For motorcyclists. This suggested that internality and aggression play important roles in affecting the behaviour in traffic of taxicab drivers and.3 Study 3: Taxicab Drivers In Study 3. freeway urgency. All models included four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way. in turn and indirectly.24 respectively) that had direct effects on the proximal factor and a simultaneous indirect effect on crash occurrence. for the sample of taxicab drivers. externality-powerful other and aggression). 5. Distal factors. 203 . with the sample of taxicab drivers. their crash occurrence.3). as a result. crash occurrence.5. externality-chance. externality-chance. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts. hopelessness. the bestfitting model used only a single latent construct. crash occurrence.5. had a better fit than alternative models. Investigation of the path parameters revealed that there were only two of the four distal factors.

by virtue of their age and driving experience within the highest risk group.5. chosen at random from taxi stands. The fifth sample was comprised of professional taxicab drivers. With very few studies having been completed on Malaysian drivers to date. Some authors have commented on the lack of generalisability of findings in traffic psychology research (Dunbar. Sekaran (2003) points out.6. both and particularly the student samples constituted a convenience sample that may have curtailed the generalisability of findings. Further. 2005. 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. however. To a large extent. Huguenin. that convenience sampling is indeed the least reliable of all sampling designs in terms of generalisability. a total of five samples were taken. 278279). In the present research. an argument used by Montag & Comrey (1978) and others who have studied young drivers. four of which were comprised of students from a single university. 2004). the fact remains that participants constituting the four student samples were.6 5. 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. 204 .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. “but sometimes it may be the only viable alternative when quick and timely information is needed” (pp. 2005).

Ages of participants in this research ranged from 18 to 29 years.2). contributed the largest proportion of the sample.6% (Study 1A: 99. in Malaysia. making it the single highest risk age group (see Table 2.13 years (SD = 1. 205 . With regard to whether the sample was representative of peoples of the various states and regions of Malaysia. Since. with a mean age of 20. Based alone on the number of residents living in each state. Selangor. Study 1C: 99. individuals usually obtain their license in the state in which they are registered as resident. while Malacca and Negeri Sembilan were overrepresented. The Spearman rank correlation coefficient for these two sets of scores is rs=. Sarawak and Kelantan were under-represented in the sample.2% and Study 2: 99. the sample does not appear to be very repreresentative of the Malaysian population. The proportion of the total sample for Studies 1 and 2 falling within the 16. The most populous state. 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.2%). during the interval from 2000 to 2003.to 25-year old high-risk group was 99. Table 5. Study 1B: 100%. as elsewhere. it is helpful to examine the distribution by state in which research participants obtained their driving licenses. Sabah. young drivers are among the most likely to experience a motor vehicle crash.31.55).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. Approximately one-third of all automobile crashes.In Malaysia.6%.

0 12.0 8.9 9.188 1.2 (13) 11. Table 5.3 compares the state of origin of participants in Study 1 with the more relevant measures of vehicle registrations and crash occurrence.300.5 (4) 4.6 6.000 1.2 3. the state of origin is defined as the state in which the participants’ driving licenses were issued.818.2 7.6 (10) 7. 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 3.2: 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) 7.7 (2) 2.0 4.000 Per cent of national population 26.387. Table 5.2 (5) 0.807 733.500 1. in this case.6 0.880 3.887.500.Table 5.8 6.004.576 2.6 5.9 (3) 2.200.503. For that reason.8 (6) 6.5 (8) 3. and there are different crash frequencies in each one.150.4 5.3 (12) 11. attempting to determine sample representativeness based on only state population would be flawed.000 215.19 Per cent (rank) of participants sampled 17. high-risk drivers in Malaysia.2 (11) 12.9 (9) 7. It is important to remember that the purpose of this research was to study the population of young.7 (14) But. 206 .4 provides similar comparisons for the state of origin of the sample of motorcyclists.100.6 2.286 1.674 1.396.000 2.260.2 11.000 2.000 1. In both cases.2 (1) 3.1 (7) 8. Not all states have the same number of drivers.

635 1.606 24.90 5.93 9.768 6.98 0.170 13.50 29.230 266.3: State of Origin Compared with Crash Frequency and Vehicle Registrations (Study 1) Average Motor Vehicle Crash Frequency (2000-2003) 34.600 135.725 70.96 3.137 698.428.4 4.91 2.064 9.20 12.490 525.75 4.35 4.029 273.85 1.19 4.55 7.093 5.88 3.785 393.37 3.198 156.19 3.588.24 2.05 2.Table 5.774 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 12.735 165.34 3.89 3.496 187.920 181.026 10.93 0.163 10.19 7.496 Private Automobile Registrations (until 2003) 703.92 25.88 2.34 11.251 324.70 3.13 6.70 12.46 8.28 3.467 25.97 12.003 10.144 12.041 92.27 14.45 9.104 6.22 17.76 3.16 2.63 207 .617 10.84 11.68 7.24 0.43 2.561 1.36 8.212 39.

36 8.656 821.45 2.768 6.212 39.606 24.02 10.856 310.64 1.59 12.283 770.144 12.64 2.82 9.92 25.27 14.38 0.221 36.33 4.15 5.48 1.02 7.10 9.617 10.170 13.679 90.615.003 10.46 5.88 2.75 5.88 3.727 161.93 9.064 9.029 273.496 % Private Vehicle Registrations (until 2003) 933.995 233.46 14.43 2.104 6.14 7.561 1.37 3.79 13.112 347.989 6.63 11.35 4.66 11.74 208 .22 3.133 705.49 0.49 12.Table 5.467 25.4 4.98 0.93 7.958 % 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 12.288 444.305 276.28 3.026 10.03 4.63 13.992 776.722 255.20 15.76 3.4: State of Origin Compared with Crash Frequency and Vehicle Registrations (Study 2) Average Motor Vehicle Crash Frequency (2000-2003) 34.725 70.59 1.38 4.

Future studies of Malaysian driving behaviour will need to expand the range participant 209 . 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.4.701** 1 Study 2: Motorcyclists Motorcycle crash frequency (by state) Vehicle registrations (by state) Participants’ state of origin 1 2 3 1 . it is possible to say that sampling. participants came from – or.Table 5.5 shows the The Spearman rank correlation coefficient (rs) for the variables in Tables 5.796** 1 Were the participants studied in this research representative of high-risk Malaysian drivers? In terms of their age and their regional origin.908** 1 3 Participants’ state of origin . was representative of a high risk driver population.824** . at least. were licensed as drivers in – the states with the most registered vehicles and the highest numbers of crashes. At least on these dimensions.814** 1 .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) . Even though data collection was carried out at a single university location. 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. both for the studies of automobile drivers and for the study of motorcyclists. Table 5.3 and 5. it can be argued that they were. Of course.903** .

accident distributions by age. unless the variation within the group is very small.g.. However. the data has to be disaggregated. Again. social desirability response sets and fakeability (Aiken. Additional studies should be carried out in order to validate findings within the broader population. 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.6. in studying driving behaviour. 296). The problem. 1979). Self-report data are prone to inaccuracy due to participant memory lapses. Katila and Laapotti (1997) have argued that. is that this kind of data is usually aggregated … From aggregated data we cannot study the connections between accidents and age and exposure. 1998. the use of questionnaire data provides the only practical possibility for gathering data at a low cost.2 Use of self-report methods The use of self-report methods in traffic psychology has been strongly criticised by af Wählberg (2002). Keskinen. 1998. 2001). Much important data is available in official statistics. (1993) have similarly argued that other methods for studying the 210 . 5. demographic factors. Elander et al. Exposure. We can also get rough data of exposure by age. e. as in other psychological research. violations and accidents should be linked together. The issue becomes even harder to resolve when dealing with cognitive variables that cannot be observed directly (Groeger & Rothengatter. however. attitudinal factors.characteristics used as a basis for sample-to-population comparisons. Hatakka. accidents. None of these variables can be substituted by group means. Rothengatter. the easiest way to get data on several factors from the same subjects is by simply asking the subjects (p.

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. though. Particularly. Yet. (1993) and af Wählberg (2003) have commented on the problem of data collection timeframes in studies of motor vehicle crashes.3 Timeframe for Data Collection Elander et al. 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. 211 . steering wheel reversals and speed change frequencies)” (p. Papacostas and Synodinos (1988) also stressed the need to undertake studies investigating the correlation of BIT factors to “the usually measured physiological responses of drivers (e. Visser and Denis (2004). as well.. muscle tension. The assumption. therefore. errors of recall or contamination by post-event information (Belli & Loftus. combined interview and observational methods.effects of personality on driving have drawbacks that cannot be overlooked. inadequate data are collected when the research is conducted over short periods of time. heart-rate acceleration and electrodermal activity) and to overt driving behaviours (e. In future studies. as in a study reported by Chalmé. subjective accounts of crash or injury history should be validated against objective measures. perhaps drawing from drivers’ insurance records or. for instance. In the present research.g. questionnaires were administered to measure all variables and.. subjects would tend to under-report dangerous or illegal activities and that this tendency might usually be expected to be consistent across compared groups.g. 5. in studies of driving behaviour. all data may be subject to the shortcomings of self-report methods. the longer the time period for data collection. blood pressure. 1996). 13). the more information is lost through memory lapses. Miles and Johnson (2003) have noted that. 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.6.

2) that higher levels would result in less risky behaviour in traffic was supported. other measures of driving frequency present as many or more problems. Results were used as a measure of driving frequency for Studies 1 and 2. Mercer.In the present research. Some authors have asked participants to estimate the distrance travelled during a particular period (Lajunen & Summala. The driving frequency measure was alaso used a co-variate in analyses of relationships between other distal variables and proximal variables. 2002). and the hypothesis (H2. The problem with this approach is that it is every bit as subjective as the categorical judgements of 212 . participants were asked to recall if a crash or resulting injury had occurred within the past twelve months. individual standard. as well. there is a certain imprecision to the measure. It must be noted here that there are certain problems with measuring driving frequency in this manner and that there were other alternative methods that could have been built into the research design instead. and that one participant’s perception of frequent automobile or motorcycle use may seem infrequent to another’s. 1999). First. Unfortunately. 5. 1997. Second.4 Measurement of Driving Frequency One of the self-report measures used in this research requires particular discussion. it has to be acknowledged that the measure is subjective. 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. 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.6. 1971). a timeframe that is consistent with reasonably accurate recall (Haber & Haber. This method has been used in previous studies by other authors (Pelz & Schuman.

2003). 213 . This is why individuals tend to irrationally overestimate the number of murders per year (Jaffe. 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. their chances of winning a lottery (Griffiths. frequency or distribution in the world (p. but because they are inherently easier to think about. But. There is some evidence that the availability heuristic exerts a greater impact when specific quantitative amounts or percentages have to be estimated. 2004). 1974). this strategy leads us to overestimate their actual occurrence. 1982). and that people are consistently poor at making these sorts of estimates accurately (Saad. as opposed to reporting perceptions in categorical form (Tversky & Kahneman. Wood & Boyd. Levy (1997) argues that: Unfortuantely. 121). p. 2008). “Some events are more available than others not because they tend to occur frewquently or with high probability. In much the same way. 2003. 1973. on how available it is in our memories (Kahneman. although this has not been firmly established. 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. because they are highly emotional and so forth” (Plous. Slovic & Tversky. in other words. 2002).. because they have taken place recently. and the likelihood of encountering a traffic jam (Wood. Often. it is argued here that such inaccuracy is also likely due to a cognitive phenomenon known as the availability heuristic. but not always. in which the perceived probability of an event corresponds to the ease with thich the event comes to mind or.frequency that were used in this research. 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. Specifically. 181). 1993. experiences that are more common than others tend to be the ones that are most available. 1993). eventful or recent. Kahneman.

many of the inaccuracies involved with the use of self-reported frequency data could have been solved by taking direct odometer readings. road conditions. in their studies of roadway aggression. the use of distance travelled doesn’t really solve the main problem in travel frequency measurement. Deffenbacher et al. Given that sample sizes for this research had to be large enough to apply structural equation modelling procedures. 1991). poorer pavement and more surrounding vehicles (Åkerstedt & Kecklund. Sansone. where driving histories generally include lengthy. asked participants to record the time of day. and the availability of the resources necessary to operationalise them.In the Malaysian environment. 2000). emotionally-laden seasonal and holiday travel (Richardson & Downe. but training participants in standardised record-keeping. Similarly. during periods of low traffic volume. Driving 30 kilometres daily on quiet city thoroughfares. Finally. on one hand. it was felt that the collection of logbook data would have overextended time and financial resources at hand for the five 214 . which is the lack of information about the circumstances under which road use occurred (Odero et al. 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. (2003).. 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. 2001) . A logbook approach was considered during the design of the present research. Of course. Morf and Panter (2004) argue that psycho-social research generally involves a balancing act between idealised research questions. it might be expected that participants’ driving estimates would be particularly prone to influence by the availability heuristic. in the form of more vividly remembered trips to family reunions during festive seasons. for example. traffic volume and so on in logbooks as a means of controlling for differing driving circumstances.

While some authors have considered the terms “theory” and “model” as synonymous (e. 1991). the decision was made to use participants’ subjective. It was felt. 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. 2002. 2005). the difference is that models are generally seen as “more modest affairs that aim to illustrate 215 . 1994). To summarise. Summala. 2004). during the study design process. collected logbook data would have been largely qualitative in nature. are of nomological character and can be applied irrespective of time and space (Langdridge. 2005).7 5. selfreported measure used here. 2004).g. that associated methodological disadvantages were fewer than those of the competing approaches. have high information content. Michon. but this was done with an awareness of the shortcomings of this measure. drawn from empirical studies and demonstrating inter-variable relationships (Chaloupka-Risser. Good theories are simple. Rothengatter (2001) has argued that better measures of risk exposure are needed in traffic psychology. Further research is required. 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. 5. Models in Traffic Psychology It has been noted earlier that the emerging field of traffic psychology has yet to arrive at a unified. over-arching theory (Rothengatter.. creating new difficulties in their quantification (King. categorical perceptions of driving frequency. 1985. are testable and contain no contradictions.studies undertaken. 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. 1997).7. In the present research. In addition. Ranney. but that considerable effort has gone into the development of descriptive models.1 Implications and Areas for Further Study Theory vs.

The second question is whether we need traffic psychology models. 294). the fact remains that we have enough guidance already from mainstream psychology. if they are modest in ambition. at times. The answer is probably not.patterns of relationships. 32). often in graphical form (Grayson. debate as to whether the greater need exists for more theory or for more data. p. 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. Wilde (1982) has expressed concern that the study of traffic safety “is characterised by a sparsity of comprehensive and articulate conceptions” (p. there has beeen an ongoing discussion and. The first question is whether we need traffic psychology theories. and while any data collection procedure must have some element of theory if it is to have real purpose. 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”. if they aim to illuminate and encourage research on specific topics rather than the 216 . Throughout the development of traffic psychology. Huguenin (1997) has similarly argued that theories are necessary to treat a subject scientifically. Grayson (1997) agreed. on the other hand. check facts. in particular to structure data. The answer to this question is possibly yes. create links to other fields of knowledge or to explain or predict circumstances. stating that. 94). Attempts to develop ‘traffic- specific’ theories have proved far less fruitful than has the importation of established theories from other areas of psychology. 1997. Hauer (1987). or represent processes.

The problem arises from an intrinsic dilemma. Greenwald and Pratkanis (1988). While many models offer insight into specific aspects of driver behaviour. In 217 . 95-96). hopelessness. This dichotomy of perspectives is not unique to traffic studies and driving behaviour but seems to permeate all areas of applied psychology. In this case. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts. This latter point was also stressed by Evans (1991). The debate often seems to revolve around the comparative merits of result-centred versus theory-centred methods in research. 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. who argued that. In the present research. 304). but the framework constructed here can easily accommodate a potentially endless range of both distal and proximal variables.entire spectrum of traffic behaviour. for instance. the contextual mediated model developed here may also go some distance toward breaking out of the narrow monist frame of reference eschewed by Evans. while ignoring other factors which are much too important to be ignored (p. Yet. 2. those variables included a diverse set of human traits including locus of control. 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. The present research probably more represents the sort of model building favoured by Evans (1991) and Grayson (1997) than it does an attempt to test a broad theory such as those described earlier (see sect.3). it seems unlikely that general theories offering much more can be formulated. 1985) – that could hinder scientific progress. it has proved capable of linking psychological and demographic variables with a pattern of driving behaviour to illustrate influences on crash outcomes and injuries.

openness. much current research. as defined by Grayson (1997). together with methodological difficulties associated with the use of accident measures. conscientiousness. the process through which drivers make adjustments based on their perceptions of risk. crash-free driving. anxiety. depression. With several exceptions.. while still very much a model and not a theory. it may be even more fruitful to focus the model on the interaction of variables that contribute to safe. lead to the conclusion that we should abandon the differential accident paradigm and define alternative measures of safe driving. it has been conducted without the benefit of a process model of driving. 2003).3. has focused primarily on accident-causing behaviour. provides breadth of focus and a more holistic perspective than many other attempts at modelling driving behaviour. Future research should attempt to expand the contextual mediated approach beyond studies of crash histories.7. The contextual mediated framework. The general lack of success in identifying predictors of safe driving. Rather than describing and predicting the interaction of factors involved in causing crashes. sensation seeking (Sümer. 2. agreeableness and neuroticism (Sümer et al. competence or hierarchical level of information processing (see sect.other studies. Kerlinger (2000) and others. 2005) were included as distal variables. and has relied heavily on post-hoc explanations. not on everyday driving.4). extraversion. psychoticism. According to Ranney (1994). for instance. 5. … has used performance-based measures to predict individual accident histories. While the present research 218 .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).

