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Several researchers at other institutions have provided assistance in the form of test instruments, unpublished papers and guidance over the course of this project.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

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

Implications for both theory and practice are discussed.Results indicated a complex series of interactions between the variables. BIT. The role of the proximal variable. As reported in previous studies. 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. Two types of hostile automatic thoughts – with content related to physical aggression or revenge – moderated the BITaggression relationship. The advantages of multi-disciplinary approaches to the study of roadway crashes 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. locus of control moderated the BIT-aggression relationship. as well. particularly with respect to an ongoing debate within traffic psychology over the comparative importance of theories or models of driving behaviour. viii . all four BIT components were associated with higher occurrence of both self-reported motor vehicle crashes and crash-related injury. Areas for further study include the role of locus of control and other distal variables in the behavioural adaptation process at the root of most risk and task interface capability theories and applications to driver selection and training procedures. As hypothesised. consistent with the assumptions of the contextual mediated model. Among distal variables. BIT exerted a strong mediational influence over the effects of distal variables on crash outcomes. Results indicated that.

3 The Individual Differences Approach 2.4.2.3.3 1.1 1.2 The Emergence of Traffic Psychology as a Scientific Discipline 2.2 2.4 1.3.2.1 Risk Homeostasis Theory (RHT) 2.TABLE OF CONTENTS COPYRIGHT PAGE DECLARATION ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS DEDICATION ABSTRACT TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES PREFACE CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1 Concepts.2 1.1 Human Factors in Roadway Crashes: A Vexing Research Challenge 2.2 Studies of Causal Factors in Malaysian Roadway Crashes The Professional Background 2.2 Traffic Psychology: Slow Progress in Theory-Building 2.1.3.1 An Applied Perspective 2.1 Human Factors and the Motor Vehicle Safety Problem in Malaysia 2.2.3.4 Risk Theories 2.3.2.5 1.3.2.2 A Multidisciplinary Approach Theories of Driving Behaviour 2. Theories and Models 2.1 Roadway Crashes in Malaysia and Public Perceptions of Causality 2.3 ix .3.3.3.2 Differential Accident Involvement 2.2.6 Background of the Study Road Safety in Malaysia The Problem Statement The Professional Significance of the Study Overview of the Methodology Delimitations ii iii iv vi vii ix xv xviii xx 1 1 2 4 5 7 9 12 12 12 17 19 19 21 21 22 24 24 25 26 28 30 31 31 CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 2.1 Accident Proneness 2.1.

4 2.2 Gender 2.5 Use of the Contextual Mediated Model in Other Research Distal Variables in the Present Study 2.4.5.5 Aggression 78 78 84 84 84 84 85 85 x .4.1 Driver Characteristics: Driver Experience and Driving Frequency 3.5.1.4.3.3.3.6 Task Capability Interface (TCI) Theory 2.2 Locus of Control and Driving Behaviour 2.1.3.2.4.9.2.3.5.1 Demographic Variables 2.2 Zero Risk Theory 2.1.3.5.1 Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) 2.6.1 3.4.1 Age 2.1 Statistical Models 2.2.2 Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) Descriptive Models of Driver Behaviour 2.5.1 Locus of Control 2.7.5 Hierarchical Theories of Driver Adaptation 2.5.1 Type A Behaviour Pattern and Motor Vehicle Crashes 2.4 Hopelessness 3.2 A Contextual Mediated Model of Personality and Behavioral Predictors of Motor Vehicle Crashes 2.3.5.4.3 Locus of Control 3.5.3 Locus of Control and Ethnicity 2.2.2.4.2 Conceptualization and the Research Framework Definition of the Variables 3.1.2.6 2.2.2 Demographic Variables: Age.3.5 2.2.4 Studies of Driving Behaviour Using the Contextual Mediated Model 2.2 Driving Frequency and Traffic Exposure 2.1 The Haddon Matrix 2.3 Core Concepts in the Contextual Mediated Model: Moderation and Mediation 2.1.3 Aggression Proximal Variables in the Present Research 2.2.5.2 Process Models 2.3.7 Attitude-behaviour Theories 2.2.5. Gender and Ethnicity 3.5.3.1.5.2.1 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 3.1 Experience 2.2.3 Ethnicity 2.3.3.6.5.2 Driver Characteristics 2.2.4.2 Hopelessness 2.3 Psychological Variables 2.5.

3 Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) and Root Mean Square Residual (RMR) 3.5.7.2 One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) 3.6 Logistic Regression Analysis 3.7 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) 3.5 3.7.5 Multiple Regression Analysis 3.3.3 Beck Hopelessness Scale (BHS) 3.3.8 Kolmogorov-Smirnov One-Sample Test 3.2.3 3.7.7.7 3.4 Study 2 3.7.8 Crash Occurrence 3.2.7.5 Hostile Automatic Thoughts (HAT) 3.2.1 The Sample 3.5.2 Research Instruments 3.7 Structural Equation Modelling 3.2.7.6 3.9 Injury Occurrence Research Design of the Studies 3.7.1 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) Scale 3.1 Chi-Square (χ2).2.3.2 Study 1B 3.5.5.2.7.6 Personal Information Form (PIF) Procedure 3.7.1 Studies 1 and 2 3.4 3.6.3.4 Linear Regression Analysis 3.7.5.7.7.7.6 Hostile Automatic Thoughts 3.6.5 Study 3 Formulation of Hypotheses Methods of Data Collection and Analysis 3.5.1 Study 1A 3.2.4 Aggression Questionnaire (AQ) 3.9 Skewness and Kurtosis 86 87 88 88 88 88 89 89 90 90 91 93 93 94 94 96 97 97 98 98 99 99 100 100 103 103 104 104 104 105 105 107 107 107 108 108 108 109 109 110 110 xi .2 Study 3 Analysis of the Data 3.5.7 Expected Cross-Validation Index (ECVI) 3.3.7.2.7.7.7.7.3 The General Linear Model (GLM) Univariate Analysis 3.3 Study 1C 3.2 Degree of freedom (df) 3.7.2 Levenson Locus of Control Scale 3.2.4 Normed Fit Index (NFI) 3.1 Independent-sample t-tests 3.7.7.7.6 Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index (AGFI) 3. p-Value and χ2/df Ratio 3.7.8 Parsimony Goodness-of-Fit Index (PGFI) 3.5 Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) and Comparative Fit Index (CFI) 3.7.3.5.2.

3.14 Hypothesis 14: Hostile Automatic Thoughts Influence Behaviour In Traffic 4.6.1.2.6 xii .5.3 Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 2 4.13 Hypothesis 13: Demographic Factors Influence Hostile Automatic Thoughts 4.2 4.2.12.1 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the BIT Scale 4.5.10 Hypothesis 10: Demographic Factors Influence Aggression 4.6.1 Results of Study 1 4.3 4.7 Hypothesis 7: Hopelessness Influences Behaviour in Traffic 4.11 Hypothesis 11: Aggression Influences Behaviour in Traffic 4.3 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the AQ Scale 4.2.2.2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Levenson Locus of Control Scale 4.3.4 Hypothesis 4: Demographic Variables Influence Locus of Control 4.1.3 Results of Study 3 Hypothesis Testing 4.6.1 Description of the Sample 4.3.6 Hypothesis 6: Locus of control Influences Hopelessness 4.6.6.1.1 Age.2 Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 1 4.1.2 Parallel-Form Reliability 4.2 Hypothesis 2: Driver Characteristics Influence Behaviour in Traffic 4.6.12 Hypothesis 12: Locus of Control Moderates the Relationship Between Aggression and Behaviour in Traffic 4.2 Externality-chance and Externality-powerful-others as Moderators 4.6.4 Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 3 Reliability and Validity 4.5 Hypothesis 5: Demographic Variables Influence Hopelessness 4.6.6.12.6. Skewness and Kurtosis Crash and Injury Occurrence Data Distal and Proximal Variable Data 4.6.2.5 4.8 Hypothesis 8: Locus of control Influences Behaviour in Traffic 4.2.6.6.6.6.2 Results of Study 2 4.6.1 Hypothesis 1: Behaviour in Traffic Influences Motor Vehicle Crash Outcomes 4.3 Hypothesis 3: Demographic Variables Influence Behaviour in Traffic 4.1 Internality as a Moderator 4. Gender and Ethnicity 4.3.1 Reliability Test Results: Cronbach’s Alpha 4.6.4 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the HAT Scale Normality.3 Validity Test Results 4.9 Hypothesis 9: Hopelessness Moderates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Behaviour in Traffic 4.4 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.CHAPTER 4: ANALYSIS OF DATA 4.5.2.