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. those with an external locus of control may be more likely to give up control to an external device. Conversely. some of the variables considered are conceptually tied to them. 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. As a result. they will become less involved with the driving task and be less likely to react. Following this reasoning. those who see themselves playing little or no part in the unfolding of events will act in a less cautious manner. On the other hand. It is possible that drivers with an internal locus of control will rely more on their own skills and abilities while they are driving and. 219 . believing that fate will achieve its predetermined goals no matter what the individual does. BA to in-vehicle safety measures may also be under the influence of drivers’ locus of control. Within their proposed conceptual framework. or at least to react more slowly. Brown and Noy (2004) stressed that theories of BA and driving behaviour in general. no matter how reliable a safety device. along with trust in automation and sensation seeking.did not test any of those theories specifically. while intuitively appealing and providing some useful insight. fail by not considering individual driver characteristics or the range of motivations that determine driving behaviour. They argued that locus of control. should the device fail to perform the task for which it was designed. will always maintain more direct involvement with the driving task than those scoring high on externality dimensions. is a concept that should be incorporated as an element in theories seeking to explain BA and its role in driving.

Coupled with simulated or actual driving experience and methods to modify patterns of hostile selftalk. which may mitigate the negative effects of roadway hostility. (2003) to moderate the effects of aggression on driving outcomes.. The treatment or rehabilitation of dangerous drivers has relied heavily on cognitive behaviour modification applications (Deffenbacher et.7. Further research should focus on the role played by locus of control in influencing patterns of BA. once identified. consistent with the earlier findings of Gidron et al. Christ et al. these approaches require special therapeutic training and large efforts on behalf of drivers. 2002. 1997. 2005. Summala. Gidron & Davidson. scarce resources for screening drivers. though. Findings from the present research can guide planners of remedial courses and counsellors to teach methods for increasing internal attributions. 5.In the present research. Drivers may need to undergo cognitive restructuring about their beliefs about their own responsibility over road safety in order to increase levels of internality.3 Driver Selection. al. Programmes with content focused on building internal attributions and a sense of personal responsibility would enhance training outcomes. Specifically. Typically. could be screened out. 2006) or cognitive processing (Keskinen. changes in driver behaviour might be better targeted. task capability (Fuller. Drivers with combinations of TABP and aggression. 2004). 220 . Luckner (1989) and others have successfully developed training curricula that encourage internality. 1982). 1996). Further research is required to investigate implications for improving driving performance. an area of increasing importance in fleet management (Barjonet & Tortosa. can be focused specifically on combinations of risk factors at both the distal and proximal levels. Training and Rehabilitation The results of the present research have important implications for the improvement of driving behaviour. whether that adaptation is the result of perceived risk (Wilde. external locus of control and hostile attributions. 1996). locus of control was found to exert effects on Type A driving patterns and.

4. 1957). the Haddon Matrix (Haddon. education. Slinn.1 Generating and classifying crash prevention interventions Ergonomists and safety scientists have. Matthews and Guest (1999) have argued that traffic engineering has also undergone a transition in emphasis over the last decade. 5. and machines are highly intricate (p. 1970) provides another system for classifying highway events for the purposes of research or accident prevention (see Figure 2. 1). At the same time.7.5. teams of humans. Cooke and Durso (2008) have noted that: Most industrial tasks require human operators to interact with various technologies. and the effective enforcement of regulatory legislation (Wheatley.4 Preventive Measures: “The Three E’s” 5. recognised that the cardinal bases of accident prevention fall into three categories: engineering. Unlike 100 years ago. or legal intervention. 1957. the technologies sophisticated and the interactions among humans. the tasks we ask operators to perform today are highly cognitie. These have been euphemistically termed the “three E’s”.7. for the last fifty years. educational programming (including public awareness and driver training). Specific measures aimed at reducing accident occurrence or injury can be classed according to whether they are predominantly based on engineering principles.2 Engineering Interventions Engineering applications in transportation have become increasingly cogniscent of human thinking processes.4). 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 .7. 1961.4. This framework can be integrated with the “Three E’s” to identify specific crash prevention measures arising from the findings of the present research. World Health Organisation.

At the same time. Other authors have cautioned against engineering so many devices and signals that driver attention becomes diverted from vehicle control tasks.application of computer and information technology to transportation infrastructure and vehicles. Bishop (2005) has noted that there is still a lack of knowledge about the threshold levels at which to set in-vehicle modifications. The findings of the present research that usurpation of right-of-way. 2005). Stough. roadway and environmental settings (see Table 5. The aim should be to assist drivers by making routine actions simpler. there may be limits to the number and level of sophistication of devices installed in motor vehicles. Suda & Ono. there is an adaptive and cooperative relationship between the driver and the vehicle in ensuring that lane deviation and roadway departure are controlled. for instance. Several intelligent in-car systems have been developed to assist lane manoeuvring and to control lateral deviation in the forward motion track. as well as other in-vehicle technologies now being tested for future implementation in automobiles and other vehicles (see Table 5.6). Murazami. 2001). operator workload and performance (Inagaki. so the systems are easily overridden by even the weakest drivers when needed (Kawazoe.6). 2001). in which in which the control of functions shifts between machines and human beings dynamically. with the resulting transport systems generally referred to as Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS. not to overwhelm them with complicated or difficult override processes. Such systems are based on a shared control paradigm. is strongly associated with crash outcomes would support the importance of further development of LKA systems. 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. Lane-keeping Assist Systems (LKA). 222 . depending on environmental factors. Sadano. The amount of toque needed to adjust vehicle direction at highway speeds is quite small. or the adaptive automation concept. (Bishop. 2003). Holzmann (2008) argues that there is considerable potential for crash reduction in this sort of technology. These have been applied to in-car. Maggio & Jin. In the case of LKA.

Safety benefits from traffic management can result from changes in the patterns of trffic flow. 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. initiatives aimed at improving environmental aesthetics may have a positive impact on roadway safety. 2004. Ulrich. Engineering solutions have also been suggested with respect to the design of roadways and the general driving environment. Fountaine and Knotts. Richardson & Downe. changes in traffic speed. The present research also found that freeway urgency. Brown & Noy. A number of studies have reported that roadside vegetation and predominantly natural environments elicit lower levels of driver frustration and stress (Cackowsky & Nasar. 1999. Hebl & Grossman-Alexander. 2000). Parsons. was associated crash outcomes. Traffic management may also be carried out for easons other than safety.with a resulting increase in crash risk (Noy.6). 1993. Tassinary. Recovery from lapses in attention has been faster in “restorative environments” enhanced with horticultural and aesthetic features (Heerwagen & Oriens. 1997). 1998). traffic 223 . This finding would lend support to the myriad of speed control devices now under development. Intelligent Speed Adaptation (ISA) and Adaptive Cruise Control (ACC) systems (see Table 5. and management of parking and loading arrangements that influence the speed of traffic. 2003. in the form of driving above the speed limit and driving consistently in the fast lane. 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. Herzog. such as Automated Speed Enforcement (ASE). Black. in particular to pursue environmental.

however. 1996. p. journey purpose or other human factors. 309). Maakip (2003) has also added that there is little understanding of exactly what specific pieces of information drivers require or prefer to have. 1996.efficiency (capacity) or access objectives (Ogden. This refers to driving while thinking about things unrelated to the driving task. but extends into city-wide suppression of traffic. Dietze. and now encompass the principle of “traffic calming” (Brindle. and substantial lifestyle changes aimed at achieving an environmentally sustainable future (Ogden. 1991). 1992). This view embraces a philosophy and a set of goals that go far beyone mere physical control and management of traffic. and whether this information varies according to the situation. engineering solutions have the least to offer in terms of behaviour in traffic that involves risky levels of destination activity orientation. however. Gregersen and Falkmer (2003). inexperienced drivers. questions of alternative urban structure. 224 . Probably. Lippold and Mayser (2003) have noted that new driver assistance systems offer some promise for safety improvements by providing additional information to drivers. Proctor. Current discussions of speed management go even beyond traditional traffic management approaches. 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. 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. ostensibly satisfying wandering attentional needs and allowing vehicle operators to concentrate on tasks at hand.

thermoplastic management systems – Many ability to detect lane and epoxy materials to metropolitan areas have departures and to alert drivers designate lane configurations. etc. lane road conditions.1 Vehicle Road Environment  lane departure warning  lane marker improvements –  integrated traffic systems (LDWS) – have the using plastic. reversible corrections through a motorlanes. Hi H 1. unsafe  blind spot monitoring systems lane deviation. 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. “rumble strips” in expressways. – 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. generally  comprehensive lateral control controlled from a central assistance (LCA) – a point. departure warning. 225 . blind spot sensing and lange change assist. transitions for. variable speed warning systems advise lane conspicuity and message signs (VMS). the systems vision sensing technology to transmit information to combine lane and road drivers about traffic flow.6: Engineering Applications for Crash Prevention Finding Drivers who usurp the right-ofway and commit lane violations are more likely to experience crash outcomes. management centers (TMCs)  integrated lane marker with closed-circuit television  road departure warning applications – these combine (CCTV) camersas. Integrated with combination of radar and roadside sensors.Table 5. 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.1. traffic and systems (RDWS) – curve different materials to increase weather sesors. infrastructure. to allow easier lanes and synchronised actuated increase in steering overtaking and lane signals decreases the need as the vehicle nears a lane. traffic drivers when their speed is definition. and likelihood of. created intelligent traffic of impending hazards. keeping.

a particular high-risk part of the thoroughfare.and millimetre-wave (MMW)-based inter-vehicle communications – systems that send data about the proximity of approaching or following vehicles. traffic lights) safe.2  lane deviation feedback systems – systems calculate the number of lane changes as a function of speed and cue the driver with performance data. are travelling. the systems  intersection modification. ACC systems provide modifications. systems (CVHS) – wireless  adaptive cruise control  road network modifications. deriver-selectable interwhich surrounding vehicles provide speed modification at vehicle gap.1.1. communication systems (ACC) – acting as a Driving speed can be reduced embedded in the roadway “longitudinal control cothrough infrastructure infrastructure.. 226 .1 Drivers scoring high on a measure of freeway urgency are more likely to experience crash outcomes. 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. adjusting transmit information to Intersection devices (yield speed as needed to maintaina drivers about the speed at and stop signs. including those in adjoining lanes. including controlled from a central cruise control but also track street and link closures. H 1.  Radar. t-junctions or or (at maximum) to limit the warning signs for vehicles pedestrian crossings. the host vehicle. to in-vehicle display terminals. vehicle’s speed to comply travelling at speeds higher  cooperative vehicle highway with the speed limit. generally pilot”.  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”. Integrated with vehicles in the lane ahead of roadside sensors. than the safety standard.(continued) H 1. point.

227 . pinchpoints and gateways or arches.1. “Speed tables”. The use of properly designed humps are effective in causing vehicles to reduce speed in their vicinity. at which the whole road space at an intersection is raised. H 1. has an advantage over intersection redesign by saving space. measures that can reduce by driver interactions with congestion and other  contrary messages – roadroad. environment and other frustrating stimuli. Such devices include chicanes. humorous content to evoke a contradictory affective response to frustration.  automated speed enforcement – the use of high-volume speed cameras to regulate the speed of motor vehicles on roadways. traffic flow management training to better frustration and effect a moderation and other cope with frustration caused calming influence on drivers.  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.(continued) Externally-frustrated drivers are more likely to experience crash outcomes. signs with calming or vehicles.3  vertical displacement. coupled with stress vegetation to reduce traffic signals.  horizontal displacement – these design features cause the driver to change direction quite sharply and change the visual cues presented by the roadway.

H 1.4  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. Destination-activity orientation is associated with a higher risk of crash outcomes. 228 . weather-related road conditions. This information allows drivers to avoid or. to reduce wandering thoughts and focus attention on driving tasks at hand.  dedicated broadcast of safety messages – radio or broadband messages with reminder to focus attention on driving tasks at hand. at least.1.(continued)  electronic variable message signs (VMSs) – roadside signboards which change messages to provide updated information about traffic congestion.  driver assistance systems – capable of providing information about destination conditions or journey progress. notice of future road construction and notice of public events. notification of construction ahead. prepare for stress-provoking conditions and external frustration. safety messages.

teachers or the police. the probems of poor driver behaviour and knowledge in developing and emerging countries “are likely to be due. They concluded that there is clarealy a need to improve road safety education. it is also important for them to devote some time to the affective and cognitive components of the driving task. In a study of traffic awareness in developing countries. Downing and Sager (1982) reported that children were significantly less likely to recive advice than in the United Kingdom from members of thir family. publicity campaigns and incentive schemes to be offered as part of the activities within mosques (Che Ali Bin Che Hitam.5. 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. and must include broader awareness about the dangers of roads and traffic.4.7.3 Education According to Jacobs and Baguley (2004). Professional driving instruction tends to be inadequate because (a) driving instructors are not properly tested or monitored. given ethnic differences observed with respect to drivers’ behaviour in traffic. to some extent. however. Training skills for anger management and frustration tolerance. 73). It suggests that. and (c) driving test standards and requirements are inadequate” (p. 2001). like community centres or places of worship. 229 . to inadequacies in driver training and testing. in addition to teaching the practical manoeuvres and driving techniques associated with managing a vehicle. The present research provides some useful additions to the knowledge base to be imparted to professional driving instructors in Malaysia. The present research suggests that. This is consistent with previous calls in Malaysia for safety awareness education. (b) there are no driving or instruction manuals. it may be effective to conduct such awareness bulding within cultural centres. Effective road safety education goes beyond driver training programmes.

however. or the tendency to attribute one’s own attitudes and behaviour to others. 2007. Yergil (2005) has discussed a number of cognitive biases that tend to enhance a false sense of safety among drivers. N6). road safety campaigns and media coverage” (Cheah. Siegrist and Roskova (2001) have called for an integration of social science views arising from traffic psychology with legislation and enforcement pertaining to traffic.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. Second. They also stated. First. 1978. such as visibility of enforcement. p. (2) exhortatory and educational measures to encourage the development of appropriate skills and attitudes. The bias of false consensus. evoke the least expectation and are least often evaluated in terms of their effect on accidents” (p. and (3) legal measures providing rules governing the interaction of pedestrians and traffic. p. This twinning of psychological and legal perspectives derives two implications. The results of the present research would suggest that messages about the link between personal responsibility for one’s action. 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. or an internal locus of control. and penalties for infringement to ensure that the rules are obeyed. Success of the yearly Ops Sitak safety campaign by the Royal Malaysian Police and other regulatory bodies has been attributed to several “cumulative factors.4. and driving within safe legal limits could be included within future public information campaigns. from the findings of the present research. one practical and the other touching on the development of theory. legal measures change least often.7. 265). was studied in a 230 .5. that “Of these three approaches. Jacobs and Baguley (2004) have stressed that changes in road laws and police operations need to be well advertised in order to be effective. 1030).

is allowed to occur in a Just World. opinions about what significant others would think of the behaviour (subjective norms) and perceived behaviour control (PCB). 498). They showed that the frequency of violations was related to the evaluated percentage of other drivers who commit the same violations. 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.sample of drivers by Manstead. Reason & Baxter. Azjen & Fishbein. 1992). Ajzen. to consensual beliefs of powerful others. 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 . on one hand attributing outcomes to a fatalistic notion of Just World and. Parker. 2001. By doing so. Yergil (2005) notes that: In order to maintain the self-concept of a law-abiding citizen. The TPB posits that a given behaviour is determined by individuals’ intentions which in turn are influenced by the individuals’ positive or negative evaluation of the behaviour (attitudes). after all.” 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). on the other. The theory of planned behaviour (TPB. 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. Both biases seem rooted in an external locus of control. Stradling. 1991. Another possible way to minimise the same contradiction is to diminish the significance of the violation by labelling it as an action that.

an orientation toward an external locus of control may influence PCB factors underlying the decision to comply with legal requirements or not. 232 . it may be possible to come closer to the integration of legal and psychological perspectives advocated by Siegrist and Roskova (2001).drivers’ decisions to adhere. Similarly. By examining drivers’ response to traffic laws in the context of the theory of planned behaviour. or not adhere. to traffic regulations.

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. aggression and tendency to entertain hostile automatic thoughts all act upon driving behaviour patterns which. structural equation modelling (SEM) was found to be a valuable technique for articulating interactive relationships in a holistic manner. Wállen Warner & Åberg. Iverson & Rundmo. 2005.g. as expected.CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION The present research was an attempt to investigate interaction effects of experiential. it was concluded that driver experience. In the present research. 233 .. 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.. locus of control. was used to frame the relationship between these human factors. Sümer et al. A contextual mediated model. Studies using structural equation modelling to interpret complex inter-variable relationships have become increasingly prevalent within the traffic psychology literature (e. In doing so. when risky. 2003. ethnicity. hopelessness. 2002. Sümer. gender. Results have indicated that. contribute to the occurrence of crashes and injuries. demographic and psychological characteristics of drivers on the occurrence of self-reported motor vehicle crashes and crash-related injuries. derived from the earlier work of Sümer (2003). age. as proximal to the crash outcomes. 2006) and it is anticipated that there will be many more.

although it is widely acknowledged that this is not a hard and fast rule. measures of aggression had direct effects on all components of self-reported behaviour in traffic. it is argued here. 1995. 1982). 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. Hoyt. Some previous studies have shown a link between ‘fatalism’. the best fit usually implies the best model. that when faced with competing models in safety studies.. 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. one conclusion is that the locus of control construct plays an important role in safety behaviour.In the current literature.. the selection of one SEM over competing models has been generally based on which has the better goodness-of-fit. Further. Montag & Comrey. task capability (Fuller. However. In most cases. 2003). It is further concluded that aggression also plays a significant role in behaviour leading to crash outcomes. Some inter-ethnic differences in 234 . consistent with the position taken by Byrne (2001) and other authors. or external locus of control. 1983) and was earlier found to moderate the effects of aggression on driving behaviour (Gidron et al. The present research replicated earlier findings about the important influences of internal and external locus of control over behaviour leading to safety problems and. This is Of the variables studied. traffic psychologists and other researchers are advised to make the choice based on theoretical and practical. 1974). In the present research. 1986. it has been argued here that it may be an important factor in behavioural adaptation processes underlying risk homeostasis (Wilde. 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. 1987). like Brown and Noy (2004). and accident risk (e. 1973).g. while internal locus of control has been frequently associated with safer work and lifestyle practices (Guastello & Guastello. Harrell. 2000) and hierarchical motivation theories (Näätänen and Summala.

cultural anthropology. 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. Several authors (e. 2005. One of the benefits of using structural equation modelling in such research is that it allows for a holistic. in combination. Groeger & Rothengatter. Rothengatter. 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. In examining inter-relationships among and between these variables. including psychology (especially cognitive and information processing). it became apparent that motor vehicle crashes are indeed multi-factorial phenomena and that prior assumptions of causality should always be subject to review. For example.. a multi-disciplinary approach was used. road engineering and ergonomics. Huguenin. they 235 . and a psychologist who studies cognition and driving while turning away from laws and government. It is argued that this is a In interpreting these effects. as well. 1998. As Rothe (2002) has pointed out: Traffic-safety systems are composed of complex behaviours that imply complex causes and entangled factors. all are professionals who know their area of expertise has collegially or self-imposed limitations. However. a civil engineer who uses laboratories to measure asphalt wearing under different conditions.g. Each system has its own experts whose lenses are focused almost exclusively on their own subject matter.aggression were observed. an economist who researches economic factors of transportation without much concern for geography. bird’s eye view of the factors contributing a given outcome. promising approach to future studies of crasch occurrence.

Continued sharing between professional associations and between design. 236 . Additional studies should aim toward a conceptual common ground and further examination of models and theories from which broader understanding can be derived. Indeed. a multi-disciplinary approach leads not only to the greater level of understanding described by Rothe (2002). Through a multi-disciplinary approach. significant impacts can be made in reducing motor vehicle crashes. In the present research. educational and enforcement spheres. but it also opens the door for a wider range of preventive measures. management. 313). 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. findings with regard to four components of behaviour in traffic gave rise to a number of interventions in the engineering. injuries and death. regulatory and social science specialists should be encouraged. A uni-disciplinary approach is not sufficient to generate or integrate the range of actions that must be undertaken to effectively bring about improvements to the roadway safety problem in Malaysia and elsewhere.form a complex traffic-safety reality in which systems form a web of interdependent fields (p.

[6] Adolphs. 289-296. M. Neural systems for recognizing emotion. Psychological Testing and Assessment. and Pederson. A. H. Petaling Jaya. E140 Proceedings of the Safety on Roads International Conference (SORIC). and Anurag. N. Mohd Nasir. Radin Umar. (Research Report 1/99) Kuala Lumpur: Malaysia Road Safety Council. 473-486. Malaysian Journal of Medical Sciences. Mohd Zulkifli. S. Crash data analysis: collective vs. Current Opinion in Neurobiology. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Review of global menace of road accidents with special reference to Malaysia – a social perspective. individual crash level approach. (2003). Bahrain. A. L. [9] Ahmad Hariza. 169-177. (2002). Musa.E. H. 237 . R. Drinking and driving: intention. 581-587. MY: Pearson. [10] Aiken. [7] af Wählberg.T. (2003). 10(2). [2] Abdul Kareem. [5] Åberg. (2003). P. (1979). 25. [8] af Wählberg. 5.H.E. Third edition. and Law.B. R.. Understanding Multicultural Malaysia: Delights. L. Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies. 1867-1874. A. Journal of Safety Research.A. A. 35. (2007). On the validity of self-reported traffic accident data. Some methodological deficiencies in studies on traffic accident predictors. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. 38(5). Puzzles & Irritations. Car occupants accidents and injuries among adolescents in a state in Malaysia. (1999).S. Accident Analysis and Prevention..REFERENCES [1] Abdel-Aty. (1993). 31-39.H. Subramaniam. P. K. attitudes and social norms of Swedish male drivers. (2002). T.. The effectiveness of motorcycle safety campaigns on motorcyclists. and Kulanthayan. (2005). M.R. [3] Abdul Rahman. 12.. [4] Abdullah..

B. and Tubré. M. (Eds. A. Edwards.T. and Kerrich. 303-313. Heidleberg: Springer-Verlag. (2001). and Haigh. E. (2005).G. Current Psychology: Developmental. Learning. In Kuhl. Bell. 27-58. T. M. [18] Archer. Tubré. 10(6). and Beckmann. A. 623-633. 52.H. Accident statistics and the concept of accident proneness. (1985). (2003). Attitudes and the attitude behavior relation: reasoned and automatic processes. From attitudes to behaviour: basic and applied research on the theory of planned behaviour. and Kecklund (2001). [17] Arbous. (2001). Social. Ethnic differences and married women’s employment in Malaysia: do government policies matter? Journal of Socio-Economics. 404-415.) Action-Control: From Cognition to Behavior. The theory of planned behaviour. J. Aggressive Behavior. 33(3). [15] Åkerstedt. Beliefs about aggression among male and female prisoners.E. W. Age.[11] Ajzen. 340-342.105-110. [12] Ajzen. 10. Journal of Sleep Research. J. I. C.D. W. S. 187-195. S. From intentions to actions: a theory of planned behavior. (1987). (1952). Personality. Women’s friendships under urbanization: A Malaysian study. London: John Wiley & Sons. Day.) European Review of Social Psychology...J. Convergence of self-report and archival crash involvement data: a two-year longitudinal followup.. M.A. I. [16] Amin. (2004). 238 . [21] Arthur. J. [19] Armitage. I. gender and early morning accidents. Biometrics. and Hewston. and Christian. (1997). 50(2). [20] Armstrong. Annual Review of Psychology. 7. Human Factors. In Stroebe. [14] Ajzen. T. 23.J. Nature and operation of attitudes. [13] Ajzen. 47. (Eds. I. A. J. Women’s Studies International Forum. and Fishbein. (1991). J. 179-211. 22(3). 291-307. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes.C.

F. Wilde. K. 279-284. Manila: Philippines. Characteristics of traffic crashes in Maryland (1996-1998): differences among the youngest drivers. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2007 from http://www. W. Retrieved April 4.31-42.bakrimusa.M. M. and Tortosa. (1994). and Carson. 89-105. NL: Styx. Groningen. Asian Development Bank – Association of Southeast Asian Nations regional road safety program (accident costing report AC5: Malaysia).-E. 231-234. 51(6). T. and Biehl.[22] Arthur. Barrett. R. GJ. and Alexander. Transport psychology and transport in Europe: a general overview. (Eds. [24] Asian Development Bank (2005). J.com/archives/continuing-carnage-on-our-carriageways. 239 . B. 34. P. 1173-1182. R. (Eds. 4(2). 2(4). When hope becomes hopelessness. Continuing carnage on our carriageways. (1998).C. Boston: Kluwer.-E. [26] Aylott. (2005. Human Performance.A. Improved safety through improved technical measures? Empirical studies regarding risk compensation in relation to antilock braking systems.. P. and Carbonell Vaya E. In Trimpop.D.) Traffic Psychology Today (pp.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp.M. R. Amsterdam: Elsevier. 34.S. October 18). [28] Ballesteros. [23] Aschenbrenner. P. and Dischinger. [30] Barjonet. [29] Barjonet. 14-29). D. P-E. strategic and statistical considerations. (1986).L. Transport psychology in Europe: a historical approach. (2002). Accident Analysis and Prevention. S. and Tortosa. [25] Austin. and Kenny. M. (2002). (2001).. (1997). [31] Baron.) Challenges to Accident Preventions: The Issue of Risk Compensation Behaviour. Prediction of vehicular accident involvement: a meta-analysis.F.M.V. Accident Analysis and Prevention. European Journal of Oncology Nursing. In Barjonet.. F. G. (Ed. [27] Bakri Musa. An alternative accident prediction model for highway-rail interfaces. In Rothengatter. 21-30).A. R. (1991).

Journal of the American Medical Association.. (1996).G.G. R.T. and Berg. and Loftus. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy: An International Quarterly. and Steer. A. Hostility and Violence. New York: Meridian. New York: Brunner/Mazel. H.. [35] Beck. 588-606. [37] Beck. (Eds.T.. (1993). 1(1). (1975). J. In (Flinders. hopelessness and fatigue in patients and family members in palliative care. [34] Beck. [39] Beck. 157-179). (pp. A. [42] Bentler.H. P.C. and Simons-Morton (2002). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. The measurement of pessimism: the Hopelessness scale. Prisoners of Hate: The Cognitive Basis of Anger.C. 218-229). (Ed. 240 . [43] Benzein. 234(11). The pliability of autobiographical memory: Misinformation and the false memory problem.) Remembering Our Past: Studies in Autobiographical Memory (pp. and Mills. Theory: the necessary evil. 42 [40] Becker. New York: Cambridge University Press.M. R.. [41] Belli. A.A. A. (1999). New York: Perennial Harper Collins. Weissman.T. and Trexler. D. Manual for Beck Hopelessness Scale.F. (2005).[32] Beck. 73-84. San Antonio TX: Psychological Corporation. (1980). and Bonnett. 234-240.) The Evolution of Psychotherapy (pp. Cognitive therapy.T. Lester. 29(1). A. The level of and relation between hope. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. A. [33] Beck.) Theory and Concepts in Qualitative Research: Perspectives from the Field. (1993). Health Education and Behavior.E. (Ed.S. 19. E.T. 88. Hopelessness and suicidal behavior. (1987b). L. M. Kovacs.T. K. (1974). (1987a). Palliative Medicine. In Zeig.T. Cognitive models of depression. A. D. [38] Beck.. J. 5-37. D. 1146-1149. In Rubin.J. Teen driving risk: the promise of parental influence and public policy. G. A. and Weissman. Psychological Bulletin. D.K. New York: Teachers College Press. [36] Beck. 149-178). E. A.F. A. Cognitive Therapy and the Emotional Disorders. (1976). Hartos.

53. S. R.A. 391-399. [53] Bernama. [46] Bina.S.S. F. 472-481 [47] Binzer. Psychological Bulletin. A. [49] Blasco.my/bernama/v3/printable. (2006). Benjamin. 15(1). H. [54] Bridger. J. Graziano. 45(1). Applying Psychology in Organizations. Nordic Journal of Psychiatry. March 12). D. Retrieved March 30. Journal of Personality Assessment. T. McKee. Personality and aggressive behavior under provoking and neutral conditions: a meta-analytic review. 39-55.. 44-51.J. S. 132(5). 241 . (2002). 2007 from http://www. [50] Blumenthal. Managing the high costs of road deaths. Talley. B. A technology to measure multiple driving behaviors without self-report or participant reactivity. Malaysian National News Agency. [45] Bettencourt. 34(1). M. Associations of Type A behavior with the emotional traits of anger and curiosity. (2001).A.D. 313-322.B. and Geller.[44] Ben-Zur. Anxiety. 38(3). and Bonino. Introduction to Ergonomics. M. (1994).. K. Hopelessness and locus of control in patients with motor conversion disorder. 43. Accident analysis and Prevention.C. New York: McGraw Hill. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. J.. Psychology and road safety. (2006. 751-777. New York: Routledge.E. A.php?id=185148. (2006). Applied Psychology: An International Review. (1984). (1995).. T.. and Haney. 37. R.com. [52] Boyce. (1981). Revolutions and shifting paradigms in human factors & ergonomics. [51] Boff. R. E. 37-40. 95-104. and Shimmin. Stress and Coping.bernama. F. (2006) Risky driving and lifestyles in adolescence. Williams. Assessment of conceptual tempo in the Type A (coronary prone) behavior pattern. and Valentine. [48] Blacker. Applied Ergonomics.

S. E. 27(3). In Rothengatter. and Cudeck. R. [61] Brown. International Journal of Educational Development. Local street management in Australia: is it ‘traffic calming’. Haliburton. 445-455. R. I. 18(2). and Carbonell Vaya. (Eds. 32(1).. 105-124. Personality and Individual Differences. Journal of Applied Psychology. T. (Re) positioning Malaysia: high-tech networks and the multicultural rescripting of national identity. Amsterdam: Pergamon. 219-241.. R.D. [62] Brown. 24. (2002). E.E. [59] Brown. 24(1). (1982). C. and Ghiselli. N. and Noy. 641-649. 4(4). T. Making ethnic citizens: the politics and practice of education in Malaysia. R. Risk taking in male taxi drivers: relationships among personality.S. and Warren. (2004).. The Fatality Analysis Reporting System as a tool for investigating racial and ethnic determinants of motor vehicle crash fatalities.P. R. Goldzweig.C. T.K.J. Accident Analysis and Prevention. [63] Browne. Political Geography.. and Wilde.M. I. Ergonomics.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application. 242 . [56] Brindle. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. (1992). 345-352. Schlundt. 318-330.G.C. (1995). In Rothengatter. P. (1989). [60] Brown. [65] Burns. 29-38 [57] Brodsky.C. The effects of music tempo on simulated driving performance and vehicular control. I. How traffic and transport systems can benefit from psychology (pp. D. [64] Bunnell. (1948).E.D.W. G.D. (2000). 9-19). Accident Analysis and Prevention. G. 267-278. [58] Brown. Accident proneness among street car motormen and motor coach operators. C. 37(4). (2005).[55] Briggs. 21. (2007). observational data and driver records. Exposure and experience are a confounded nuisance in research on driver behaviour. (1997). Single sample cross-validation indices for covariance structures.W. (Eds. Levine. 14. W.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application. 20-23. Multivariate Behavioral Research. and Huguenin. Behavioural adaptation to in-vehicle safety measures: past ideas and future directions. M. Amsterdam: Elsevier. I. W.

In Bohrnstedt.H. Human Brain Mapping. and Borgatta. and McIver. Hinojosa. (1957). Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. T. 736-751. (1974). [69] Byrne. [74] Carmines. and Tapia. Cohn. (Eds.H. M. [73] Carment. J.J. E. M. (2002). G. Los Angeles CA: Western Psychological Services.W. L. (2003). (1981). Applications and Programming. E. Applications and Programming.[66] Buss. A. J. (2004). J.W. [72] Caird. (Eds). 35(6). (2000). Beverly Hislls CA: Sage. and Durkee. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Oxford: Elsevier Science. International Journal of Psychology.F. 63-65. Gonzalez. (2001). 9. and Nasar. B. Journal of Consulting Psychology.A. PRELIS and SIMPLIS: Basic Conccepts. 15981613. F. 343-349. Parada.P.. D. 47(15). [75] Carretie. Internal versus external control in India and Canada.) Social Measurement: Current Issues (pp. [76] Carsten. 45-50. 22. [68] Byrd..L. and Warren. [67] Buss. L. A. [70] Byrne. Mercado.M. In Fuller.A. A. 21. Multiple perspectives. Accident Analysis and Prevention.K. Manual for Aggression Questionnaire. Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Conccepts. Human Factors for Highway Engineers. (2004).. Ergonomics. J. (1998). Automatic attention to emotional stimuli: neural correlates.. Seatbelt use and belief in destiny among Hispanic and non-Hispanic drivers. [71] Cackowski. 243 . 65-115). Structural Equation Modeling with LISREL. An inventory for assessing different kinds of hostility. Analyzing models with unobserved variables: analysis of covariance structures. J..D. (1999). and Kline.L. T. M. and Cortes. & Santos. Martin-Loeches. W. Environment and Behaviour... R. M. J. The relationship between organizational and individual variables to on-the-job driver accidents and accident-free kilometers. O. 290-299. 31.G. The restorative effects of roadside vegetation. B. E.

D. 10(2). N6. and Lim. [81] Chang. Motorcyclist accident involvement by age. Cheung. J. and Huguenin. 41. and Yeh. (1985). Cognitive effects of environmental knowledge on urban route planning strategies.P. 2008 from http://www. Kuala Lumpur. S. [86] Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and State Farm Insurance (2007). and Nash. D. Y. [79] Chaloupka-Risser (2005). The Star. (2004). [78] Chalmé.-H.. (Eds. R. Personality across the ethnic divide in Singapore: are “Chinese traits” uniquely Chinese? Personality and Individual Differences. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. (2006). Dictionary of Psychology. Motorists more careful because of Ops Sitak. P. T.F. November 12). Retrieved March 31. Personality and Individual Difference. March 20-22.pdf 244 . M. [84] Cheah. S. (1996).0. Sunway Campus.. Visser.W.org/workshops/05CampoGrande [80] Chan. [85] Cheung.-H. Pacific Grove CA: Duxbury. In Rothengatter.com/statefarm/chop/youngdriversurvey/PDF/NYD_Survey_FIN. 109-122. Traffic management and road safety along federal roads in Malaysia.ictct. Self-consciousness in Chinese college students in Hong Kong. Taiwan. gender and risky behaviors in Taipei.M. F. [83] Che Ali bin Che Hitam (2001. H. J. 467-477.[77] Carver. (2007. Driving: through the eyes of teens. R. and Denis. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Proceedings of the International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT) Extra Workshop. (2007). (2000). Paper presented at the Traffic Engineering and Management in Malaysia workshop. [82] Chaplin. R. New York: Dell.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. Matto Grosso do Sul.H. 557-562. Malaysia.G.. Campo Grande. Brazil.ghipr. T. what can we know – traffic psychological analysis of Driver Behaviour. November). W. 2007 from http:www. 21(4).-L. Monash University. Howard. R. What are we allowed to ask. Doing data analysis with SPSS 10. Retrieved October 15. 61-71).