4 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Crash Outcomes Comparison of Automobile Drivers.16 Summary of Hypothesis Tests Testing the Contextual Mediated Model Using Structural Equation Modelling (LISREL Analysis) 4.2 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Aggression and Crash Outcomes 4.8.5.3 Locus of Control and Ethnicity: Malay and Chinese-Malaysian Drivers Aggression Testing the Contextual Mediated Model Using Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) 5.1 Internal and External Locus of Control as Determinants of Driving Behaviour 5.9.1 5.8.5.1 Differences between Automobile Drivers and Motorcycle Drivers 4.9.1 Study 1C 4.3 Best Fit or Best Model 5.5.7.5.8 4.6 xiii .6.4.4.2 Study 2 4.5.1 Advantages of Using SEM 5.2 5.4.3 Timeframe for Data Collection 179 182 185 185 187 189 190 194 194 196 197 201 201 202 203 203 204 204 210 211 5.1 Generalisability of Findings 5.2 Goodness of Fit 5.5 5.5. Motorcycle Drivers and Taxicab Drivers 4.2 Differences between Automobile Drivers and Taxicab Drivers 4.7.6.7.5 What Can be Learned from Testing Contextual Models with SEM? Limitations of the Study and Methodological Considerations 5.8.3 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hostile Automatic Thought and Crash Outcome 4.3 Differences between Motorcycle Drivers and Taxicab Drivers 158 159 163 163 169 170 173 173 173 174 174 176 176 177 177 179 CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION 5.3.7 4.2 Locus of Control and Ethnicity: Indian-Malaysian Drivers 5.3 A Contextual Mediated Model for Understanding Factors Influencing Unsafe Driving Hopelessness Locus of Control 5.5.6.8.1 Study 1C: Automobile Drivers 5.2 Use of Self-Report Methods 5.3.3 Study 3 Testing Mediational Relationships Using SPSS 4.6.2 Study 2: Motorcyclists 5.5.9.4.1 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hopelessness and Crash Outcomes 4.3 Study 3: Taxicab Drivers 5.9 Relationship Between Aggression and Behaviour in Traffic 4.3.4 5.4 Testing the Contextual Mediated Model 5.

5.1 Theory vs.4.7. Training and Rehabilitation 5.7 5.4 Measurement of Driving Frequency Implications and Areas for Further Study 5.3 Education 5.7.4 Preventive Measures: “The Three E’s” 5.7.3 Driver Selection.7.4.7.2 Engineering Interventions 5.4.7.6.4.1 Generating and classifying crash prevention interventions 5.7.7.2 Factors in Behavioural Adaptation (BA) 5. Models in Traffic Psychology 5.4 Enforcement 212 215 215 218 220 221 221 221 229 230 CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION 233 REFERENCES GLOSSARY APPENDICES Appendix A List of Published and Research Scales Appendix B Personal Information (PIF) 237 287 294 297 xiv .

3 3.4 115 117 118 119 4.1 3.7 4.5 4.4 3.6 4.LIST OF TABLES No. Gender and Ethnicity of Participants in Studies 1.10 4.2 3.2 Malaysian Roadway Crashes and Casualties.3 3. Kurtosis and Skewness Statistics 13 14 57 91 95 97 98 101 112 114 2.11 xv . 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.2 4.1 2.3 114 4.8 111 121 121 122 4.1 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 4.9 4. Table Page 2.

Gender and Ethnicity in Study 2 (N=122) 125 Means.25 138 4. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1A (n=301) Means.27 4.13 4.15 Crash and Injury Occurrence Crash Occurrence Frequency.14 4. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1B (n=302) Means.20 134 4.26 138 139 144 145 4.29 xvi .4.12 4.18 131 4. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 3 (n=133) Results of Logistic Regression Analyses Showing the Effects of BIT Component Factors on Crash Occurrence Results of Logistic Regression Analyses Showing the Effects of BIT Component Factors on Injury Occurrence The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores in Study 1A (N=301) The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores in Study 1B (N=302) The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores in Study 1C (N=252) The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores in Study 2 (N=122) The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores in Study 3 (N=133) Effects of Demographic Factors on total BIT Scores Direct effects of hopelessness on BIT scores Direct Effects of Locus of Control on Total BIT Scores 127 4.19 133 4.23 136 4.22 136 4.16 128 4.28 4. Gender and Ethnicity in Study 1 (N=855) 124 125 Crash Occurrence Frequency. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 2 (n=122) Means.17 129 4. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1C (n=252) Means.21 135 4.24 137 4.

34 4.6 xvii .5 209 225 5.38 Direct Effects of Gender on AQ Total and Subscale Scores Direct Effects of Ethnicity on AQ Total and Subscale Factors 149 150 Effect of Aggression on Total BIT Scores and on BIT Component Factors 152 Summarised Results on the Hypotheses and Sub-hypotheses SEM Comparison (Study 1C) Different Contextual Models (Study 1C) Different Contextual Models (Study 2) Different Contextual Models (Study 3) BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hopelessness and Crash Outcomes 160 163 167 169 171 173 4.4.33 4.35 4.1 199 206 207 5.40 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Aggression and Crash Outcomes 174 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hostile Automatic Thought and Crash Outcomes BIT Mediates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Crash Outcomes Goodness of Fit Statistics for Model 1C5 and 1C6 (Initial and Subsequent Analyses) Distribution of National Population and Sampled Participants by State State of Origin Compared with Crash Frequency and Vehicle Registrations (Study 1) State of Origin Compared with Crash Frequency and Vehicle Registrations (Study 2) Spearman rank correlations for States of Origin for Participants in Study 1 and Study 2 Engineering Applications for Crash Prevention 174 4.37 4.39 4.41 175 5.4 208 5.36 4.31 4.3 5.30 4.2 5.32 4.

7 2.2 147 148 4.10 64 80 81 82 83 146 3. 2000) Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen.2 2. Behavioral Predictors and Motor Vehicle Crashes (from Sümer.8 Proposed Contextual Mediated Model for Safety Research in Agriculture (from Downe.1 4. 2003) Inter-variable Relationships in Mediation Models Inter-variable Relationships in Moderation Models Page 36 37 40 42 44 46 47 2. 2007) 50 Hierarchical Levels of Driving Behavior (after Keskinen.6 2.4 4.3 4.4 148 xviii . 1996) Task-Capability Theory (after Fuller. 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 2.3 3.9 59 2. 1996.1 2.2 3. Hatakka. 2. 1997) Contextual Mediated Model of Personality. 1989) The Haddon Matrix (Noy.5 Figure Task Cube (from Summala.3 2.4 2.1 3.LIST OF FIGURES No.

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 4.7 4.12 4.10 4.9 4.6 4.4.13 xix .5 4.8 4.