Y. In Chmiel. and Huguenin. Personality and Individual Differences. 33. Demakakos.S.. Koumaki. 13(2). E.. [93] Chung.C. Journal of Safety Research. (1992). MacGregor. Bartle. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Time vs.E. M.) An Introduction to Work and Organizational Psychology: A European Perspective (pp. (Ed.makeroadssafe. 38(6). 255-274). H. and Chan. Helmets. S. In Rothengatter. T.D. and Stiles.P. P. Smiley. and Truman. [94] Clarke. N. N. [91] Christ. S. A.. [90] Chmiel. D. 39. V. (2000). 377-390).. B.D.pdf [96] Conrad. and Bukasa.org/documents/make_roads_safe_low_res. R. G. N. 431-443. C. hopelessness and suicide ideation. (2002). M. (2007). Driver selection and improvement in Austria. C.. and Darviri. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 1283-1289. [88] Chipman. Patient-related barriers to cancer pain management in a palliative care setting in Hong Kong. P. Accident Analysis & Prevention. French.T. N. Aggressive behavior while driving as predictor of self-reported car crashes. Personality traits and the development of depression..M. (Eds. (2005). Cancer Nursing.L. 196-203. Panosch.. P. [89] Chliaoutaks.’ Injury Prevention.. C. Bradshaw.. How exposure information can enhance our understanding of child traffic ‘death leagues. 974-981. distance as measures of exposure in driving surveys.K.. J. Towner. Amsterdam: Elsevier. injuries and cultural definitions: motorcycle injury in urban Indonesia. 679-684.. [95] Commission for Global Road Safety (2006. Lamsudin. 22(3). 28(2). 125-129.[87] Chioqueta. )2007).. and Costello. The role fo motorcyclist and other driver behaviour in two types of serious accident in the UK. 24(2).G.. M. (1999). E. P. 245 . W. London: Wiley-Blackwell.. Kasniyah. Tzamalouka. (2004). A. Retrieved December 7. Safety at work. and Ward. R. 2007 from http://www. Cairns..) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. C. Bakou. June). and Lee-Gosselin. R. 193-200. Make Roads Safe: A New Priority for Sustainable Development. Ward. [92] Christie. (1996). T.

Journal of Personality Assessment. R. and van Koppen. J. 10. In Rothengatter. [101] Cresswell. R. p. 20(5).my/permalink. Amsterdam: Elsevier. 263. W. [98] Costa. Accident proneness. (1995). 16(5). American Psychologist. [Letter to the Editor] The Star Online.D. 45-62. and Froggatt. (1991).A. 10.R. Wagenaar. Amsterdam: Elsevier. F. and Ponjaert-Kristofferson (2004). T. L. (1961). and Santos.W.T. position on the road and culpability in a road accident scenario. K. Applied Cognitive Psychology. October 18). N48 [106] de Raedt. P.F.A. 64. Asian self-effacement or feminine modesty? Gender and Society. or variable accident tendency? Journal of the Statistical and Social Inquiry Society of Ireland. The influence of car and driver stereotypes on attributions of vehicle speed. Domains and facets: hierarchical personality assessment using the Revised NEO Personality Inventory. D. (1962). P.com. Mental workload. The Star.. 21-50.J. N. R. Engineering psychology and the highway transportation system. Cognitive/neuropsychological functioning and compensation related to car driving performance in older adults. Editorial: Get out of my @%^$! way: there are a few things we should remember about this whole rudeness-on-the-road thing. and McRae. [103] Crombag. (2002). [99] Cowardly Malaysian drivers. and Patel.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application. Stories of Modern Technology Failures and Cognitive Engineering Successes. [100] Cozan. 95-104.[97] Cooke.asp?id-7003. 5(1). [107] de Waard. (1996). H. 2007 from http://blog.M.thestar. G. [105] Davin Arul (2005. (2005). In Fuller. and Durso. (2006. 246 . Legal and Criminological Psychology.M. Human Factors for Engineers (pp. [102] Crittendon.L. D. and Huguenin. Retrieved April 5. February 8). Crashing memories and the problem of ‘source monitoring’. [104] Davies. W. (Eds.S. P. 152-171.J. Boca Raton Fl: CRC / Taylor & Francis. 98-117. 161-175). R.

E.) Human Factors in Traffic Safety (pp. Ergonomics.L. Road traffic injuries in Sri Lanka: a call to action. and Ameratunga. (Eds.. S. [110] Deffenbacher. 26(1). J.L. 50(2). In Dewar.. Lynch. and Brookhuis. J.. (1999). T. and Oetting.E. Filetti. T. and Morris. Lynch. Oetting.. 209-233).S. Oetting. [112] Deffenbacher. C. R.N. and Salvatore. R. [116] Dewar.) Human Factors in Traffic Safety (pp. E. 373-393. (1998). and Meyer.. (2003). R. 28. E. K. (2004). E.E. 1-20.S. 111-142). [109] Deffenbacher. T. Richards. 247 . (Eds. R. P.. Journal of Physicians and Surgeons Pakistan.W.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. and Olson. AZ: Lawyers & Judges. 14(12).R. [118] Dien.R. Characteristics and treatment of high anger drivers. and Swaim. (2000). 5-17. J. Behaviour Research and Therapy. Huff.[108] de Waard. P. The expression of anger and its consequences. E. (2005). R. [113] Delhomme.L..D. Personality and Individual Differences. 47.L.L. The Driver’s Angry Thoughts Questionnaire: a measure of angry cognitions when driving. Differential lateralization of trait anxiety and trait fearfulness: evoked potential correlates. Power and pleasure around the stove: the construction of gendered identity in middle-class south Indian Hindu households in urban Malaysia.S. Journal of Counseling Psychology. R. In Rothengatter.R. [115] Dewar. (2003). Cognitive Therapy and Research. J. Lynch. R. T. P. Journal of Counseling Psychology. S. Age differences – drivers old and young. (1996).. Oetting. 27(4). AZ: Lawyers & Judges.F. J. Control motivation and young drivers’ decision making. M. (Eds. Characteristics of two groups of angry drivers. and Olson. R. In Dewar.R. R. [114] Devashayam. Individual differences. E. Amsterdam: Pergamon. L. [117] Dharmaratne. 123132. (1997).C. (2002a).T. (2002b). [111] Deffenbacher.B. 575-590.. R.S.D.L. Tucson. On the measurement of driver mental workload.E. Tucson. 34. Women’s Studies International Forum. D. 383-402. Lynch. 41. E.L. 729-730. and Carbonell Vaya. 333-356. N.A. Petrilli. 161-171).

. N.. 278-285).S. 53. C. and Mayser. locus of control and worker safety in three Malaysian plantations: moving toward a contextual-mediate research model. and McFadden.D. (1987). negative emotional and risky driving. D.G. and Loke. [125] Draskóczy. Nigeria. Lippold. Lim. [127] Dula. Clayton. J.. Women drivers’ behaviour. [126] Dukes. H. [124] Downe. Science & Technology. Amsterdam: Pergamon. 33. 14(2). T. L.G.. 31. Ebersbach. S. 223-231). Knowledge transfer. Powers. November). W. M. E.P.. and Carbonell Vaya. (1999). (2001). In Dorn. (Eds. (Eds. K.M.. (2004. T.[119] Dietze. 323-331. 1146-1158. and Ballard. The safety potential of the new driver assistance system (CSA).A. Sungai Petani. M. Aggression and ethnicity in Malaysia: a preliminary investigation. [122] Dodge. S. accident causation and prevention: issues for health promotion from an exploratory study in a Yoruba town. 197208. A. 248 . L. Aldershot UK: Ashgate. R. Malaysia.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. R. ‘Fatalism’. S. [120] Dixey. R. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.R. December). socio-demographic characteristics and accidents. C. In Khalid. T.L. A. (2003). Paper presented at the First International Conference-Seminar on Culture. 85-92). (2003). Accident Analysis and Prevention. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. Ball. Miller. Social Science Journal 38.L. Brown. and Rodgers.. Bahar. Health Education Research.A. Jenkins. In Rothengatter.. Social information-processing factors in reactive and proactive aggression in children’s playgroups. M. J. and Coie.) Driver Behaviour and Training (pp. (1997). J.. Mohd Yusuff.T. Traffic safety and the new research paradigm in human sciences. 263282.. A.a.Y. [121] Dobson.L. M. Kedah. Kuala Lumpur MY: IEA Press.E.) Proceedings of Agriculture Ergonomics Development Conference (pp. [123] Downe. and Che Doi. (Ed. C.E. 525-535. Asian Institute of Medicine.. Effects of aggressive driving and river characteristics on road rage. (1999). (2007. Development and evaluation of a measure of dangerous aggressive. M.

[137] Engel.. (1968). G.[128] Dumais. Annals of Internal Medicine. [132] Elander. Psychiatric risk factors for motor vehicle fatalities in young men. (2002). and Turecki.B. 113. Volume 3: Extensions and Limitations (pp. 209-306). [135] Elvik. (2005). Cross cultural research with the locus of control construct. Brno. Ménard-Buteau.. Journal of Transport Geography. N. G.. and French D. G. R. Kim. J. (1971). (Ed.. and intention to quit: a structural equations analysis.D. Psychological Bulletin. 249 . 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.R. Behavioral correlates of individual differences in road-traffic crash risk: an examination of methods and findings. New York: Lyle Stuart Press. A. J. A life setting conducive to illness: the giving up complex. 74.org/workshops/02-Brno/Elvik. A. G.. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry. 159165. satisfaction and commitment. (1996). 22(4).ictct. In Lefcourt. 69. Chawky. In Underwood. New York: Academic. (2001). 4(3). 838-844.L.M. (1993).A. 17-26).L. Causal ordering of stress. Boyer. March 20-22. Lesage. 293-300. 201-22. 279-294. 50(13). 771-782. R. (1984). [134] Ellis. [129] Dunbar.. (2005). A.) Traffic and Transport Psychology (pp. G. C. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2007 from www.(Ed.pdf [136] Engel. Leadership and Organizational Development. Reason and Emotion in Psychotherapy. Using epidemiological data to address psychological questions about pedestrian behavior. J. Retrieved December 25.. [133] Elangovan. Amsterdam: Elsevier [130] Dyal.) Research with the Locus of Control Construct. Lalovic.. West. (1962). A. [131] Edwards. Sudden and rapid death during psychological stress. A. H.. C. Czech Republic. Weather-related road accidents in England and Wales: a spatial analysis. R.

E. N22. L. London: Medical Research Council. (1991). 250 . (1976). [142] Ey. Worse than a war zone: our roads claim 6. E. J. Klesges. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Risk Analysis. Driver fatalities versus car mass using a new exposure approach. L. E.M. [145] Farmer.. 16. and Chambers. (1939). and Chambers.[138] Evans. (Industrial Fatigue Research Board Report No. W.M. [143] Farik Zolkepli (2007. 38).M.A. (1929). Herth. (1996). Traffic Safety and the Driver. Patterson. S. 784-786. [148] Ferguson.G. and Popovich. Comment: the dominant role of driver behavior in traffic safety. 19-36.. and Alpert. Statistical Analysis in Psychology and Education. S. [140] Evans.A. 84). E. Hope and Hopelessness: Critical Clinical Constructs. December 10). New York: McGraw Hill. Risk Homeostasis Theory and traffic accident data. Barnard. (1995).. [147] Farran. E. Hadley. 6(1). 81-94. B. L.6bil losses yearly. 23(5).G. E.S. (1926). L. G. A psychological study of individual differences in accident rates. (Industrial Fatigue Research Board Report No. [146] Farmer. Racial differences in adolescents’ perceived vulnerability to disease and injury. Accident Analysis and Prevention. (Industrial Fatigue Research Board Report No.G. London: Medical Research Council. p. [139] Evans.J.000 and RM5. 55).. American Journal of Public Health. The Star. (1984). Journal of Behavioural Medicine.. L. and Chambers. M. 86(6). A study of personal qualities in accident proneness and deficiency. C. London: Medical Research Council. (2000). K. [141] Evans. [144] Farmer. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage. 421-435. A study of accident proneness among motor drivers. (1986).

August). Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. S. Type A Behavior and Your Heart. M. and Ajzen. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Recherche Transports Sécurité. M. and Seiden. (1974). [152] Fishbein. and Richardson. K. 289-298. 66. R. In Proceedings of the 24th International Congress of Applied Psychology. R. P. Cultural values in Malaysia: Chinese. [151] Firestone.H. 77-97). 51(1). and Järmark. (2007). Testing moderator and mediator effects in counseling psychology. and Santos.A.W. Tix. J. Teoh. (1998. S. and McCartt. causes. S. Accident analysis and Prevention..E. and Bragg. A. Linderholm. [158] Fuller. 251 .[149] Ferguson. Suicide and the continuum of self-destructive behavior.. R. New York: Knopf. [153] Fontaine. Perception of the risk of an accident by young and older drivers. (2005). 9. Belief. B. Intention and Behavior. Malays and Indians compared. P. H. [155] Forward. [157] Friedman. [154] Forward. 137-145. I. (1986). 115-134. [156] Frazier.P. Journal of Safety Research 38. Cross Cultural Management. R. I. 412-426. consequences and considerations. [160] Fuller.W. R. S. The intention to commit driving violations – a qualitative study. Human factors and driving. R. (2000).T. (2005). R. A. S. (2002). 63-77. Towards a general theory of driver behaviour. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 461-472.18(4). 207-213. and Barron. (2006). (2004). Attitude.A. Progress in teenage crash risk during the last decade.A. and Rosenman. (1990). 47-55. 38(5). In Fuller. (1975). [150] Finn.. 12(4). San Francisco.R. 37. Journal of American College Health. The task-capability interface model of the driving process. R. Women and traffic accidents. Human Factors for Engineers (pp. E. Reading MA: Addison-Wesley. Accident Analysis and Prevention. [159] Fuller..

T. Y. (1999). Internal locus of control moderates the effects of road-hostility on recalled driving behavior. 203-220. Attitude towards online purchase of fish in urban Malaysia: an ethnic comparison. [163] Garg. Mutu. E. Tracing the ethnic divide: race.[161] Fuller. and Brown. L. [168] Glass. and Syna Desevilya. [162] Galovski. and Carbonell Vaya. Exploring the relationship between development and road traffic injuries: a case study from India. 33(6).. 42(9). (1997). H. (2008).B. Petaling Jaya. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. K. Use of auditory icons as emergency warnings: evaluation within a vehicle collision avoidance application. Road Rage: Assessment and Treatment of the Angry. 167-202). Behavior Paterns. 109-128. A. [170] Graham.T. Malta.S. [167] Gidron. G.E. E. Journal of Applied Psychology. Y. 93-96). A. (1996). (2006). T. (Eds.. Washington DC: American Psychological Association. [169] Gomez. E. and Davidson. 16(5).. and Gomez. C. [164] Ghazali. N. D.C. [165] Ghiselli. 12(4). (2003). Stress and Coronary Disease. C. S.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. 252 .S. Amsterdam: Pergamon.A.. A. E. (2006). and Mahbob. 487-491.. 6.. (1949). Theories and models in traffic psychology – a contrary view. Aggressive Driver. E. Ergonomics. R. and Hyder. Development and preliminary validation of a brief intervention for modifying CHD-predictive hostility components. (1999). (Eds. Task difficulty and risk in the determination of driver behaviour. Gal. and Pender. (1977). [171] Grayson. E. Journal of Behavioural Medicine. The prediction of accidents of taxicab drivers. MY: Sage. European Journal of Public Health. 1233-1248. Journal of Food Products Marketing. 19. In Rothengatter. rights and redistribution in Malaysia.B. J. 109-116. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. R.A. In Pfaff-Czarnecaka.E. and Blanchard. Rajasingham-Senanayake. McHugh.) Ethnic Futures: The State and Identity Politics in Asia (pp. (2006). [166] Gidron.D. 58(1). Nandy. D.T. 540-546. 13-21.W. Revue européenne de psychologie appliquée. R. N. Hillsdale.

[172] 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.

[173]

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.

[174]

Greenwald, A.G. and Pratkanis, A.R. (1988). On the use of ‘theory’ and the usefulness of theory. Psychological Review, 95, 575-579.

[175]

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.

[176]

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.

[177]

Griffiths, M. (2003). Communicating risk: journalists have responsibility to report risks in context. British Medical Journal, 327, 1404.

[178]

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.

[179]

Groeger, J.A. (2000). Understanding Driving: Applying Cognitive Psychology to a Complex Everyday Task. Hove, UK: Taylor & Francis.

[180]

Groeger, J.A. (2002). Trafficking in cognition: applying cognitive psychology to driving. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 5, 235-248.

[181]

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.

253

[182]

Groeger, J.A. and Rothengatter, J.A. (1998). Traffic psychology and behaviour. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 1(1), 1-9.

[183]

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.

[184]

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

[185]

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.

[186]

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.

[187]

Haddon, W. Jr. (1972). A logical framework for categorizing highway safety phenomena and activity. Journal of Trauma, 12, 193-207.

[188]

Harrell, W.A. (1995). Factors influencing involvement in farm accidents. Perceptual Motor Skills, 81(2), 592-594.

[189]

Hauer, E. (1987). The reign of ignorance. Proceedings of Conference on Transportation and Deregulation and Safety.. Chicago: Northwestern University.

[190]

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.

[191]

Haight, F.A. (1986). Risk – especially risk of traffic accident. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 5, 359-366.

[192]

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.

254

[193]

Hale, A.R. and Glendon, A.I. (1987). Individual Behaviour in the Control of Danger. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

[194]

Hampson, P.J. and Morris, P.E. (1996). Understanding Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.

[195]

Harbin, T.J. (1989). The relationship between the type A behavior pattern and physiological responsivity: a quantitative review. Psychophysiology, 26(1), 110-119.

[196]

Harlow, L.L. (2005). The Essence of Multivariate Thinking: Basic Themes and Methods. London: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.

[197]

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.

[198]

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.

[199]

Harris, J.A. (1997). A further evaluation of the Aggression Questionnaire: issues of validity and reliability. Behaviour Research & Therapy, 35, 1047-1053.

[200]

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.

[201]

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.

[202]

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.

[203]

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

255

presented at the Annual Meeting of the Southwester Psychological Association. Albuquerque, NM.

[204]

Hernetkoski, K. and Keskinen, E. (1998). Self-destruction in Finnish motor traffic accidents in 1974-1992. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 30(5), 697-704.

[205]

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.

[206]

Hewstone, M. and Ward, C. (1985). Ethnocentrism and causal attribution in Southeast Asia. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48(3), 614-623.

[207]

Hochschild, (1979). Emotion, work, feeling rules and social structure, American Journal of Sociology, 85, 551-575.

[208]

Hofstede, G. (1998). A case for comparing apples with oranges: international differences in values. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 39, 17-29.

[209]

Hofstede, G. (1999). Cultures and Organizations: Intercultural Cooperation and its Importance for Survival. New York: McGraw-Hill.

[210]

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.

[211]

Holzmann, F. (2008). Adaptive Cooperation Between Driver and Assistant System: Improving Road Safety. Springer.

[212]

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.

[213]

Horswill, M.S. and Coster, M.E. (2002). The effect of vehicle characteristics on drivers’ risktaking behaviour. Ergonomics, 45(2), 85-104.

256

[214] 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.

[215]

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).

[216]

Hoyt, M.F. (1973). Internal-external locus of control and beliefs about automobile travel. Journal of Research in Personality, 7, 288-293.

[217]

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.

[218]

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.

[219]

Huguenin, R.D. (2001). Models in traffic psychology. In In Barjonet, P.-E.. (Ed.) Traffic Psychology Today (pp. 31-59). Boston: Kluwer.

[220]

Huguenin, R.D. (2005). Traffic psychology in a (new) social setting. In Underwood, G.(Ed.) Traffic and Transport Psychology (pp. 3-14). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

[221]

Hyder, A.A. and Peden, M. (2003). Inequality and road-traffic injuries: call for action. Lancet, 2034-2035.

[222]

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.

[223]

Inagaki, T. (2003). Adaptive automation: sharing and trading of control. In Hollnagel, E. (Ed.) Handbook of Cognitive Task Design (pp. 147-169). LEA

[224]

Isani, R. (1963). From hopelessness to hope. Perspectives in Psychiatric Care, 1(2), 15-17.

257

[225]

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.

[226]

Iverson, H. and Rundmo, T. (2002). Personality, risky driving and accident involvement among Norwegian drivers. Personality and Individual Differences 44, 1251-1263.

[227]

Jacobs, G. and Baguley, C. (2004). Traffic safety. In Robinson, R. and Thagesen, B. (Eds.) Road Engineering for Development (pp. 57-77). London: Spon.

[228]

Jaffe, E. (2004). What was I thinking: Kahneman explains how intuition leads us astray. Association for Psychological Science Observer, 17, 5.

[229]

James, L. and Nahl, D. (2000). Road Rage and Aggressive Driving. Amherst NY: Prometheus.

[230]

James, L.R., Mulaik, S.A., and Brett, J.M. (1982). Causal Analysis: Assumptions Models and Data. Beverly Hills CA: Sage.

[231]

Johnson, H.M. (1946). The detection and treatment of accident-prone drivers. Psychological Bulletin, 43(6), 489-532.

[232]

Johnston, I. (2007). Road trauma in the region – avoiding a pandemic. Journal of the Road Engineering Association of Asia & Australasia, 14(2), 5-12.

[233]

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.

[234]

Jonah, B.A. (1997b). Sensation seeking and risky driving. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 18, 255-271.

[235]

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.

258

[236]

Kahneman, D. (2003). Maps of bounded rationality: psychology for behavioral economics. American Economic Review, 93, 1449-1475.

[237]

Kahneman, D., Slovic, P. and Tversky, A. (1982). Judgement Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. New York: Cambridge University Press.

[238]

Kanfer, F.H. and Goldstein, A.P. (Eds.) (1990). Helping People Change: A Textbook of Methods. London: Allyn & Bacon

[239]

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.

[240]

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.

[241]

Kenny, D.A. (2006. February 7). Mediation. Retrieved April 9, 2006, from http://www.davidakenny.net/cm/mediate.htm

[242]

Kerlinger, F.N. and Lee, H.B. (2000). Foundations of Behavioral Research. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

[243]

Keskinen, E., Hatakka, M. and Katila, A. (1992). Inner models as a basis for traffic behaviour. Journal of Traffic Medicine, 20(4), 147-152.

[244]

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.

[245]

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

[246]

King, Y. and Parker, D. (2008). Driving violations, aggression and perceived consensus. Revue européenne de psychologie appliqué, 58(1), 43-19.

259

[247]

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.

[248]

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.

[249]

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

[250]

Korff, R. (2001). Globalisation and communal identities in the plural society of Malaysia. Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography, 22(3), 270-284.

[251]

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.

[252]

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.

[253]

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.

[254]

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.

[255]

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.

[256]

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.

260

[257]

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.

[258]

Lajunen, T. and Summala, H. (1995). Driving experience, personality, and skill and safetymotive dimensions in drivers’ self-assessments. Personality and Individual Difference, 19, 307318.

[259]

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.

[260]

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.

[261]

Lambie, J.A. and Marcel, A.J. (2002). Consciousness and the varieties of emotion experience: a theoretical framework. Psychological Review, 109, 219-259.

[262]

Langdridge, D. (2004). Introduction to Research Methods and Data Analysis in Psychology. London: Pearson Prentice Hall.

[263]

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.

[264]

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.

[265]

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.

261

H. 659-662. Malay dominance and opposition politics. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. (1973). (1989).M. 38.407-423. [272] Lerner.C. pp.[266] Lawton. N. A. H. Mahwah.K. (2001). 2nd Edition. New York: Academic.B. (1975). Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 479-490. Journal of Personality Assessment. [270] Lefcourt.M. 93. H. (1976). (1974). H. and Stiller. G. A comparison of reported levels and expression of anger in everyday and driving situations. D. 253-269). A. Accident Analysis and Prevention. SPSS for Intermediate Statistics: Use and Implementation.P. H. [268] Leech. and Nutter.. H. The influence of demographic factors on seatbelt use by adults injured in motor vehicle crashes. Multidimensional locus of control in psychiatric patients. In Lefcourt.. Jehle. Volume 2: Developments and Social Problems (pp. [276] Levenson. L. (1983). D. (Ed.M.V.L. Applied Ergonomics. (2002). Barrett. G. 3. Moscati.. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. [273] LeShan. 177-196. In Southeast Asian Affairs 2002: An Annual Review. C. British journal of Psychology. 41. Cancer as a turning point. Dutton. [274] Levenson. E.J.. [269] Lefcourt. Billittier. 303-304. Human-factors engineering for smart transport: decision support for car drivers and train traffic controllers. [271] Lenior. K. [275] Levenson. New York: E. Janssen. 397-401. Neerincx and Schreibers (2006). Activism and powerful others: distinctions within the concept of internalexternal control. W. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychiatry. The locus of control as a moderator variable: stress.) Research with the Locus of Control Construct. R. 97. 262 . H. Conner. (2002). 377-383. IV. Journal of Social Psychology. Locus of Control: Current Trends in Theory and Research. [267] Lee. and Morgan.A.G. 37. R.. (2005).M.M. Additional dimensions of internal-external control.

A. and Donovan.asp?file=/2007/3/26/nation/17254652&sec=nation&focus=1.) Research with the Locus of Control Construct. (1979). D. 213-222. Role of primary personality factors in the perception of traffic signs and driver violations and accidents. J. In Lefcourt. 10. (1997). 59-67.. 15-63). Psychological Reports. M-R.M. (1980). 39(3). [280] Lin. 536-545. [286] Looi.S. Hwang. 2007 from http://www. [284] Lonero. Neighbors. Retrieved May 14.[277] Levenson. The Star Online. [279] Lim. H-D. Huang. Differentiating among internality. E. D.S. Media Statement released by the Office of the Malaysian Parliamentary Opposition Leader and Democratic Action Party Secretary-General. L. (Ed. In Rothe. K. Wu. (1999. March 26).A. [285] Loo. 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. New York: Academic. Edmonton AB: University of Alberta Press.my/news/story. H. 263 .. Predicting risky and angry driving as a function of gender. (2004).M.) Driving Lessons: Exploring Systems that Make Traffic Safer. S. (2007). Accident Analysis and Prevention. I. (1960). Retrieved April 5. 7. Accident-proneness: does it exist? Occupational Safety and Health. 2007 from http://thestar. February 2). R. The effect of crash experience on changes in risk taking among urban and rural young people. 8-9 [282] Liverant. (2002) Driver skill: performance and behaviour.P. and Yen. [281] Lindsey. (2007. H. Volume 1: Assessment Methods (pp. 125-127.P.com/archive/1999/feb99/sg1541. L-L.. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Internal and external control as determinants of decision making under conditions of risk. [283] Lonczak. and Scodel. [278] Levy. Tools of Critical Thinking: Metathoughts for Psychology..com. C.limkitsiang. (1981). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Defensive driving a must under new curriculum. W. H-F.. (Ed. F.htm. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 11. H. 36. powerful others and chance.

R. (1999).F. M. Young driver research program – a review of information on young driver performance characteristics and capabilities. Basics of Structural Equation Modeling..A. Psychological Bulletin. Aldershot UK: Ashgate. Journal of Rehabilitation. and McDonald. Accident Analysis & Prevention.R. Traffic accident involvement rates by driver age and gender. behavior and cognition. 68(5). Victoria NSW.. [295] Maruyama. and Hershberger. Campbell. and Mooran. (1989). 233-252). [293] Marsh. C. R. D. D. Balla. (1994).F.R.L. Watson. K. (1988). (1997). and Jessurun. Annual mileage. (1986).M. [289] Maakip. of affect. [288] Luckner. G. S. and level of education. May). Monash University Accident Research Centre. 129. Age differences in male drivers’ perception of accident risk: the role of perceived driving ability. In Dorn. J. G. A three-factor model of trait anger: dimensions. [290] Macdonald.P. 264 . J. 391-411.[287] Lourens. 185-217. Accident Analysis and Prevention. age.L. 62-67.K. (Ed. Quality & Quantity. and Williams. 103. (1994.L. Vissers. Malaysia.28.A. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage. C. L. Goodness-of-fit in CFA: the effects of sample size and model parsimony. A. (2000). Goodness-of-fit indexes in confirmatory factor analysis: the effect of sample size. H. H.. [294] Martin.M. 27(1). [291] Marcoulides. Driver information systems: a preliminary investigation of motorists information requirements in Kuala lUmpur.R. 55(2). [296] Massie. 73-87. driving violations and accident involvement in relation to drivers’ sex.W. Altering locus of control of individuals with hearing impairments by outdoor-adventure courses. Report No. [292] Marsh. (1995). [297] Matthews. 593-597. 18(4). Accident Analysis and Prevention. J. J. W. and Wan. 299313. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. (1998). 869-897.L. R.) Driver Behaviour and Training (pp. and Balla.. Australia..M. A. Multivariate Statistical Methods: A First Course. I. Journal of Personality.A.W.L. P. 31. (2003). M.

[302] McKenna. Gilbody.net/Bloge/2005/11/malaysia-records-highest-single-day. Ismail. Cognitive abilities and safety on the road: a re-examination of individual differences in dichotic listening and search for embedded figures. Fort Worth TX: Holt. [307] Mendel. (1983). Beresford. Hampshire UK. S. R. F. New York: Plenum. (1977). (1974). L.. Cognitive-Behavior Modification: An Integrative Approach. D. Ergonomics. [304] McRae. F.. E.V. 173-181. (2005. I. A. M. 23. [301] McKenna. 649-663.W. Can we predict suicide and nonfatal self harm with the Beck Hopelessness Scale? A metanalysis. Psychological Medicine. and Brown. Unconscious suicides. Sambasivan. P. D. 71-77.P. November 6). Accident proneness: a conceptual analysis.R. (1989).E. [303] McMillan. (1989). M.htm [299] McConnell. Duncan. (2007).P. 29. Rinehar and Winston. New York: Guilford. Relationship between work-family conflict and the quality fo life: an investigation into the role of social support. Waylen. The University of Reading. Understanding Human Behavior.. 769-778. Journal of Managerial Psychology.P. Accident Analysis and Prevention. [ in press].. G. G. and Costa. Male and female drivers: how different are they? AA Foundation for Road Safety Research. 34(47). (1986). Perspectives Psychiatriques. I. [305] Md-Sidin. [306] Meichenbaum. [300] McKenna. and Burkes. J. Retrieved April 5. and Neilly.. 2007 from http://www.D.E. (2009). Risk Analysis. 37(6).. Malaysia Today. S. 45-52. F.malaysia-today. Personality in Adulthood. J. 9. (1990).[298] Malaysia records highest single-day death toll during holiday period. 265 . (1998). Traffic accidents and convictions: group totals versus rate per kilometer driven. [308] Mercer.

Journal of Applied Psychology. 33(3). Time intervals between accidents.A. 75-85. J. In Aggressive driving: three studies. l.aaafoundation. E. (1983. Aggressive driving behaviors: are there psychological and attitudinal predictors? Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour.. 195-211. A. [314] Mintz.. D. AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety.org.A. A critical review of driver behaviour models: what do we know. L.panducermat.. J. (1989). 61(3).[309] Michon. [313] Ministry of Transport Malaysia (2007). A re-examination of the accident proneness concept. L. Kayumov. (2006). Washington DC. from http://www.M. Turku. P. C. Statistics. Retrieved December 15. 21(4). (Eds. J. [312] Miles. and Schwing. J.J. V. and Keskinen. 2007. L. [310] Michon. Journal of Psychosomatic Research. Finland. 2006 from http://www. Safety Science. May).L.C. M. M. Simulator performance.L. and Blum. Retrieved May 23. 341-353. A. Cognitive theory of traffic behaviour. New York: Plenum. [318] Monárrez-Espino. Aggressive driving. 44(2). microsleep episodes. H.php. (2003). [315] Mintz. (154). In Helkama.E. First year as a licensed car deriver: gender differences in crash experience.. and Laflamme. 266 . Hasselberg. [311] Mikkonen. E. G. (Eds. and subjective sleepiness: normative data using convergent methodologies to assess driver drowsiness. 38(6). 6(2).my/en/street_smart_statistik. R. (1949). what should we do? In Evans. (1997). 401406. Journal of Applied Psychology. Bulmas. and Johnson.) Human Behaviour and Traffic Safety.) Proceedings of the Finnish-Soviet Symposium on Cognitive Processes. Explanatory pitfalls and rule-based driver models.pdf [317] Moller. Nhan. and Shapiro. and Niemi. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 147-161. 335-342.L. (1985). (2006).org/pdf/agdr3study. K. [316] Mizel.

A. Accident proneness and road accidents. R. A. H. A. J. (1994). Coping with the politics of faiths and cultures: between secular state and ecumenical traditions in India. D. Transcultural Psychiatry. Petaling Jaya. (Eds. 267 . 42.) Ethnic Futures: The State and Identity Politics in Asia (pp. [321] Morris. 51-63. [328] Niméus. R. 8.L. Defining ‘modern’ Malay womanhood and the coexistent messages of the veil. Rajasingham-Senanayake. P. (2007). I. 125-132. Amsterdam: North Holland. 320-388). [320] Moore. 15(2).. L. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. [322] Most. T.) Handbook of Psychological Skills Training: Clinical Techniques and Application (pp. (2007). 32-37.B.L. In Pfaff-Czarnecaka. and Comrey. and Astur. 339-343. and Summala H.[319] Montag. 164-174. [327] Neuman. Träskman-Bendz and Alsén (1997). 167-202). (1999). Clinical problems of anger and its assessment and regulation through a stress coping skills approach. 72. E..L. Visual Cognition. 38(1). MY: Sage. R. Journal of the Institute of Automobile Assessors. and Gomez.. 243-261. (1956). S. and Maniam.T. [324] Näätänen. Hopelessness and suicidal behavior. and Krasner. A. Journal of Applied Psychology. (1974). K. and Summala. (1987). Boston: Pearson. Fifth Edition. New York: Allyn & Bacon. A model for the role of motivational factors in drivers’ decision-making. W. Nandy. (1976). In O’Donoghue . Road User Behavior and Traffic Accidents. A. 6. (2001) Ethnicicity and suicidal behaviour in Malaysia: a review of the literature. Journal of Affective Disorders. 137-144. Feature-based attentional set as a cause of traffic accidents. R. [323] Mousser. [325] Näätänen. Internality and externality as correlates of involvement in fatal driving accidents.E. (2003). [326] Nandy. W. Religioin 37. (Eds.S. [329] Novaco.