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

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

790. The chapter 1. The high rate of roadway accidents and deaths has been described in both scholarly and popular print or internet media in extreme terms. with the intent to determine the degree to which measures of aggression.112). There was a total of 341. 2003). More challenging has been the attempt to link personality and psychosocial variables to driver behaviour and performance. However. 2002. According to Dewar (2002b).000 fatalities were recorded (Ministry of Transport Malaysia. as a “social menace”(Abdul Kareem. describes its significance and presents an overview of the methodology used. 2004. locus of control. behavioural and attitudinal characteristics of drivers and the environmental situations in which they find themselves (Haight. This first chapter of this dissertation presents the background of the study. The research comprised five separate studies of Malaysian drivers aged 18 to 73 years. 1989). McKenna. This dissertation is a report of research into relevant psychosocial variables and their effects on self-reported driving behaviour. often labelled as “tragic” (Koh. A total of 10.2 Road Safety in Malaysia Malaysia is a nation of motor vehicle users. 1983). 2 . 1949) have since been replaced by more complex explanations that focus on the interaction between emotional. 21). 2005).252 accidents in 2006 and over 6. “the literature on personality has a long history. and as a “major public health problem” (Subramaniam. Very early initial attempts to identify an “accident proneness” personality trait (Tiliman & Hobbs.351. 2007). including the study of a large number of variables. Malaysia is also a nation with a disproportionately high frequency of motor vehicle accidents.roadway.732 motor vehicles were registered in 2006. there are conflicting findings and associated problems with this research” (p. concludes by noting the delimitations of the research. p. the vehicle and the new technologies that are increasingly being deployed by the road and fitted in vehicles” (Carsten.332 drivers and 15. hopelessness and other variables interacted to affect attitudes toward driving and the severity and frequency of participants’ self-reported involvement in motor vehicle crashes.

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

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. leaving the field with inadequate theory development from which testable. aberrant driving behaviours) variables in predicting traffic accident involvement. has been that such behavioural models have seldom been used as the foundation for developing an integrated. Noy (1997). with the risk of roadway casualty? 4 . personality and demographic) and proximal (i. 1996.3 The Problem Statement Given widespread awareness about the high rates of death and injury resulting from motor vehicle crashes worldwide and in Malaysia. drivers still operate automobiles and motorcycles in ways that reduce the likelihood of safe arrival at destinations. it has been recognised that the psychosocial factors involved in driving safely differ greatly across the range of human. 1. falsifiable hypotheses might be drawn (Summala. A frequent criticism. loss of attention and the deliberate usurpation of right-of-way are frequent behaviours in traffic. Speeding. Sümer (2003). Parker. with resulting outcomes often involving crash and injury. This has led to a growing interest in modelling human behaviour involved in the driving task and.Increasingly. for instance. Hampson & Morris. 2004). 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. has recently proposed a promising contextual mediated model which distinguishes between distal (i. theoretical basis for traffic psychology (Huguenin. What demographic and personality factors are associated and interact with unsafe driving behaviour and. 1997. vehicle. in developing general and specific cognitive models of individuals’ interaction with the world around them (Brown. however. externally-focused frustration.. road and environmental conditions that comprise the driving situation. 1997). in particular. 2005).. in turn.e.e.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1: Malaysian Roadway Crashes and Casualties. Subramaniam & Law.287 in 2006.040 2004 6. the number of crashes has increased 80% over the past ten years.1 summarises the five-year incidence of crashes and injuries.228 9.to 25-year-old age group (see table 2. Table 2.236 49.252 Motor Vehicle Casualties 2002 Fatalities Severe Injuries Minor Injuries Total 35.885 35.20 deaths per 10.395 2006 6.252 in 2006 (Ministry of Transport Malaysia.891 8. Radin Umar. 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. Studies 13 .425 5.264 2006 341. Table 2.645 54. 2005). The number of road fatalities has decreased slightly from 6.552 37.200 9.304 in 1994 to 6. Some of the urgency in discussions of Malaysia’s road safety problem has been related to the high frequency of roadway deaths and injuries occurring among adolescent and post-adolescent age groups (Radin Umar.253 source: Royal Malaysian Police (2007) The road accident death rate in Malaysia dropped from 8. 2007).98 deaths per 10. 2003. Abdul Rahman. in Malaysia. 2005). from 189.417 47. In Malaysia. & Wong. This suggests that studies.287 9. one- third of all crashes in Malaysia involve automobile users or motorcyclists within the 16.7111 2003 298.in the number of road traffic crashes (Abdul Kareem.012 19.000 vehicles in 2006.415 52.2).741 38.091 37.109 in 1996 to a total of 341. 2005). higher than any other age grouping or combination of consecutive age groupings.653 2004 326.000 vehicles (Law. Generally.000 vehicles in 1996 to 3.218 2005 6.286 9.425 2003 6. Mohd Zulkiflee.815 2005 328. 2002-2006 Motor Vehicle Crashes 2002 Total 279. but still lags behind frequencies in developed countries which generally fall below 3 deaths per 10.

47 280 1.803 9.15 43 0.15 572 2.178 15.11 2.431 7.08 1.315 17.023 5.049 15.65 121 0. 2001).68 128 0. It has been reported that.620 7.99 164 0.80 203 0. in 1999 alone.820 13.08 541 2.469 15.26 463 2.67 billion.68 3. and particularly among younger drivers.91 984 4.29 2. 2003).05 1.418 100 19.086 9.005 15. 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.341 12.29 708 3.63 160 0.81 3.61 99 0.7 billion.31 3.94 1.77 3.180 10. Table 2.953 17.84 1. 14 .22 150 0.4 billion to RM5.309 10.947 10.85 147 0.40 1. general insurers paid RM1.921 100 20.45 30 0. Palamara.389 6. 2001.65 2. with one road accident victim admitted to hospital every six minutes (Bernama.92 2.06 608 3.997 14.205 11.551 12.37 337 1.21 3.2: Numbers of Automobile Drivers and Motorcyclists Involved in Road Crashes by Age Group 2000 2001 2002 2003 Number % Number % Number % Number % 37 0.967 100 19.329 100 source:Royal Malaysian Police (2000.448 17.71 543 2.67 206 0.48 105 0.05 2. Some Ministry of Health estimates of medical costs alone have been as high as RM5.4% of the Gross Domestic Product (Asian Development Bank.54 708 3.48 323 1. 2005).94 625 3.034 4.92 1.416 6. or about 2.94 2.41 302 1. 2006).97 1. Morrison & Ryan.15 3.82 1.07 2.72 554 2.10 3.76 22.81 2.6 million a day on motor claims (Abdul Kareem.of university-aged drivers are critical to understanding behavioural and situational factors that predict the most commonly occurring class of crashes (Stevenson.216 10.64 135 0.50 979 4.025 9.07 2.16 90 0.08 585 2.05 2. or an average of RM4.709 8.56 3.49 450 2.81 1.27 458 2. 2002.593 11. has resulted in considerable economic loss for the country.90 159 0.038 13.378 11.08 2. Recent international analyses have placed the total economic burden at around RM7 billion yearly.85 2.110 10.23 2.

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

In 2006. how they think. as compared with 1. Researchers. newspaper columnists. serious injury and death (Per and Al Haji. They are also bad in giving ample time to others and this is an example of non-defensive driving. though. approximately 45 per cent of all registered vehicles in 2006 (Road Transport Department Malaysia. Maybe these drivers just never realised how simple it is to avoid accidents (Looi.(Abdul Rahman et al. Those countries have had a motoring culture for nearly a century but our road-users are relatively newer to motoring (Sadiq. 2001.215 deaths among motorcar drivers and passengers. 2005). 2007). 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 . Krishnan & Radin Umar. the Royal Malaysian Police (2007) reported 3. Who they are.693 deaths among motorcycle operators and pillion riders. In a recent newspaper interview. Generally. most accounts have come around to commenting on driver demographic and behavioural characteristics as significant factors in motor vehicle crashes (Che Ali. 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. The relatively high population of motorcycle riders. is often mentioned as a factor. 2005). 2007). They don’t even stop to look left and right or look in the rear view mirror. given greater risks of accident. senior policy-makers and politicians alike are shining the spotlight on the way in which Malaysian drivers’ traits and states may be contributing to the incidence of roadway accidents. the 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. 1997). 2006). for instance. unlike in other countries.

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

The very monotony of the road surface. “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. a capacity that makes them distinct as a society” (p. 121-122). these conflicting aims of speed and safety seemed to exacerbate them. resulted in a myriad of problems. they are accident prone. 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. generalising to all driving environments and situations. Describing the expressway as a “stunning infrastructural achievement” (p. This. 1996). the factor that made the high speeds possible. since 1994. 18 .122). Although the expressway was meant to avoid both traffic and accidents. 110). has linked peninsular communities. Williamson’s (2003) assertions do have certain implications for an understanding of how human factors may play a significant role in the high rate of motor vehicle crashes in Malaysia. He argued that.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. he argued that national leadership intended it to be both a symbol of progress. road engineers devoted their efforts to creating a public artery in which speed and limited stoppage were design priorities. According to Williamson. 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. however. including speeding and falling asleep at the wheel (“N-S Highway”. motivated largely by the government’s fear of unregulated public assembly.