R. Garner. 2(5). [332] Noy. [338] Ohberg. Aggression on roadways. M. (1996).38..W. (2000). 237-252. February 8). Driver perception-response time.W. Human factors in modern traffic systems. In Baenninger.) Targets of Violence and Aggression: Advances in Psychology (pp. A.[330] Novaco. N51. J. J. p. E.W. 171. 268 . [334] Ochando. (1997). Ergonomics. Straits Times. 201-215). Safer Roads: A Guide to Road Safety Engineering. Pentilla. 445-460. I. (2001). Social psychological principles: ‘the group inside the person’. 1016-1024. W. In Dewar. F.B.) Human Factors in Traffic Safety (pp. [340] O’Neill. and Hermida.L. A. [333] N-S highway still one of the safest roads. Temes. B.S. 34. and Williams. 4(2). [339] Olson. and Santos. says operator. K.F (2001). 654-656.. AZ: Lawyers & Judges.L (2002). Tucson. Aldershot. (2007. A. (1998). Oxford UK: North Holland. British Journal of Psychiatry. Amsterdam: Elsevier [336] Odero. and Z. [331] Novaco. (1996.A. p. (Eds. P. Road traffic injuries in developing countries: a comprehensive review of epidemiological studies. 92-93. P. Zwi (1997). P. [Letter to the Editor] The Star. [337] Ogden. (1997). 4. Risk homeostasis hypothesis: a rebuttal. M. [341] Our roads are filled with selfish drivers.. December 9). Human Factors for Engineers (pp. UK: Ashgate. (Ed. The decade 1989-1998 in Spanish psychology: an analysis of development of professional psychology in Spain. Injury Prevention. 43-76). R. Tropical Medicine and International Health. and Lonnqvist. R. and Olson. In Fuller. 40(10). 253-326). Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice. 468-472. R. Spanish Journal of Psychology. (2002). Driver suicides. [Review of the book Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application]. J. R. [335] O’Connell. R.

R..D. Dimensions of driving behaviour and driver characteristics.. British Journal of Psychology. [347] Parker. 113-140. (2005). R. (2001). Ulrich. 40. B.ictct. R. M. Road safety: what has social psychology to offer? In Rothengatter. (2002). Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 269 . 42.S. The view from the road: implications for stress recovery and immunisation. Lajunen. Anger and aggression among drivers in three European countries.. N. 533-545.org/workshops/05Helsinki/P1_Ozkan. Accident Analysis & Prevention. and Schneider.W.A. 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.. 38(5).S. W. Finland. 229-235. [343] Özkan. 18. L. 92. driving violations and accident involvement.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application. J. (2008). driving skills and attitudes toward in-vehicle technologies (ISA & ACC). 479-486. D. Helsinki. Poster session presented at the 18th International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT). T. (1988). (2004). and Lajunen (2005). 3-13. S. [351] Parsons. Driving errors. D. Personality and Individual Difference. T. [350] Parsons.R. Applied Psychology: An International Review.E.. H. Ergonomics.. Lajunen. Amsterdam: Elsevier. 34. Locus of control in university students from eastern and western societies. J. Hebl. 507-526.[342] Özkan. Manstead. [348] Parker. (1995)..T. D. Tassinary. Accident Analysis & Prevention. 2007 from www. M. C.S. 456-461.M.G. and Synodinos. Anger on and off the road. and Summala. (Eds. [349] Parkinson. (1998). [346] Parker. T. and Grossman-Alexander.pdf - [344] Pai. 1036-1048. C.G. T. and Kaistinen. 37(1). O. T. Journal of Environmental Psychology. (pp. Multidimensional Traffic Locus of Control Scale (T-LOC): factor structure and relationship to risky driving. and Saleh. (1974).R and Stradling. and Huguenin. [345] Papacostas. A. 125-134). Reason. Traffic locus of control. J. 38(3). Retrieved December 20.

London: Taylor & Francis. and Åkerstedt. [361] Phares. Type A behaviour pattern and motor vehicle drivers’ behaviour. 1153.. E. 68-79. (2002). [356] Per. Road traffic injuries are a global public health problem [Letters]. Brazil. W. and Singh. and Al Haji.s [355] Pelz. (2003). Sleet. and Renner. [362] Philip. Matto Grosso do Sul. D. Switzerland: World Health Organization. M. U.J. 9-14 270 . and Hyder. A. [358] Perry. (2002). [354] Peltzer. E.M. 91. G. Taillard. (1976). (1980).. Campo Grande.) (2004). 324. P. Journal of Sleep Research. Geneva. Jarawan. Are young drivers really more dangerous after controlling for exposure and experience? Journal of Safety Research. G. 35. (2000).H. Perceptual and Motor Skills. British Medical Journal. R. 63. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Morristown NJ: General Learning. D... B. 8(1). 875-878.. J. Locus of Control in Personality. L. [353] Peden. K. Further evidence of associations of type A personality scores and driving-related attitudes and behaviors. 2007 from http:www. Retrieved March 31. [359] Pestonjee. Mohan. Proceedings of the International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT) Extra Workshop.R. World report on road traffic injury prevention. (1971). [360] Peters. 619-623.. D.A. 201-204. S. A. M.R. and Mathers (Eds..A. (2005). M. A. D. Hyder. Road safety in southeast Asia: factors affecting motorcycle safety. Neuroticism-extraversion as correlates of accident occurrence.C. Superstition. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 147-154.[352] Peden. and Baldwin. Simple reaction time. 3. Scurfield. Automotive Vehicle Safety. Bioulac.B. duration of driving and sleep deprivation in young versus old automobile drivers. B. 12(3). D. T. March 20-22. (1986). Perceptual and Motor Skills.ictct. (1999).and Schuman. A. risk-taking and risk perception of accidents among South African taxi drivers.J.org/workshops/05-CampoGrande [357] Perry. and Peters. Quera-Salva.A..

29(1).-G. Updates of road safety status in Malaysia. R.N. (1990). Delineating road accident risk along mountain roads. [367] Proctor. C. (1965).J. S. [366] Prociuk. R. Cambridge University Press. Traffic Engineering and Control.. 32(3). S. 334-343. Ergonomics. 33. and Lussier. S. [369] Ranney.. W. Psychology of drivers in traffic accidents. and Harris. Breen. (1994). and Campbell. [371] Reason. IATSS Research / International Association of Traffic and Safety Sciences. [370] Rautela. D. J. K. Performance differences of individuals classified by questionnaire as accident prone or non-accident prone. 1315-1332.A. (1991). and Corlett. J.H. 32. 369-374 [374] Renner. [368] Radin Umar. Human Error. 32(2). 49(4). 26. Disaster Prevention and Management. New York: McGraw Hill. Stradling. 317-333. Baxter. 271 . A. (1989). C. [372] Reason.. (2005). 3112). (1993). Hopelessness. (2000). S. Manstead. reasons for riding and the social context of riding among young on-road motorcyclists in New Zealand.D. T. (1976).I. Errors and violations on the roads: a real distinction? Ergonomics. 284-288.E. Accident Analysis and Prevention. J. T.J. 78-80. 299-300. Rider training. internal-external locus of control and depression. Models of driving behavior: a review of their evoloution. (2007). 673-678.J.S. Journal of Clinical Psychology. (1990).J. and Pant. (1996). L. [365] Preston. 566-573. [364] Porter. The Psychology of Judgment and Decision Making. J. Chalmers.[363] Plous. 733-750. 20(4). and Langley.S. 16(3). Accident Analysis and Prevention. Venturesomeness and extraversion as correlated of juvenile drivers’ traffic violations.. P.. [373] Reeder. F. S. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health. S. E. Journal of Applied Psychology. and Anderle. Accident reduction through area-wide traffic schemes.

Weinstein.L. Analysis of motor-vehicle crashes at stop signs in four U. A. (2000). and Voas. Theories of science in traffic psychology. P-A. W-R.efpa. In Lim. (Ed).S. Accident Analysis & Prevention. R. [379] Risser. [378] Rimmö. 1-7. [385] Romano.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application. R. Singapore: Elsevier.. Retrieved December 11. Retrieved May 23. Journal of Safety Research. H.R. 45(8). 2007 from http://202. [384] Romano. Report to the General Assembly. Pacific Grove CA: Brooks/Cole. April). (2005). E. Organizational Behavior. (2002). 485-489.G.A. and Huguenin. (2003). R. P.P. R. 569-582.html [382] Robbins.D. (2000). Aberrant driving behaviour: homogeneity of a four-factor structure in samples differing in age and gender.be/doc/Final%20report%20TF%20Traffic%20Psychology%20GA%202003. 272 . M. P. K. Ergonomics.B.64. 37(1). (2004). S. Human factors and motor vehicle crashes: a conceptual framework for ergonomic research in South East Asia. 453-460. (2005b) Fatal red light crashes: the role of race and ethnicity. 2007 from http://www. Anger. and Downe. E. Stress and Health..Y. (2007) Statistik2006.190.pdf [380] Risser. and Nickel. S. [381] Road Transport Department Malaysia [Jabatan Pengagkutan Jalan Malaysia]. cities. In Rothengatter. [376] Rice. (1999). Upper Saddle River NJ: Prentice Hall. 37(3). Tippetts. and Voas.96/v5/statistik/statistik-2006. and Solomon. (2005a) Stop sign violations: the role of race and ethnicity on fatal crashes. R. Proceedings of the joint conference of the Asia Pacific Conference on Human Computer Interaction and the Southeast Asian Ergonomics Society Conference. (2003. Jefferson NC: McFarland & Company. Aggression and Violence: An Interdisciplinary Approach. European Federation of Psychologists’ Associations Task Force on Traffic Psychology.. [383] Robbins. 34(15). Amsterdam: Elsevier. Tippetts. Journal of Safety Research. [377] Richardson. R.[375] Retting. T. S.G. (Eds. S.

56-67. M. 10.) Driving Lessons: Exploring Systems that Make Traffic Safer. 249-258. 595-600). American Psychologist. (Ed.P. 88. [396] Rowley. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources. G. Psychological Monographs. 489-493. (Ed. Traffic safety: content over packaging. (2001) Objectives. The role of ethnicity in employee relations: the case of Malaysia. C. (2005).P. T. 214-220). In Underwood. topics and methods. and Bhopal. Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. J. Amsterdam: Elsevier. [395] Rowley.(Ed. [393] Rotter. Differences between taxi and nonprofessional male drivers and attitudes towards traffic-violation penalties. T. and Shahar. 3-12). T. G. (2002). (Ed. [388] Rothengatter.B.B. (1998). P-E. Crowthorne UK: Transport Research Laboratory. [390] Rothengatter. [389] Rothengatter. T. In Barjonet. The ethnic factor in state-labour relations: the case of Malaysia. Internal versus external control of reinforcement: a case history of a variable. (2002). (2007). whole issue. [391] Rothengatter. (pp. J. 84-115. Edmonton CA: University of Alberta Press. An overview of traffic psychology: do research and measures match? In Grayson.) Traffic and Transport Psychology (pp. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 43(3).B. 80. 43(1).) Behavioural Research in Road Safety VIII.B. (1966). Capital & Class. C. (1990). Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. Boston: Kluwer. 308-331. 273 . (1975). (2005). [392] Rotter. M. Traffic psychology and road safety: separate realities. (2006).[386] Rosenbloom. 5. Some problems and misconceptions related to the construct of internal versus external control of reinforcement. J. 45. T. [394] Rotter. and Bhopal.) Traffic Psychology Today (pp. Drivers’ illusions – no more risk. 428-435 [387] Rothe. In Rothe. J. A. J. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour.

Malaysiatoday (Reuters). (2006. Human Factors for Engineers (pp. Road Safety – Back to the Future. Kuala Lumpur. [406] Salminen. IBU Pejabat Polis. Bukit Aman. [401] Royal Malaysian Police [Polis Diraja Malaysia] (2007).). occupational. Malaysian Road Accident Statistics. B.rmp.[397] Royal Malaysian Police [Polis Diraja Malaysia] (2000). Malaysian Road Accident Statistics.malaysia-today. In Fuller. p.net/Blog-n/2006/09/thrillsspills-death-plague-malaysian. Bukit Aman. F. [Perankaan Kemalangang Jalanraya Malaysia]. 29(1).htm 274 . 23-42).A2. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Kuala Lumpur. [403] Saad. [407] Sadiq. M. [398] Royal Malaysian Police [Polis Diraja Malaysia] (2001). Ergonomics of the driver’s interface with the road environment: the contribution of psychological research. (1999). Statistik Kemalangan Jalanraya & Kematian. Malaysian Road Accident Statistics. spills & death plague Malaysian roads. Retrieved December 11. Kuala Lumpur. [405] Salminen. IBU Pejabat Polis. Bukit Aman. R. Basingstoke UK: AA Foundation for Road Safety Research. J. 2003 from http://www. (2005). [399] Royal Malaysian Police [Polis Diraja Malaysia] (2002). Correlations between traffic. J. [402] Rude drivers lack emotional control. S.my. 373-376. IBU Pejabat Polis. Thrills. [Perankaan Kemalangang Jalanraya Malaysia]. Accident Analysis and Prevention. (2005. Malaysian Road Accident Statistics. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Relationships between injuries at work and leisure time. [Perankaan Kemalangang Jalanraya Malaysia]. (2002). Bukit Aman.gov. Retrieved May 22. The Star. Kuala Lumpur. S. 2007 from http://www. 33-36. and Santos (Eds. September 29). IBU Pejabat Polis. [404] Sabey. sports and home accidents. 37(2). and Heiskanen. September 26). (1997). [Perankaan Kemalangang Jalanraya Malaysia].A. [400] Royal Malaysian Police [Polis Diraja Malaysia] (2003).

A. [411] Sansone. and Bourne.. and Panter. and Young. Economic factors and traffic crashes in New Zealand. The effects of contextual interference on the acquisition and retention of logical rules. (1981). P. I. (1997). Accident Analysis and Prevention. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage. Jr.L. and Sætermo. P. K. and Rizzo. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage. [410] Sambasivan. An investigation of behavioural adaptation to airbags and antilock brakes among taxi drivers. Nagoya: Japan. Malaysia: urbanization in a multiethnic society – case of peninsula Malaysia.C. 673-687.) The Sage Handbook of Methods in Psychology (pp.C. A. Public acceptability of traffic demand management in Europe. Ball. Severson. 275 .A.C.. V. v. (Eds. 41.). (1995). J.K. and sensation seeking.I. M. S. L. 34. and Bourne. C. [414] Schneider. Asian Survey. November 15). 6(9). In Honjo. 3-16). and Langley (2002). (2004). (2003). Morf. Accident Analysis and Prevention. and Panter. Traffic Engineering + Control. 801-810.T. M. 293302 [409] Salih.E.. Learning and Memory of Knowledge and Skills: Durability and Specificity. J.F. Jr. and Schade. Regional Development Series. M. C. Healy. (2006). [416] Scuffham.. little details. A. 29(3). and the social psychological road in between. Urbanization and Regional Development (pp. (2000). A model of traffic crashes in New Zealand. (2008. The research process: of big pictures. Contemporary urbanization in Malaysia. H. Fosser. A.A. In Sansone. [415] Schwebel.. [417] Scuffham.E. 484-491. Ericsson. (1966). Morf.F. [412] Sendut. Singapore: Maruzen Asia for United Nations Centre fro Regional Development. Individual difference factors in risky driving: the roles of anger/hostility. In Healy. Personal correspondence.T. 6. F. 117-147). 179-188. L.. C. K. (Ed. [413] Schlag. M. B. Accident Analysis and Prevention.[408] Sagberg. K. Applied Economics. conscientiousness.. D. 35. C. 38.A. 314-318.F.

E. Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education. U. Fourth Edition. Dewar. 1. 15(3).S. H. 51(1). C. [419] Selzer. Strategic Management Journal. suicide and unconscious motivation. 137-160. The theory of reasoned action: a metaanalysis of past research with recommendations for modifications and future research. [425] Shinar.M. Traffic sign symbol comprehension: a cross-cultural study. J. 25. M. Journal of Consumer Research. [426] Shook. (2007). D. Hult. 46(15). Ergonomics. 361-365. 276 . Automobile accidents.H. New York: McGraw Hill. (2000). [424] Shinar. (2001). A. K. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences..L. and Payne. [421] Sharkin. Los Angeles CA: Western Psychological Services. (1956).. C. (Ed. D. [423] Sheppard. and Kanekar.E. and Warshaw.. Aggressive driving: the contribution of the drivers and the situation. (1998). [422] Sharma. Manual for the Attitudes toward Guns and Violence Questionnaire (AGVQ). Journal of Counseling and Development. 1549-1565. G. (2003). P-E. In Barjonet..R. The measurement and treatment of client anger in counselling. (2004). (1988). Theory of reasoned action and theory of planned behavior in alcohol and drug education.P. (2003). B. S.L. [420] Shapiro. 325-343. (1962). R. Ketchen.) Traffic Psychology Today (pp.. B.T. and Zakowska. [427] Siegel. 66. American Journal of Psychiatry.[418] Sekaran. and Roskova. L. (1988). Research Methods for Business: A Skill Building Approach. 237-240. 3-7. The effects of safety regulations and law enforcement. Hartwick. Summala. S. [428] Siegriest. Boston: Kluwer. J.M and Kacmar. D. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour.J. M. 397-404. P. An assessment of the use of structural equation modeling in strategic management research. 180-205). 119(3).E.