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

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

1996.1 An Applied Perspective Ever since Tillman and Hobbs (1949) stated that “a man drives as he lives” (p. and the influence of car and driver stereotypes on attributions of crash blameworthiness (Davies & Patel.2 The Emergence of Traffic Psychology as a Scientific Discipline 2. 1961. 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. 2005).2. the extent of exposure of drivers to the driving task (af Wahlberg.2. information processing. Nevertheless. 482). 21 . Underwood & Milton. the use of inconsistent crash definitions. and we are left with a very vague knowledge of what psychological variables can actually predict accidents (p. the lack of replication of many studies. driving behaviour and crash-related outcomes include: the use of self-reported crash data.2. 2002. 2003). Other methodological factors that may cloud the relationship between psycho-social variables. 1993). Novaco (2000) argued that: The field of transportation has always had a rich potential for psychology. It would seem that very few of the studies on accident predictors are actually possible to interpret in any straightforward way. accuracy of witness recall of crash details (Crombag. 2. motivation and behavioural performance as potential underlying causal factors in driver behaviour (Jonah. 1965) but did not really gain momentum until the 1980s (Risser. 321). there has been an interest in driver personality. Wagenaar & van Koppen. 1997a). psychologists have given scant attention to this topic. especially considering the salience of transportation in the routines of daily life. 2003). Preston & Harris.traffic accidents and found to be wanting in one or more of these methodological aspects and concluded that: If these studies are representative of the research done. the picture that emerges is indeed grave.

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

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

Theories and Models In attempting to understand. a paradigm that Boff (2006) described as “Generation One” ergonomics. which assumes a necessary communication between person and machine led to a dialogue between the various designers of car interiors. error and cognitive modelling. 1997. Jannssen. 2004). Neerincx & Schriebers. 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.tasks to human capabilities and limitations. particularly the notions of mental load. in which the goal is to manage automation and dynamic function allocations. This involves the coherent grouping of general propositions for use as principles in explaining various classes of driving phenomena. traffic psychologists frequently engage in theory-building. 2.3 2. 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. though. Increasingly. 2006. These applications are consistent with the paradigms Boff (2006) has described as “Generation Two” ergonomics. predict and modify road user behaviour. Stanton & Young. 2001). According to Barjonet & Tortosa (2001). 26).1 Theories of Driving Behaviour Concepts.3. and “Generation Three” ergonomics. Concepts are the building blocks for theory and may be defined as: 24 . 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. Noy. Walker. 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. which focuses on symbiotic technologies that amplify human physical and cognitive capabilities. “This school of though.

2 Traffic Psychology: Slow Progress in Theory-Building Theory development in traffic psychology has not progressed well (Summala. In traffic psychology. p. or accident-causing behaviours. A-18) Often. this may be due to 25 . On the other hand. whether theories should explain everyday driving. 2. the latter is defined more narrowly as “a set of assumptions or postulates. there is no generally accepted theory which elucidates principles from which a broad. Many of the theories that have been proposed have failed to generate testable hypotheses. 1995). each ordering driving reality from its own particular set of empirical observations. or both. 1969). 2005. but for the purposes of this thesis. Ericsson & Bourne Jr. 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. which is then followed by a process of generalisation (Schneider. many models have been proposed.. p. To a degree. Ranney (1994) pointed out that it has never been clear. which attempts to provide a generalised working construct that can account for empirical data or relationships” (Chaplin. often in mathematical form. 8) Any set of systematically interrelated concepts or hypotheses that purports to explain and predict phenomena (Robbins. generalisable understanding of the driving process can be deduced. often providing a category for the classification of phenomena (Theodorson & Theodorson. “theory” is a term used interchangeably with the word “model”. Concepts can be linked together to form a theory.3. 2005). Concepts are formed by a process of mental abstraction. Healy. 1985). 2000. Reasons for this are likely several.A word or set of words that expresses a general idea concerning the nature of something or the relations between things. in traffic psychology.

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

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

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

a certain percentage would experience a higher accident frequency than would other groups year after year. 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. made an assumption that. with extensive critiques that concluded statistical analyses were almost all invalid. Johnson (1946). 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. that high-λ group would be comprised of the same individuals or of an entirely new cohort (Haight. A study by Salminen and Heiskanen (1997) provided empirical support for this position. 1956). Early work on the concept attempted to do just that. p. 1929. as well. by devising clever tests. in successive years. The theory of the accident-prone individual also came under attack on a conceptual basis. Scores on the λ dimension. None of the experiments. produced a positive. subjects reported significant. Farmer and Chambers (1926. with shorter periods giving sharper contrasts (Moore. in a Finnish telephone survey. it was pointed out are highly sensitive to the length of the survey period. replicable result that correlated substantially with the accident experience of individuals (Haight. more probably psychological (p. 1939) and many others. in traffic or when playing 29 . “Because crashes are so infrequent. 422). noting that. 294). but did not take into consideration whether. 1991. 195). in any sample. The accident-prone concept. however. 2004). Arbous and Kerrich (1951) and much later McKenna (1983) systematically destroyed the supportive literature. at home. inadequate or irrelevant. with a series of tests constructed by Greenwood and Woods (1919).out what that value is. 2004). inappropriate. motivated largely by a desire to select lorry drivers in Europe who were less likely to become involved in costly roadway crashes (Barjonet & Tortosa. 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. 1997). but very low correlations between accident frequency at work.

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

2000). researchers began to turn their attention to not-so-easy measures for changing driver behaviour. After the relatively easy engineering measures were implemented to reduce the seriousness of the consequences of driver behaviour.4.3. albeit not crash occurrence. However. following their review of the literature. The introduction of divided highways. they adjust their behaviour to eliminate the discrepancy. That is. Wilde (1982. 2. but avoids the assumption of a stable phenomenon that accounts for more accidents in all situations. people strive to maintain a target level of risk all the time and. substantially. large earth-moving 31 . A driver who enters a construction zone. 2.1 Risk Homeostasis Theory (RHT) In an attempt to explain these findings.. in fact. experience more accidents than others. and that transient factors probably interact with stable traits of the individual in their causation. suddenly confronted with uneven pavement. crash barriers.3. Elander et al.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. Dewar (2002b) noted that the notion of differential liability allows for the observation that some individuals do. in a study of driving on icy roads. For example. concluded that differential crash risk is not readily accounted for by previous crash rates.accident proneness (Chmiel. 1988) proposed that a control mechanism operates to keep overall risk per unit time constant. when they perceive a discrepancy between the observed level of risk and the desired target level of risk. 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. 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. compulsory seatbelts and vehicle design improvements reduced motor vehicle crash fatalities.

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

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

26).2 Zero Risk Theory Another risk-based theory. zero-risk theory still retains some of its conceptual shortcomings. or expecting. While overcoming many of the criticisms levied at RHT with regard to the concepts of target risk and the risk discrepancy comparative process. 92). Summala (1986) suggested that estimating time-to-collision. 2. 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). 1987. increasing safety margins” (Brown & Noy. drivers compare the distance from hazards or time-tocollision to a subjective safety margin threshold and take action only when the threshold is exceeded. At this point. is a very basic human skill that can be carried out in the absence of extensive conscious processing. In other words. for example. Summala’s zero-risk model of driver behaviour (Summala & Näätänen. Only when the subjective risk reaches a level that was not anticipated will the drivers change their behaviour. 81). 2004. Michon (1989) noted that most studies attempting to support the RHT deal with data only at the aggregate level. drivers avoid ‘feeling fear’ (hence. 1988) proposed that drivers do not constantly assess risk while driving. experience ‘zero-risk’) when they drive by anticipating. a necessary and highly controversial assumption in Wilde’s theory. 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. 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. and 34 . Summala. after a similar review.3.4. In addition. Rather.(1986) concluded that “risk homeostasis theory should be rejected because there is no convincing evidence supporting it and much evidence refuting it” (p. p. Rothengatter (2002) has questioned how drivers can determine that a threshold has been exceeded if they do not constantly assess risk. they experience uncomfortable feelings of fear and abruptly change behaviour.

Summala argued that behavioural adaptation. much of which arises from personality. On the other hand. A large number of studies show that external motives. In an attempt to deal with this and to expand on the role of extrinsic and intrinsic motivators. Summala (1996. it may not manifest itself as a less cautious speed or headway choice but rather as a conscious. their behaviour becomes less adaptive to prevailing circumstances (Delhomme & Meyer. The cube presented three dimensions of driver behaviour: a functional hierarchy. as a result.3. in which he introduced a “task cube” to explain the driving process. for instance. pre-meditated decision not to wear seatbelts. would vary depending on the combination of factors from the three dimensions. what is a virtually infinite number of roads and traffic scenarios. 1999). and specific driver actions. 2. 2002. age and social variables.learn how to respond safety to. If behavioural adaptation were to take place in response to the presence of a supplementary restraint system (SRS). Van der Hulst. 1996. Meijman & Roghengatter. Glad & Hernetkoskis. Gregersen. Hataaka. and when confronted with various environmental conditions or psychological processes. level of psychological processing and a functional taxonomy of driving actions (see Figure 2. do appear to affect drivers’ willingness to accept risk levels that approach thresholds and. 1998.5 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. used to explain drivers’ tendencies to approach as closely as possible to the risk threshold. Keskinen. 1997) refined his earlier theory into a hierarchical model of driver behavioural adaptation. A major element in the zero risk theory was the influence of motivation. very little if any research has been carried out with respect to intrinsic motivation.1). 35 . Reeder et al. such as time pressure.

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

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

3. objects. the notion of matching competence with task demand promises to be very useful in understanding driver behaviour. According to the TRA. 1975) and the subsequent theory of planned behaviour (TPB: Ajzen. institutions or issues (Chaplin. 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. people’s behaviour is determined by their intention to perform the behaviour. however. such that it is not capability but perceived capability that interfaces with task demand. 40). Rothengatter (2002) has stressed that the perception of capability is often influenced by external factors (impairment. p. Intention is determined by the summed effects of: (a) attitudes toward the behaviour. 1991). subjective norms and behavioural intentions can be used to predict behaviour. Intention is the cognitive representation of an individual’s readiness to engage in a given behaviour. simply because it is more straightforward to establish the parameters that drivers use to assess their competence than it is to measure target or subjective risk. been regarded as potentially more productive than earlier risk-based theories. Fishbein & Ajzen.6.1 Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) An attitude is a relatively stable and enduring predisposition to behave or react in a certain way toward persons. neither of which was originally intended as a way of explaining driver behaviour.3. Generally. and Keskinen et al. It generally refers to the thoughts and feelings that impel us to behave in one way and not in another” (Parker. 1985. 2. Since 1985. 1985.7 Attitude-behaviour Theories 2. Two limitations have been noted. p. for the most part. and is considered to be the immediate antecedent of behaviour. traffic psychology has seen a resurgence of interest in the role played by attitudes. emotional state. generally referring to a positive or negative 38 . (2004) have argued that it is deserving of more attention than it has received to date. 126).Fuller’s theory has. 2004. largely due to the focus that has been provided by the theory of reasoned action (TRA. Langdridge (2004) describes the theory of reasoned action as one of the most important theories in attitude-behaviour research. time pressure).

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

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. In one study. or sense of self-efficacy. Forward (2006) used semi-structured interviews to examine the degree to which beliefs differentiated between Swedish drivers who did or did not intend to speed in an urban area.. to the extent to which PBC reflects an individual’s level of actual control. 1989) Within the theory.Behavioural beliefs and outcome evaluations Attitude toward the behaviour Normative beliefs and motivation to comply Subjective norm Intention Behaviour Control beliefs and perceived facilitation Perceived behavioural control Figure 2. Its inclusion as a predictor of behaviour is premised on the notion that. on the performance of a wide range of behaviours. 2003). creating a proxy effect that increases the likelihood that behaviour will be successfully performed. including driving and “it has to be admitted that the theory of planned behaviour has stood up well. 40 .3: Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen. 2002. PBC is considered a determinant of both the individual’s intentions and the individual’s behaviour. Further. stronger feelings that “I can do it”) will heighten an individual’s confidence level. A belief that the described violations were not all that serious (attitudes). greater perceived control (i. 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. p.e. when intention is held constant. The TPB has spawned a huge body of research. it will directly influence behaviour (Armitage & Christian. speed on a major road or overtake dangerously. 253).

2. pedestrians and road environments in a range of 41 . Edwards (1996) developed a spatial model. 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. Gross Domestic Product per capita and alcohol consumption. Scuffham (2003) used a different approach to model the changes in seasonal patterns of fatal crashes in New Zealand according to unemployment rate. but after controlling for distance travelled. 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. A large number of studies have reported epidemiological characteristics of drivers. vehicles. to predict weather-related crashes in England and Wales. 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. while Rautela and Pant (2007) modelled crash risk on mountain roads in India using geographical information system (GIS) data. roadway configuration and crossing design were weighted. Austin and Carson (2002). 2.4. based on data extracted from police record forms. Wállen Warner and Åberg (2006) used structural equation modelling to predict drivers’ everyday speeding behaviour using the TPB as a frame of reference. 2002). This might be seen as evidence of the proxy effect earlier described by Armitage and Christian (2002).4 2.1. Similar to later findings by Law et al. 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. it was not significant (Scuffham & Langley.In another study.2). subjective norms and PBC were all significant determinants of self-reported speeding.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. for instance. Attitude toward speeding.

. and have proposed expanding the matrix to better provide for the analysis of inter-relationships between each of the four basic elements. Nguntra. Mahasakpan. within specific situational contexts. Seow & Lim.locations and settings (e. E and especially H factors. concealing the interactions that underlie the behaviour of real traffic systems (Noy. Richardson & Downe. Haddon (1970) proposed a framework in which each of these elements could be examined as part of an analytical matrix (see Figure 2.4. PRE-CRASH CRASH POST-CRASH BASIC ELEMENTS OF A HIGHWAY EVENT Human (H) Vehicle (V) Road (R) Environment (E) Figure 2.4. the vehicle (V). 1999). More recently. 2000). the road (R) and the environment (E). Swaddiwudhipong. some researchers have argued that the Haddon Matrix is limited by the way it considers each element independently.2 Process Models 2.4). This model has been instrumental in stimulating research designs and accident interventions for the last thirty yeasrs (Williams. 1997) 42 . 1994).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). Law. 1998. however. One way of accomplishing this may be through the creation of models that stress the mediational role played by certain V.g.2. R. 2. Koonchote & Tantiratna. 1997.4: The Haddon Matrix (Noy.

By contrast. it may influence crash risk through some other. extraversion.4. sensation seeking. there are four possible explanations: the behavioural measure may directly influence crash risk. Therefore. when one observes a correlation between a behavioural measure and crash risk. Within the generic model. are affected by specific or collective factors from the distal context and. as well. 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. it may happen to correlate with some other factor that influences crash risk but play no role itself. on the other hand. 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. or crash risk may influence the behavioural measure (p. more proximal variable. age. (1993) discussed the problem of choosing predictor variables in studies of behavioural and personality influences on road-traffic crash risk. relevant factors are grouped as occurring within either the distal context or the proximal context of the accident (see Figure 2. speeding.5). contribute directly to crash outcomes. Factors within the distal context include not only road. 283). arguing that: Correlational studies suffer from the inescapable problem that causality cannot be established.2 A Contextual Mediated Model of Personality and Behavioural Predictors of Motor Vehicle Crashes Elander et al. the proximal context is made up of driver behaviours and attitudes (e. Personality factors within the 43 . driving experience) and psychological characteristics (e.g.2. gender. reckless lane transitions or overtaking. vehicle and environmental conditions related to accident causation but a range of driver demographic (e.. aggression).. on one hand.g..g. substance abuse) that.2.

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

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

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

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

extraversion (interpersonal warmth. (1993) and others. sensation seeking). It is questionable whether crash details can be recalled accurately for up to 36 months and requires the assumption that the psychological characteristics. a negative-binomial distribution (Greenwood & Woods. Sümer. conscientiousness (dependability. 1990) to a similar analysis. 1995. applied the five factor. trust). Greenwood & Yule. lapses. 2002. 1993). 1920). Tubré & Tubré. it was somewhat surprising that no attempt was made to control for differing levels of traffic exposure. broad-mindedness). al. McRae &Costa. personality model (Costa & McRae. Sümer’s decision to use self-report data is subject to the usual validity considerations raised by several authors (af Wahlberg. Here. in most cases. in that the standard multivariate correlation methods applied as part of his LISREL analysis assumed a normal distribution of crash frequency scores. tends to fit a Poisson distribution or. Arthur. 2003. the distal factors were: neuroticism (a tendency to experience negative affect and anxiety). Finally. or “Big Five”. 2005.739). 1919. as recommended by Elander et al. including the three-year time-frame over which drivers were asked to report crash occurrence. In a subsequent study. The proximal factor was again aberrant driving behaviour (errors. Watson. Sümer’s model construction might also be questioned.. Bell. Notwithstanding these methodological considerations. sensation seeking patterns. Edward. 1998). responsibility. Elander et. violations) and the outcome measure was expanded to include the self-reported number of crashes and traffic offences committed over a three-year period. Lajunen and Özkan (2005). self-discipline) and openness (adventurousness. agreeableness (helpfulness. Results indicated that all five of the personality factors had indirect effects on crash risk through their effects on 48 . 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. while it has been accepted since the early accident proneness studies of the IFRB that crash frequency. for high-λ individuals. 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. Day.variation in the number of kilometres driven annually by participants (SD = 14.

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

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. in a study of safety training methods and personality factors in Malaysian rubber and palm oil plantations. 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 2.5 2.5. 2003). Yet. 1997..1 Age Young drivers are significantly over-represented among those injured or killed in road traffic crashes (Ballesteros & Dischinger. Not only are they the most likely age group to be involved in crashes. Type A.g. Odero et al. uncertainty avoidance)  temperamental factors (e.8: Proposed Contextual Mediated Model for Safety Research in Agriculture (from Downe.5.g. Retting.. they have been less well studied than other groups and the general understanding of age effects is not clear.. 2003. but young drivers are more likely to sustain crash-related injuries and to die in vehicular crashes (Massie. 2002.1 Distal Variables in the Present Study Demographic Variables 2. Williams & Shabanova. 1995). 2007) 2.1. Weinstein & Solomon. heterogeneity in group composition: Part of this may be due to 50 .8).Downe (2007). Campbell & Williams.

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

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

Laapotti and Keskinen (1998) showed that when male drivers lost control of their motorcar. Waller. found that men had twice as high a risk as women of being involved in a motor vehicle crash during the late night hours. with respect to both driving behaviour and to crash involvement. Raghunathan and Little (2001) noted that. and so on – were associated with greater risk of injury. There appear to be differences in the types of crashes experienced. but is also evident among older drivers” (Social Issues Research Centre [SIRC]. that males were significantly more likely to be involved in a loss-of-control accident. as age decreased. male drivers incur their first crash earlier in their driving careers and are more likely to be held to blame for the incident. Åkerstedt and Kecklund (2001). Hasselberg and Laflamme (2006) analysed Swedish police records and found the same ratio. in addition to having a higher number of crashes. Elliott. for instance. Monárrez-Espino. Tavris.1. Smiley and Lee-Gosselin (1992). it 53 . 2.failure to use seat-belts. Shope. darkness)” (p. 129). “In all studies and analyses..g. MacGregor.4). 2004..5. p. reported that crash incidence for men in the United States was nearly double that of women. 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. Chipman. for instance. Kuhn and Layde (2001) found. for instance.g. as well. without exception. Marked differences also occur between the genders in terms of the number of fatalities. Dewar (2002b) stated that “some of the reasons for this are obvious – men drive greater distances. men have been shown to have a higher rate of crashes than women. Williams and Shabanova (2003) found that young American males were significantly more likely than young females to be responsible for crash deaths. and behaviours predictive of fatalities. self-reported injury would also increase. rush hour) and in hazardous conditions (e. it was also hypothesised that. more often at hazardous times (e.2 Gender A large number of studies have found differences between males and females. However. This gender difference is most marked in the population under 25 years.

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

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

this has been the result of a change in reporting protocols within the U. White and Hispanic drivers regarding red light violations.2. traffic safety regulations and traffic fatalities. Garrett. Haliburton. Despite the fact that countries’ regulatory frameworks were becoming increasingly similar. Lezotte and Lowenstein (2000) compared Hispanic and non-Hispanic white motorists in the state of Colorado. Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS). Tippetts and Voas (2005) found no differences between African-American. In one of the few studies reported. Goldweig and Warren. Being a non-wealthy Catholic country was associated with higher fatality rates than being a wealthy Catholic country. Conducting curb-side inspections of taxicabs in Kuala Lumpur. that expanded the standards for collection of data on race and ethnicity in 1999 (Briggs. Corry.5. he found that 60% of drivers had positioned belts or shoulder straps in a manner that appeared to 56 . Summala and Hartley (1998).1.3 Ethnicity A growing number of studies have examined the effect of ethnic differences on driving behaviour and crash outcomes. Marine. Melinder concluded that the type of religion and wealth were important distal factors.S. On the other hand. But. differences in fatalities persisted. Schlundt. lower rates of safety belt use. Hauswald (1999) studied the incidence of covert non-compliance with seat belt regulations among Malaysian taxi drivers. being a wealthy Catholic country was associated with more traffic fatalities than were wealthy. reported few differences between Australians and Finns. Levine. Very little cross-cultural research related to traffic safety has been carried out in Southeast Asia. Harper. A few studies have endeavoured to compare national driving cultures in terms of crash risk. more frequent histories of speeding offences and more extreme alcohol use. nonCatholic countries. To a large degree. Lajunen. 2005). for instance. finding that the former group had higher fatality rates. Romano. Melinder (2007) compared 15 Western European countries with regard to the relation between different sociocultural factors.

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

inexperienced drivers may (a) not know the correct manoeuvre so they try a different manoeuvre which turns out to be unsafe. they are less likely to make errors and commit violations that result in crashes (e. 2001). Laapotti. Keskinen. journey lengths. 1995. etc. Given the absence of relevant prior research on Malaysian cultural groups.1 Experience Driver experience makes a difference in crash risk. although not always. As experience grows.behaviour in traffic. 2002).g. Allied to this. implies the driver has had a broader variety of driving experiences. A large number of studies have shown that. On the other hand.. or (d) not have had enough experience of dealing safety with the effects of human factors on their performance (Fuller. and as such. passenger distractions different vehicles. Lajunen & Summala. and indicating that those recording higher mileage per year have fewer accidents per mile (Pelz & Schuman. allows many otherwise incompatible tasks to be performed together. Hatakka and Katila. such as driving at different times of the day or days of the week.5.2. 2. 1971). directionality of the effect was not predicted. as drivers become more experienced. with different weather conditions.2 Driver Characteristics 2. the motorist is less likely to encounter situations very different from those they have encountered before (p. (c) not have had enough practice in carrying out the manoeuvre correctly. 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 . in a given road and traffic scenario. increased experience usually. 166). (b) not know how to carry out a particular manoeuvre correctly.5. Groeger (2000) reviewed the reasons for this: … the weight of practice more experienced drivers have makes much of what they do routine.