A. Matthews. Ergonomics. (1997).A. [431] Slovic.. Reheiser. (2007). B. 49-68). P.org/publik/driving. Human Factors in Consumer Products (pp.. Cognitive Therapy and Research. [437] Stanton. and Guest. [432] Smiley. and Frank.[429] Sinha. (1992).D. [434] Social Issues Research Centre (2004. J. (2004). S.J. E. Retrieved December 25. N. 47(8).. [436] Spielberger. Issues in Science and Technology. In Kassinove. 14(4). Fishchoff. Winter).D. M. and Coombs. M. Retrieved December 1. and Watson. 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.com/p/articles/mi_qa3622/is_200001/ai_n8903050/pg_1 [433] Snyder. 2007 from http://www.pdf [435] Spielberger. C.R. Product design with people in mind. Traffic Engineering Design: Principles and Practice. N. (1977). P.sirc. D. 1151-1158. London: Arnold.G. Lichtenstein. Philadelphia PA: Taylor & Francis. FL: Taylor & Francis.. S. Oxford UK.C. C. Crowson. C. Measuring the experience. (1998). 2007 from http://findarticles. (Ed. R. Assessing hostile automatic thoughts: development and validation of the HAT scale.. expression and control of anger. B. 1-18). Boca Raton. 44. 237-258. Houston. Injury control: a promising field for psychologists. B. N. and Poirier. H. 50(8). American Psychologist. Kurylo. 477-492. (2007). Corrigan. 277 . [438] Stanton. In Stanton. and Sydeman. Stress. Journal of Risk and Insurance. (Ed. J. B..A. (1995).C. Auto safety and human adaptation. 1029-1030. P. Preference for insuring against probably small losses: insurance implications.) Anger Disorders: Definition and Treatment (pp.. 386-397.). B.. Editorial. August). coping and psychological illness: a cross-cultural study. [430] Slinn. 21(4).K.K. International Journal of Stress Management. (2001. Jr.J. A.

R. 2(4). [440] Stein.M. R. and Erol. R. G. (1978).. and Liwag. Trabasso.R. 63. Palamara. Behavioral factors as predictors of motor vehicle crashes in young drivers. D. The Methodology of Theory Building. (2003). 1359-1370. 44(3).E. 139(6). M. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Journal of Psychology. (2000). M. Behavioural compensation by drivers of a simulator when using a vision enhancement system. Medical Journal of Malaysia. [449] Sümer. 681-688. M. 278 . 43(9). Safety-Critical Computer Systems. and Pinto. (1993). N. Cheltenham. N. Stokols. E. 178-182. J.A. (1989) Prevention and control of injuries arising from road traffic accidents in Malaysia. [445] Storey. H.. Maggio.. 35. Attributions of responsibility for motor vehicle crashes. 37(4). (2005). and Ryan. Traffic congestion. In Stough. and stress. Methodological and technical challenges in regional evaluation of ITS: Induced and direct effects.[439] Stanton. New York: Guilford. (2001). [446] Stough. 949-964. J. N. 279-300). (2005). (Eds.C. R. In Lewis.. [447] Subramaniam. Harlow UK: Addison-Wesley. M. UK: Edward Elgar.. Accident Analysis and Prevention. [441] Steiner. Personality and behavioral predictors of traffic accidents: testing a contextual mediated model. Novaco. [448] Sümer. (1988). Journal of Applied Psychology. The representation and organization of emotion experience: unfolding the emotion episode. Personality attributes as predictors of psychological well-being for NCOs. 529-544. D. M. Ergonomics. [443] Stewart.. T. N. (1996). and Jin. R. Sydney AU: Educology Research Associates. P. (Ed. Type A Behavior.) Handbook of Emotions (pp. 467-480. Morrison.A.W. A. J.. (2001). Sümer. [444] Stokols. Bilgic. N. and Havland. D. 247-254.R. N. [442] Stevenson.E.L. and Campbell. T.) Intelligent Transportation Systems. Traffic Injury Prevention..

Hierarchical model of behavioural adaptation and traffic accidents. [455] Summala.. Mahasakpan. 31. and Lajunen.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. R. In Rothengatter. T. (Report 11). (1996).. T. P. W. 103-117. Safety Science. and de Bruin. 18(4). Assen/Maastricht: Van Gorcum. A psychophysical method for determining the effects of studded tires on safety. (Eds. Koonchote. Personal resources. H. A. Maintaining lane position with peripheral vision during in-vehicle tasks. Human Factors. H. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Karanci. Berument. 82-92). The zero-risk theory and overtaking decision.) Road User Behaviour: Theory and Research (pp. 383-394). H. H. (2006). 38.) Traffic and Transport Psychology (pp. Traffic psychology theories: towards understanding driving behaviour and safety efforts. In In Rothengatter. G. (2005).. [453] Summala. (1997). T. M. Ergonomics. 41-52). Risk control is not risk adjustment: the zero-risk theory of driver behaviour and its implications. S. (1994). Risk control is not risk adjustment: the zero-risk theory of driver behavior and its implications. (2005).[450] Sümer.. 22(1-3). Asymmetric relationship between driving and safety skills. [454] Summala. (Ed. Epidemiologic characteristics of drivers. and Tantriratna. Helsinki. University of Helsinki Traffic Research Unit. (1988). Journal of Traumatic Stress. (1988). H. G. (1996).. A. Nguntra. and Gunes. Amsterdam: Elsevier [457] Summala. [456] Summala.K. coping selfefficacy and quake exposure as predictors of psychological distress following the 1999 earthquake in Turkey. [451] Sümer. In Underwood. T. 331-342. 38(3). H. [452] Summala. H. (1986). pedestrians and road environments involved in 279 . T. 193-199. 21. P. and Carbonell Vaya E. R. H. [458] Summala.. [459] Summala. and Merisalo. [460] Swaddiwudhipong. S. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology. 442-451.N. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Nieminen. 703-711. and Punto. and Näätänen. Özkan. (Eds.. 491-506. H. (1980). vehicles. N. Accident risk and driver behaviour. N.

In Grimm. (1989). 280 .233-239. 25(1). Neural Networks. P.road traffic injuries in rural Thailand. Kuhn. (2001). P-E. G. [462] Tanaka. Y. J. S.A. British Journal of Mathematics and Statistics. E. Y. S. and Kitamura. 37-44. and Yarnold.. Hopelessness in a community population: factorial structure and psychosocial correlates.. New York: Simon & Schuster.M. International Review of Applied Psychology. A fit-index for covariance structure models under arbitrary GLS estimation. and Fragopanagos (2005). 241-257. N.G. 609-615. (Ed. G.E. C.R. and Theodorson. Washington DC: American Psychological Association.) Traffic Psychology Today (pp. and Huba. 167-172. (1985).R. Anger: The Misunderstood Emotion. Ten commandments of structural equation modeling. The effects of road design on driving. Sakamoto. 241-263). 34. 18(4). 33(2). G. S. and Kitamura. (1985). [465] Tavris. [467] Taylor. Hopelessness in a community population in Japan. L. (1969). Fujihara. and Papacostas. S. [468] Theeuwes. 353-369. (2001). Ono. T.) Reading and Understanding More Multivariate Statistics.J. A Modern Dictionary of Sociology.. D. New York: Thomas & Cromwell.. (1998). 581-590. Boston: Kluwer. J.M. (2000)..S. Sakamoto. 42. Journal of Clinical Psychology.C. 138(5).S. T. P. The interaction of attention and emotion. C. [470] Thompson. E.. Accident Analysis and Prevention. [466] Tavris. [469] Theodorson. Ono. B. Driving habits and behaviour patterns of university students. Fujihara. In Barjonet. J. (eds. Southeast Asian Journal of Tropical Medicine and Public Health.. Journal of Social Psychology. and Layde. [461] Synodinos. (1996). 52(6). [464] Tanaka. [463] Tanaka. A. Age and gender patterns in motor vehicle crash injuries: importance of type of crash and occupant role. E.

E. Injury Control and Safety Promotion. Effectivenss of cognitive-behavioral treatments in reducing Type A behavior among university faculty – one year later. and McClure. Personality and Individual Differences. [473] Trick. 2. [472] Tiliman. (2003). Personality subtypes of young drivers.[471] Thurman. 185. 7. 106(5). [478] Ulleberg. Personality predictors of driving accidents.M. 147-152. In Neumann. Collusion after a collision: witnesses’ reports of a road accident with and without discussion. 10(3). Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. [480] Underwood. and Kirkcaldy. Cognitive Psychology. O. Paying attention behind the wheel: a framework for studying the role of attention in driving. and Kahneman. 5(5). [477] Tversky. 385-424. A. C. G. [479] Underwood. D. accident involvement.. 445-448. R. A. 32(3). 1124-1130. and Vavrik. Wright and Crundall. J. B. Judgment under uncertainty.. D.A and Hobbs. [474] Trimpop. (1985). and Kahneman. R.. Anger while driving. 281 . (1996). (Eds.W. and Sanders.. Volume 3: Attention. Automatic and controlled information processing: the role of attention in the processing of novelty. (1974). Journal of Counseling Psychology. 279-297. Mills. [481] Underwood. The accident prone automobile driver. [476] Tversky.) Handbook of Perception and Action.F. 321-333. Availability: a heuristic for judging frequency and probability. G. (1997). Age and gender differences in risk-taking behaviour as an explanation for high incidence of motor vehicle crashes as a driver in young males. Enns. W. 4(4). London: Academic. J. A. J. P. Chapman. (2004). Applied Cognitive Psychology. 123-130. [475] Turner. C.T. Science. (1999). 11-22. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomic Science. G. (1949). P. Relationship to risk-taking preferences. (1993). American Journal of Psychiatry. 207-332. 23(1). Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. 5. G. D. and Everatt. and response to a traffic safety campaign. J. (1973). (2001). L. H. 55-68. and Milton.

J. and Huguenin. Risky driving among young Australian drivers: trends precursors and correlates. Ergonomics. É. (2005).J. Matto Grosso do Sul.M. (2005).F.org/workshops/01-Caserta/Vaa. G. 210-222. E. 336-345. 42. J. D. D. Traffic accident risks in developing countries: superseding biased approaches.A.. (Eds. Driver selection and improvement in Germany. M.ictct.. Harrison. Sanson. 24-29. 39.D. (2000). Personality and Individual Differences. A. 26. [488] Vavrik. and Vallerand. A. 2007 from http:www. Amsterdam: Elsevier [485] Van der Hulst. Amsterdam: Elsevier. 913-921. Proceedings of the 14th workshop of the International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT).. Retrieved September 1. The role of attributions and anger in aggressive driving behaviours. W.. (2004). A. T. (2007).B. R.ictct.. Meijman. (Ed. In Underwood. and Rothengatter.. 43(2). Italy. S.pdf [484] Vallières. T. [489] Velting. (2001). T. On-line driver workload estimation. [490] Verwey.. and McIntyre. Harris.[482] Utzelmann.D.F. 181-190). [483] Vaa.” Recovery. Retrieved December 5. J. March 20-22. Cockfield. Cognition and emotion in driver behaviour models: some critical viewpoints. H. Ergonomics. Accident Analysis and Prevention.org/workshops/05-CampoGrande [487] Vassallo. Personality and negative expectancies: trait structure of the Beck Hopelessness Scale. In Rothengatter. Effects of road situation and age on secondary task measures. Smart. R. (1999). 9(2). Campo Grande. [486] Vasconcellos. “Accident prone. (1999). Anticipation and the adaptive control of safety margins in driving. 444-458. W. Brazil. Caserta.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application. Bergerson.) Traffic and Transport Psychology (pp. S. (1998).A. 2007 from www. Proceedings of the International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT) Extra Workshop. 282 .

M. Personality and Individual Differences. [497] Watson.P. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 117128. P. Predicting drowsiness accidents from personal attributes. and Carbonell Vaya E. 5(4). N. W.M. January 21). P. The development of gender differences in risky attitudes and behaviour in road use (Summary Report).S. (Eds. G.. (2000).backwoodshome. Retrieved December 15. Drivers’ decision to speed: a study inspired by the theory of planned behavior. 28.F.. P. 1-8).. and Mallinckrodt (2003). Stanton. (1998). T. [494] Waller. and Åberg.com/public_affairs/reports/AA-foundation-FDN33-cradle-grave.A. [496] Waterman. eye blinks and ongoing driver behaviour.. J.pdf [499] Wei. H.J. (2001). International Journal of Cognitive Ergonomics. [498] Waylen. 427-433. 123-142. Elliot. and McKenna. In Proceedings of the 1998 Road Safety Research. New Zealand. F. 421-444. Policing and Educatino Conference 2. (1997). Amsterdam: Elsevier.[491] Verwey. 9. Here’s the story of Burma-Shave. (2006).E. An on-road investigation of vehicle feedback and its role in driver cognition: implications for cognitive ergonomics. Shope. Perceived coping as a mediator between attachment and psychological distress: a structural equation modeling approach.com/articles/waterman37.T. Changes in young adults offense and crash patterns over time. B. Methodological problems associated with surveying unlicensed drivers. Heppner. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. D.R. R. A.A. (2002). Journal of Counseling Psychology. (2009. 438-447. Raghunathan.F. [493] Wállen Warner. and Young.P. Backwoods Home Magazine. 50(4). Feeling nostalgic? Now you’ll rave.. Cradle Attitudes – Grave Consequences.theaa. M.H. 33. [492] Walker. In Rothengatter. Basingstoke UK: AA Foundation for Road Safety. A. Wellington. L. T. and Zaidel. [495] Waller. M. and Little.html. (2001).B. 2007 from http://www.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. 2008 from http://www. Transportation and society. 283 . Retrieved November 2.

G.M (1956). and French. D.N.. 324. E. Ceminsky. G. and Klerman. Proceedings of the International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT) Extra 284 .M.S.S. [502] Wells-Parker. Mild social deviance. deductions and discussion of recent commentaries. Does risk homeostasis theory have implications for road safety? British Medical Journal.J.J.). G. 441-468..S. 31.. M. 8.. Risk Analysis. R. (1994). S. Elander. An exploratory study of the relationship between road rage and crash experience in a representative sample of US drivers. (pp. [506] Wilde. British Journal of Psychology. 469-529) New York: McGraw Hill. (1973). American Journal of Psychiatry. (2002). S. (2007). B. Fox. (1993). 15(11/12). 2. (2005). The theory of risk homeostasis: implications for safety and health. (1961).L.J.. Wiliams.. On the choice of denominator for the calculation of accident rates.S. J. (2002). Childhood accidents. Toronto: PDE Publications. G. Accident Analysis and Prevention. (1988). [507] Wilde. In Halsey. G.J. Risk homeostasis and traffic accidents: propositions. [508] Wilde. Risk homeostasis theory and traffic education requirements.J. Hallberg. University of Waterloo Press. 1149-1152..S. K. Snow.W. Guiling.S. [501] Wells. [510] Wilde. M. 84. G. Hostility and depression associated with suicide attempts. R. [503] West. In Yager. M. (ed. 1116-1121. [504] Wheatley. Target Risk. 271278.[500] Weissman. 450-455. G. 130(4). Advances in Paediatrics. G. (Ed. Dunaway. 207-219. J. [511] Wilde. Preventions of accidents in childhood. 209-225. G. G. and Anderson. [505] Wheatley. [509] Wilde. 34. 195. (1984). Accident Prevention. Type-A behaviour pattern and decision-making style as predictors of self-reported driving style and traffic accident risk. (1982). Deaths and injuries from car accidents: an intractable problem? Journal of Cleaner Production.) Transport Risk Assessment (pp. 135-154).J. P. Ergonomics.

A. D. and Poythress. T.. 26(6). 31. J. Countries and Their Cultures. 110-131. 398-403.. (Ed.org/workshops/05-CampoGrande [512] Willford.K. Research Methodology in Strategy and Management. Possession and displacement in Kuala Lumpur’s ethnic landscape. (2003). 1. 34(5). [514] Williams. Gavin.C. S. (2004). J. Flyte and Garner. (1999). and Boyd.Workshop. N.G. Designing for the in-car safety and security of women. International Social Science Journal. 303346. (2008).G. 2007 from http:www. Driver experience with antilock brake systems. A. and Well.F. M.J. A. M. (2000). 527-531. N.. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Journal of Safety Research. 55(175).I. (2003). Retrieved March 31.F. Cascardi. [520] Wood. E.Y. The fluid state: Malaysia’s national expressway.E. by age and gender. The factor structure and convergent validity of the Aggression Questionnaire in an offender population. [515] Williams.. 285 ..R. Fundamentals of ergonomics in theory and practice. Matto Grosso do Sul. Space and Culture. and Shabanova.ictct. [519] Wilson. [516] Williams. J. 557-567. 807-811. (1996). A. Welsh.) Contemporary Ergonomics. (2001). Boston: Pearson.. [518] Williamson. Mastering the World of Psychology. Brazil. Boyd. V. (1994).S. S. New York: Taylor & Francis. Structural equation modeling in strategy research: applications and issues. T. [513] Williams. Campo Grande. (2003). 6(2). 99-109. [517] Williamson. Applied Ergonomics. and Hartman. Farmington Hills MI: Gale. T. J. M. L. March 20-22. 8. Wood. Responsibility of drivers. [521] Woodcock. In Hanson.B. for motor-vehicle crash deaths. Psychological Assessment. Lenard. A.