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

the number of years since a driving licence was first obtained. 1954). all of which were seen to reflect deficient self-control and lifestyle management abilities. One way to understand experience effects is to study occupations for which driving is an important work component. (2001) used the cognitive framework to explain the differing effects of experience. Brown & Ghiselli. Studies of crash predictors among professional drivers have been undertaken for over fifty years (e. age and gender on motor vehicle crash risk. They found that young drivers failed in applying both lower and higher models of the hierarchy than did middle-aged drivers.and medium-severity traffic violation penalties as unjust than are non-professional drivers (Rosenbloom & Shahar. and that taxicab drivers are more likely to regard low.Laapotti et al. and especially young male drivers. for instance. showed more problems than males connected to the lower cognitive levels of the driving hierarchy. found that risk taking within a sample of 130 drivers of minibus taxis in the Pietersburg area of the Republic of South Africa. A simple measure of driving experience. explained because adult identity is still under construction so life goals and living skills are still under development. showed more problems connected to showing off driving skills to peers. Burns and Wilde (1995) found no relationship between collision history and personality when they studied sampled male taxi drivers in a small Canadian city. Female novice drivers. frequently showing that they are lest frequently involved in motor vehicle crashes than other classes of drivers. was used in this study. many studies have focused on the effects of experience. Driving experience was considered a distal variable that would have an 60 . Justification of driver experience hypotheses. taking risks and consuming alcohol or drugs. 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. Ghiselli & Brown. Young novice drivers. 2007). 1949. 2004). Peltzer and Renner (2003). such as problems in vehicle handling skills.. 1948. on the other hand.g. Mintz. While motivational and differing skill levels are also important predictors of professional drivers’ crash risk. was inversely correlated with driving experience and numbers of accidents witnessed.

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

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

people are thought to vary on a continuum between the two extremes of external and internal locus of control. 1991. one to reflect the influence of fate or chance (C) and the second to reflect the influence of powerful others (P). believe that very few events are outside the realm of human influence and that even cataclysmic situations may be altered through human action. and second. 15).5.1 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. people who attribute behaviour to an internal locus of control.. view most events as dependent on chance or controlled by powers beyond human reach.1. 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. 63 . 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. In contrast. 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.10). Hyman.2.3.5. 1981) extended this concept in two ways: first. Stanley & Burrows. or externals . 1990).3. she separated the externality dimension into two. Based on this multidimensional conceptualisation.g. such that it could be possible for an individual to score high on all three (see Figure 2. bipolar continuum along which individuals could be placed. or internals. Levenson (1975.1 Locus of Control 2. 2006. Holder & Levi. 1975.3 Psychological Variables 2.5. Originally conceptualised by Rotter (1966. Rotter’s (1966) original I-E conceptualisation of the locus of control construct viewed it as a unidimensional. Levenson constructed a scale has been used widely in studies of locus of control (e. 1999). she assumed that the three resulting dimensions were conceptually independent.

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.10: Contrast between Rotter’s Unidimensional and Levenson’s Multidimensional Conceptualisations of Locus of Control 2. E Unidimensional Model I Externalizers Individuals believe that what happens is determined by fate.Luckner. 1989. 2007) and has given rise to a number of other instruments measuring multi-dimensional locus of control. They found that subjects with high internal control seemed to prefer intermediate probability bets or extremely safe bets over so-called long shots.Chance High Low Externality – Powerful Others High Figure 2. Sinha & Watson.2 Locus of Control and Driving Behaviour Very early studies examined a link between locus of control and risk taking. 64 . luck. Multidimensional Model Low Internality High Low Externality . Liverant and Scodel (1960) studied betting preferences using a simple dice-throwing task. According to Phares (1976).1. They also tended to bet more on safe outcomes than did the more externally oriented subjects. these results supported the idea that internals would be more cautious in their control efforts while externals would engage in riskier behaviour.5.3.

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

it strongly moderated the relationship between hostility and DDB. Gidron. (p. The same driving skill scores were positively correlated with an internal locus of control. 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). cognitive.Although externals reported more risk taking this trend was not significant. They found that. rather than examining its interaction with other predictors. That is. aggressive and ordinary traffic violations and driving errors. when Lajunen and Summala (1995) gave Finnish university students a series of questionnaires that assessed driving abilities and personality. Özkan and Lajunen (2005) found that internals reported a higher number of total crashes. In a much earlier study. it may not be of sufficient magnitude to be of value. This study provided support for the view that the effects of personality traits on driving 66 . hostility was associated with worse DDB to a greater extent among drivers scoring low on internality than among drivers scoring high on internality. driving skills were negatively correlated with externality scores. On the other hand. In an important study. offences. In a meta-analysis of information-processing. (1991) argued that these equivocal results were due to overly simple research designs which tended to investigate direct effects of locus of control. 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. although internality was unrelated to DDB. Hoyt (1973) reported that internals reported wearing seat belts more often and experienced highway travel as more interesting and involving. 1260). leading the authors to conclude that “if a relationship exists. although scores on externality dimensions did not relate significantly to any of those dependent variables. an internal locus of control was found to be associated with lower levels of crash involvement and with higher levels of cognitive ability. personality and demographic/biographical predictors of vehicular involvement. In a similar study investigating personality attributes and driving behaviour. Arthur et al.

Shybut and Lotsof (1969) sampled three groups of high school students (Hong Kong Chinese. More recent research has continued to find differences in locus of control between cultures and between sub-groups within cultures. complexity and unpredictability.1. is based on the notion that … luck. Richardson and Downe (2000) and others.3 Locus of Control and Ethnicity Dyal (1984) argued that post-War geopolitical expansion and a growing interest in the role of attributions. Parsons and Schneider (1974) administered Rotter’s (1969) I-E scale to 120 male and female students in Canada. Hsieh. while externality scores for Indian students were significantly lower than those in France. Japanese students had significantly higher external scores than in all other countries. Israel. chance and fate are taken for granted in life.3.5. US-born Chinese and Caucasian Americans). Life situations may be viewed as being largely determined by circumstances outside personal control (p. which is considered to be full of ambiguity. and the USA. moderating and mediating relationships are investigated. This point had also been argued earlier by Arthur et al. indicated that. Hong Kong Chinese students were more externally controlled on Rotter’s (1969) I-E scale. reinforcement and sociocultural processes created fertile ground for cross-cultural studies using the locus of control construct. In very early research. Japan. Italy. 122). Germany.behaviour can be better understood by adopting a more holistic approach in which interactions. with situation-centred Confucian foundations. (1991). whereas Americans scored high on internal control and Chinese-Americans were somewhere in-between. Noy (1997). India. 2. Their results. Crittendon (1991) found that female university students in Taiwan were more 67 . Noting that Chinese culture. as hypothesised. after correction for differences in socioeconomic status. Canada and Japan. France.

although there were no differences in internality nor externality involving powerful others.externally-controlled and more self-effacing than either American females or Taiwanese males. 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. Chinese and Indian ethnic groups were found. He attributed this to the belief that dealing with widespread nepotism. due largely to high scores on items measuring political ideology and social system control. Much more recent research by Sinha and Watson (2007) used Levenson’s (1984) multidimensional model to show that Indian university students are significantly more externally controlled by fate and chance than Canadian university students. only Cheung. Using an English version of the Cross-Cultural Chinese Personality Assessment Inventory (CPAI-2). At the same time. Indian students were more external than Canadians on personal control factors. To the author’s knowledge. all internal characteristics. No published accounts of research conducted in Malaysia with regard to locus of control differences among members of Malay. Howard and Lim (2006) have offered research evidence related to cross-cultural differences in locus of control within Malay. where no significant differences were found between those of Indian. This was very true for the locus of control variable. Chinese and Indian populations. 68 . Chinese of Malay extraction. Carment (1974) found Indian university students to be significantly more internal than Canadian students on the full scale score for Rotter’s (1969) I-E instrument. In very early research. but all three groups differed from the sample drawn in China. ingratiation and bribery found in India requires effort. 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. skill and ability. a finding Carment interpreted as reflecting greater dependency on and conformity within the somewhat indulgent and closely-connected Indian family structure. Cheung.

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

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

Novaco (1991) proposed that driver aggression is produced when environmental triggers interact with a variety of predisposing factors. Although uncertainty persists as to whether road aggression is actually increasing. 2000. Mizell. Filetti. and deindividuation. Koumaki. 2000. & Darviri. It was hypothesised here that hopelessness would moderate the manner in which locus of control affected behaviour in traffic. 71 . 2002. 2002). 2003. 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. sparked by a number of highly publicised accounts of road rage and improved techniques for measuring anger and aggression in drivers. physiological arousal.. Demakakos. attention to the issue of aggressive driving has grown exponentially. Bakou. Tzamalouka. learned disinhibitory cues. In a largely unrelated study. 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. Deffenbacher. 1999) have argued that there has been a marked increase in the frequency of aggressive incidents and anger-related crashes. 2006). Wells-Parker et al. including subjective feelings of stress. Richards.3. 2. there is no shortage of evidence to suggest a consistent and reliable association between aggressive driving and motor vehicle crashes (Blanchard. While media reports and some authors (James & Nahl. this concept became the basis for what is now known as the frustration-aggression hypothesis of aggressive driving. O’Connell (2002) has described the use of alcohol.hypothesised that participants scoring high on a measure of hopelessness would be likely to engage in behaviour in traffic that was less cautious. Barton and Malta. which acts to counter the influence of normative moral codes and to increase people’s impulsive responses to stimuli as one such disinhibitory cue. 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.5. Chliaoutaks. Wright & Crundall. 1999.3 Aggression Since the 1980s. Lynch & Oetting. Malta & Blanchard. Chapman. learned cognitive scripts. Underwood.

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

In the present study. 2.. 1999). Bettencourt et al. 1998. al. and specific content. Oetting and Swaim (2003) used the same approach to examine angry cognitions made by drivers under varying conditions of provocation. Those authors used the instrument to assess hostility and negative affect within a population of veterans diagnosed with combat-related posttraumatic stress disorder (Crowson. 2000. insecurity about status. 2006). Sani. Carbone. it was hypothesised that aggression would have a negative effect on behaviour in traffic. Undén. TAPB is characterised by a sense of time urgency. Lynch. Magnavita. McKee. Sato. 2001). hostility and difficulty achieving states of relaxation (Ben-Zur. Kumashiro & Kume. Originally identified by Friedman and Rosenman (1974). that the total amount. Frueh & Snyder. Later still. 2002. 1985). aggression. Dewar (2002b) noted that TAPB has been one of the variables most consistently linked to driving performance. Kamada. impatience. Elofsson & Krakau. Thurman. consistent with earlier research by Deffenbacher et al. Blumenthal. Justification of aggression-related hypotheses. Miyake. Based on the extensive research on the association between aggression and unsafe driving behaviour (Galovski et. 1999.with which individuals make cognitive statements reflecting aggressive sentiments. Petrilli. 73 . Deffenbacher. Rice. 1999. 1981. Narda. Williams & Haney. indirectly. Karlberg.6.6 2. 2006. on crash and injury occurrence. They found that perjorative labelling and vengeful or retaliatory thoughts correlated highly with self-reported aggressive driving. (2003). competitiveness. aggression was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. of hostile automatic thought would moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic. James & Nahl.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. It was also hypothesised.

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

In a subsequent study. on the other hand. 2. driving exposure and the place where they had learned to drive all had direct effects on Type A results. 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. The BIT scale was positively correlated with the student version of the Jenkins Activity Survey (SJAS. Of the four BIT factors. 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). Miles and Johnson (2003).2 A Conceptual Shift from TAPB to Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) as a Variable Synodinos and Papacostas (1985) also attempted to examine the TAPB dimensions that related to driving behaviour in a sample of Hawaiian university students. Gender. 1977). then use of the Type A/B 75 . If all four BIT factors contribute to accident proneness.6.of TAPB that had the most significant influence on driving risks. with higher BIT scores reflecting a stronger Type A orientation. emphasising the four individual dimensions of behaviour in traffic rather than the composite BIT total score. Glass. as measured by the student version of the SJAS. Using an instrument with items at extreme ends of the Type A/B continuum. all four BIT factors significantly predicted participants’ self-reported driving characteristics. specifically measuring the effects of drivers’ usurpation of right-of-way (lane violations and reluctance to yield). ethnicity. namely “externally-focused frustration”. Papacostas and Synodinos concluded that: Type A/B behaviour is consistently related to only one of the four driving factors obtained by the BIT. only externally-focused frustration was consistently correlated with Type A behaviour. At the same time. Papacostas and Synodinos (1988) reported several further analyses of their original data. they examined the influence of TAPB on a number of driving outcomes. freeway urgency (excessive speed choice).

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

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

Study 1A investigated the effects of demographic (driver age. through their action on proximal variables (behaviour in traffic). 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. with the addition of a fourth psychological variable. with the addition of a third psychological variable. driving and psychological variables were linked to each other and to self-reported driving behaviour.2). In Study 1C. hostile automatic thoughts (see Figure 3. each of which sought to replicate and expand the previous one. using automobile drivers as the units of analysis.3). 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.1 Conceptualisation and the Research Framework Based on the discussion in the previous chapter. 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. Then. the research model was developed and tested in studies 1A. 1B and 1C. aggression (see Figure 3. 78 . gender and ethnicity) and psychological (locus of control and hopelessness) variables in predicting self-reported BIT and then on self-reported crash and injury occurrence (see Figure 3.1). 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. each study explored the extent to which demographic.CHAPTER 3 METHOD OF INVESTIGATION 3. In Study 1B. the present research attempted to support the notion that variables in the distal context (psychological factors) contributed to crashes and injuries.

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

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

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

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

(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. In the resulting measure of this variable. Then. three demographic variables (driver age.8 Crash Occurrence Participants reported whether or not they had experienced a motor vehicle crash.3 3.. within the preceding twelve months and provided details about the nature of the crash. and. Then.2. in Study 1A. 3.1 Research Design of the Study Study 1A Specifically. to the extent of inattention conditions. travel frequency. to contemporaneous roadway and traffic 3.2. urging others to move faster or out of the way by sounding the horn). the influence of driving experience. 88 . a “1” was scored if the participant reported a crash and a “0” was scored if the participant did not report a crash.3. 3. the interrelationships between the demographic variables. while driving.9 Injury Occurrence Participants also indicated whether they had been forced to seek medical treatment for an injury incurred during the reported 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. In the resulting measure of this variable. the extent to which self-reported BIT of automobile drivers predicted crash and injury occurrence was assessed while controlling the effects of driving experience and the drivers’ self-reported travel frequency. gender and ethnicity) and two psychological variables (locus of control and hopelessness) on BIT was tested.g.them (e.

travel frequency. the moderating effect of hopelessness on the relationship between locus of control and BIT was tested. the influence of driving characteristics. the mediating effect of BIT on the relationship between psychological factors and crash occurrence and injury occurrence was tested.psychological variables (locus of control and hopelessness) and BIT were examined. travel frequency. Finally. three moderating effects were measured: (a) the moderating effect of hopelessness on the relationship between locus of control and BIT. and (b) the moderating effect of locus of control on the relation between aggression and BIT.3. the psychological variables and BIT were examined. hopelessness. gender and ethnicity) and three psychological variables (locus of control. hopelessness and aggression) on BIT was tested. In this study. In this study. three demographic variables (driver age. 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. Then. Figure 3. Then. gender and ethnicity) and four psychological variables (locus of control. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) on BIT was tested. the interrelationships between the demographic variables.2 illustrates the research design for Study 1B. the influence of driving characteristics.2 Study 1B While again controlling the effects of driving experience and drivers’ self- reported travel frequency. the extent to which self-reported BIT predicted crash and injury occurrence in automobile drivers was assessed. the mediating effect of the BIT on the relations between psychological variables and crash occurrence and injury occurrence was tested. the psychological variables and BIT were examined. Finally. Then. 3. Figure 3.1 illustrates the research design for Study 1A. the interrelationships between the demographic variables. two moderating effects were tested: (a) the moderating effects of hopelessness on the relationship between locus of control and BIT. three demographic variables (driver age. In Study 1B. (b) the moderating effect of locus 89 .3 Study 1C In Study 1C. 3. Then.3.

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

Second.2: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.4 Formulation of Hypotheses Based on the conceptualisation and research framework.3: Taxicab experience will have a negative influence on total BIT score 91 .1. the measurement of hopelessness and hostile automatic thoughts would have required a level of attention and concentration on the part of the drivers that could have