A three-dimensional dynamic posture prediction model for simulating in-vehicle seated reaching movements: development and validation. Amsterdam: Elsevier [526] Young. D. M. G. Ergonomics.[522] World Health Organization [WHO] (1957). 487-503). 740-746. Technical Report Series No. Ergonomics. . Country reports. 46-58. Negotiating identity in Malaysia: multi-cultural society. 118. D. and Stanton. 286 . (2007). [528] Zikovitz. 1314-1330. S. In Underwood. (2005). (2000). Report of an Advisory Group. Drivers and traffic laws: a review of psychological theories and empirical research. 33(3). (2005). Ergonomics. X. and Harris. 42(5). Accidents in Childhood: Facts as a Basis for Prevention. Geneva. and Chaffin. Head tilt during driving.A.) Traffic and Transport Psychology (pp. [524] Yaapar.C. [523] World Health Organization [WHO] (2004). [527] Zhang. D. Back to the future: brake reaction times for manual and automated vehicles. Regional Office for the Western Pacific. 50(1). theatre and tourism. Asian Journal of Social Science.R.S. [525] Yergil. (Ed. L. Islam. 473-485. (1999). 43(9). N.

drivers stop sooner and in a more controlled manner than with traditional rack-and-pinion braking systems.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. differential accident involvement). Immediately after releasing the pressure. 1939) and arising from the individual differences approach in psychology. the ABS reapplies it until the wheels begin to lock-up again. ABS ensures that. the outcome of which is typically reflected by perceived advantages. or benefits. (see also. As a result. traction is maintained steering and braking actions continue to be effective. Because the wheels continue to turn during the braking manoeuvre. allowing the wheel to turn. 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. the brake line pressure is relates. to the individual” (Brown & 287 . a concept generally attributed to Farmer and Chambers (1926. presumably because of personality factors. on most surface types. Behavioural adaptation (BA): “the ability to adapt to novel conditions based on one’s experiences.

the statistical model was based on the results of automobile users’ responses to psychological testing and questionnaires. crash outcome) Differential accident involvement: a concept proposed by Frank P. The contextual mediated model forms the basis of ordering variables within the research design for studies reported in this thesis. task capability theory) . black spot) Black spot: a term attributed to Heikki Summala of the Traffic Research Unit at the University of Helsinki. 288 . Usually based on geographical location of the crash. therefore allowing for the influence of external factors. In the present research. characteristics of road users. risk homeostasis theory. 25). Also referred to as risk compensation. Black event: a post-hoc extension of the black spot concept. that corresponds to an accumulation of crashes in the statistical mass. McKenna of the University of Reading. first offered by Nebi Sümer of the Middle East Technical University in Ankara. as an alternative to the largely discounted notion of accident proneness. It differs from accident proneness in that it (a) denotes an area of study. proximal variable. The central idea is that. and (c) assumes that individuals may vary along a continuum with regard to factors that affect their risk of crash. it refers to a combination of circumstances. 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. including driver behaviour. drivers will alter their behaviour (see also. (see also. where possible. 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. accident proneness) Differential psychology: see individual differences approach. rather than a theory. road and traffic conditions. (see also. (b) does not prejudge the causation of personality variables. hierarchical driver adaptation theory. 2004. black event) Contextual mediated model: an empirically-based path analysis. (see also. (see also. time of week and. distal variable. BA is a core concept in all risk theories of driver behaviour. driving and psychological variables influence self-reported behaviour in traffic and self-reported crash outcomes. Turke showing the manner in which the certain demographic. p. where effort to save lives may be concentrated.Noy. It refers to accumulations of motor vehicle crashes in amassed statistics. when confronted by differing levels of perceived or objective risk in the environment.

and after crash – to form a matrix with nine cells. Each of the nine elements of the matrix represents a possible focus for road safety. not as a unidimensional. leading to the now largely discredited concept of accident proneness. Haddon matrix: a model developed by the American traffic analyst. selfefficacy and self-esteem. (see also. (see also. Rotter of the University of Connecticut. bipolar construct ranging from I (internal) to E (external) maximums. Externality Chance (C) and Externality Powerful Others (P). aptitudes. Individual differences research typically focuses on the domains of personality. which combines the three components of the road traffic system – the human. William Haddon Jr. interests. Department of Transportation. Individual differences approach: also referred to as differential psychology. intelligence.S. Locus of control (LoC): a concept generally credited to Julian B. Later conceptualisations have viewed LoC. Headway: the distance between two vehicles travelling one in front of the other. 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. but rather as a multidimensional variable made up of three or more dimensions. It contains detailed information about fatalities resulting from motor vehicle crashes on public roadways in the United States since 1975. in-crash. values. One such multidimensional model of LoC was advanced by Hanna Levenson. self-concept. ability.Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS): is a database in the public domain maintained by the U. accident proneness) Inner speech: see self-talk. a body of theoretical and empirical knowledge has been generated from attempts to consider how individual differences – primarily in personality. 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. The name was changed to the British Industrial Health Research Board in 1931. demographic and motivational variables – contribute to diving outcomes. In traffic psychology. who posited three dimensions: Internality (I).. It was at the IFRB that statisticians and analysts first examined the distribution of accident frequency. motivation. 289 . the vehicle and the road – with the three phases in a motor vehicle crash – pre-crash. then of the Veteran’s Administration Medical Centre in San Francisco. 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).

Freudian psychology considers it to be a manifestation of the integration of the id. 333-334). That is. the RHT posits that an underlying feedback system. occurring on a public road and involving at least one moving motor vehicle. as expressed by Raymond Cattell. motor vehicle crash was considered largely synonymous with the concept of motor vehicle accident. Risk homeostasis theory (RHT): Originally postulated by Gerald J. For the purposes of the present research. including life goals” (Chaplin. conversely.S. Private speech: see self-talk. individuals are likely to perform riskier behaviour. 1985. if perceived risk falls below the target risk. Professor Emeritus at Canada’s Queen’s University. individuals will engage in behaviour intended to eliminate the discrepancy. Perceived behavioural control (PBC): a key concept in Azjen’s Theory of Planned Behaviour. Non-motorised transport: any transport that does not require a motor to generate energy. PBC refers to the degree of control that individuals believe they have over a given behaviour.Motor vehicle: a machine which incorporates an engine and wheels and is used for transportation on land. bicycling. p. operates to keep user risk at an essentially constant level. if perceived risk exceeds target risk. Risk compensation: see behavioural adaptation. the individual differences approach. regards it as “that which permits a prediction of what a person will do in a given situation. Included in this term are walking. 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. When there is a discrepancy between the level of perceived risk in the environment and an internalised “target risk” level. motorised bicycles. Adlerian psychology views it as “the individual’s style of life. Wilde’s theory has generated equivocal 290 . individuals will engage in more cautious behaviour. and using animal-drawn or human-drawn carts or other devices. or characteristic manner of responding to life’s problems. motorcycles. somewhat analogous to a thermostat. For the purposes of the present research. Wilde. mobile construction equipment or platforms. Motor vehicle crash: a collision or incident that may or may not lead to injury. trucks (lorries). and buses. motor vehicles included automobiles. the ego and the superego. but excluded those vehicles which operate on rails. 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”. most usually on roads.

” (Ogden. A motor vehicle crash may be considered as a failure in the system. as the result of injury sustained in the crash. parking spaces. these tyres are manufactured with small metal studs – much like football cleats – inserted in the treads. based on analysis of road and traffic related accident information. Opportunities for road safety engineering in general apply at four levels: (a) safety conscious planning of new road networks.and snow-covered roads during the winter months. Self talk: a fundamental concept in most theories of cognitive behaviourism. (see also. signage. 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. Road safety engineering: “a process. draining system. the vehicle and the road) interact with each other. at both conscious and unconscious levels. Road traffic injuries: fatal or non-fatal injuries incurred as a result of a motor vehicle crash. target risk. 35). tunnels. Within the context of this research.research results and some heated controversy within the field of traffic psychology. Studded tyres: used primarily in countries that experience ice. Road traffic system: Road traffic may be considered as a system in which three components (the human. 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. archways and footpaths. Road traffic fatality: a death occurring within 30 days of a motor vehicle crash. It refers to the constant stream of chatter that goes on in one’s mind. and (d) improvement of known hazardous locations on the road network. most frequently attributed to Donald Meichenbaum at Canada’s University of Waterloo. overpasses. (b) incorporation of safety features in the design of new roads. bridges. but only 291 . behavioural adaptation. p. which applies engineering principles in order to identify road design or traffic management improvements that will cost-effectively reduce the cost of road accidents. zero risk theory) Road infrastructure: road facilities and equipment. 1996. Cognitive self-statements may be either negative or positive. including the network. They enable better traction and shorter braking distances than non-studded counterparts. (c) improvement of safety aspects of existing roads to avoid future problems. stopping places. Also referred to as private speech or inner speech.

The theory of reasoned action (TRA) proposes that behaviour is a function of intentions. which are the best predictors of behaviour. Individuals will undertake behaviour to ensure that the level of risk in which they are engaged. (see also. risk homeostasis theory) Task cube. The TPB has been applied to a wide range of research problems in traffic psychology. theory of reasoned action. Each cell of the matrix represents a combination of the three dimensions which form the basis of the theory. the TPB posits that a given behaviour is determined by individuals’ intentions. According to Wilde (1994). where i represents the number of factors defining the functional taxonomy dimension. Intentions are influenced by: (a) attitudes (the positive or negative evaluation of the behaviour). it is a level of risk that each individual is willing to accept. remains constant at the target level. and Icek Ajzen at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst. hierarchical adaptation theory) Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB): as proposed by Icek Ajzen of the University of MassachusettsAmherst. target risk is determined by four “classes of utility factors”: (1) the benefits expected from risky behaviour alternatives. Supplementary restraint system (SRS): Also referred to as “airbags”. 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. (see also. derived from Summala’s (1996) hierarchical adaptation theory of driver behaviour. Target risk: a core concept in Wilde’s risk homeostasis theory. (2) the costs expected from cautious behaviour alternatives. (b) subjective norms (opinions about what significant others would think of the behaviour). instrument panel and windshield of a motorcar. On dry roads. studded tyres actually increase braking distances and decrease lateral control of the vehicle. 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. and (c) perceived behavioural control (PBC) over the performance of the behaviour (which jointly influences both the intention and behavioural performance). According to RHT proponents. theory of planned behavriour) 292 . 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. which in turn are a function of attitudes and subjective norms. behaviour control) (see also. and (4) the costs expected from risky behaviour alternatives.when manoeuvring on icy or hard-packed snowy surfaces. A complex 3 X 5 X i matrix. (see also. (3) the benefits expected from cautious behaviour alternatives.

that share the same road infrastructure. controlling and organising traffic to achieve efficiency and effectiveness of the existing road infrastructure capacity. (see also. It is often proposed as an alternative to Wilde’s risk homeostasis theory. from its outset. adapting behaviourally to driving conditions. the term is considered synonymous with transport psychology and with mobility psychology. motorised and non-motorised. it posits that drivers attempt to maintain a stable balance between subjective and objective risk. Transportation factors: a set of five domains operating on the process of moving goods or persons from one place to another. Traffic mix: the form and structure of different modes of transport. has embraced a multidisciplinary approach and a shared focus with human physiology. management science and economics. It is primarily concerned with the study of the behaviour of road users and the psychological processes underlying that behaviour. Traffic psychology: a relatively new and developing field of applied psychology that. coordinating. community planning. behavioural adaptation. The five basic transportation factors include: safety.Traffic management: planning. Zero risk theory: as proposed by Heikki Summala of the Traffic Research Unit at the University of Helsinki. only when a subjective threshold is exceeded and “feelings of fear” are experienced. time. risk homeostasis theory) 293 . The emergence and impact of the field of traffic psychology is discussed in chapter 2 of this thesis. In the present research. comfort. ergonomics. convenience and economy. road engineering.

Appendix A: List of Published and Research Scales 294 .

2000). Published scales (AQ and BHS) are marketed only to professional psychologists capable of meeting criteria for psychometric knowledge and expertise.html 295 .hawaii.eng.A number of variables studied in the present research were measured using scales copyrighted by corporate publishers or by universities where they were developed.wpspublish. CA 90025 USA http://portal. 1988) Obtained with permission from the authors: c/o Dr. Brace & Company).S.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. Buss & Warren. with the understanding that they would not be re-published. San Antonio. Available from: Western Psychological Services 12031 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles. 1993). Research scales (BIT and HAT) were obtained and used with the permission of the authors. Papacostas Department of Civil Engineering 2540 Dole Street University of Hawaii at Manoa Honolulu. TX 78259 USA http://pearsonassess.70400&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL Beck Hopelessness Scale (BHS.edu/~csp/csp.com/portal/page?_pageid=53. Information for obtaining copies of these instruments is provided below: Aggression Questionnaire (AQ. Available from: The Psychological Corporation (Harcourt. Hawaii 96822 USA http://www.com/cgibin/MsmGo. Papacostas & Synodinos. C. 19500 Bulverde Road. Beck & Steer.

psych. Snyder.edu/hope.ukans. Snyder.Hostile Automatic Thoughts Scale (HAT. Houston. 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. Crowson. Kansas 66045 USA www. 296 . C.R. Kurylo & Poirier) Obtained with permission from the late Dr.

Appendix B: Personal Information Form (PIF) 297 .

__________ (city/town) (state) (country) 4. For how long have you had your driver’s licence? __________ years and ___________months (number) (number) 3.what manufacturer & model (e. In what city/town have you lived most of your life? _______________. 1.g. __________ (city/town) (state) (country) 5. 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 . what kind of transportation do you use? (please check only one) ___ bus ___ motorcycle (driver) ___ car (driver) ___motorcycle (pillion. Do you presently have a driver’s licence? (circle one) yes no If yes. We are not asking for your name. 250 cc) ______________ ___ other (please specify: _________________) 7. Proton Wira) _______________ ___ motorcycle – what engine size (e. so please answer all questions as truthfully as you can.. What type of motor vehicle do you most often drive? (please check only one) ___ car -. Most of the time when you travel. please answer the following questions: 2. sitting behind driver) ___ car (passenger) ___ bicycle (non-motorized) ___ walk ___ other (please specify: _______________) 6. _________. In what city/town did you learn to drive? _______________..g.CONFIDENTIAL Personal Information Form Please answer the following questions about Please answer the following questions about YOURSELF. _________.

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 . When you want to use a motorcycle. most of the time ___ no 10. sitting behind driver) ___ car (passenger) ___ bicycle (non-motorized) ___ I was walking ___ other (please specify: _______________) If yes. do you have ready ACCESS to a car? (please check only one) ___ yes. most of the time ___ no 11. Within the last twelve (12) months. do you have ready ACCESS to a motorcycle? (please check only one) ___ yes. all the time ___ yes. some of the time ___ yes. some of the time ___ yes. all the time ___ 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 9.8. in what kind of vehicle were you travelling when the accident occurred? ___ bus ___ motorcycle (driver) ___ car (driver) ___motorcycle (pillion. When you want to use a car. have you been in a motor vehicle accident that required you to be hospitalised for injuries? yes no If yes.

what phrase best describes what happened? (please check only one): ___ my vehicle was changing lanes and hit (or was hit by) another vehicle ___ my vehicle hit (or was hit by) another vehicle that was changing lanes ___ my vehicle went out of control and went off the side of the road ___ my vehicle went through a red light (or sign) at an intersection (junction) ___ the other vehicle went through a red light (or sign) at an intersection ___ my vehicle hit another vehicle from behind ___ my vehicle was hit from behind by another vehicle ___ other (please specify:__________________________________________ ) 13.12. have you been in a motor vehicle accident that required you to go to a medical clinic for minor injuries? yes no If yes. Within the last twelve months. but no injuries? If yes. What is your age? ___ male _____ years ___ female 17. Within the last twelve months. in what kind of vehicle were you travelling when the accident occurred? ___ bus ___ motorcycle (driver) ___ car (driver) ___motorcycle (pillion. in what kind of vehicle were you travelling when the accident occurred? ___ bus ___ motorcycle (driver) ___ car (driver) ___motorcycle (pillion. sitting behind driver) ___ car (passenger) ___ bicycle (non-motorized) ___ I was walking ___ other (please specify: _______________) If yes. what phrase best describes what happened? (please check only one): ___ my vehicle was changing lanes and hit (or was hit by) another vehicle ___ my vehicle hit (or was hit by) another vehicle that was changing lanes ___ my vehicle went out of control and went off the side of the road ___ my vehicle went through a red light (or sign) at an intersection (junction) ___ the other vehicle went through a red light (or sign) at an intersection ___ my vehicle hit another vehicle from behind ___ my vehicle was hit from behind by another vehicle ___ other (please specify:__________________________________________ ) 15. sitting behind driver) ___ car (passenger) ___ bicycle (non-motorized) ___ I was walking ___ other (please specify: _______________) If yes. have you been in a motor vehicle accident that resulted in damage over RM100 to your vehicle. What is your gender? 16. 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 .

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful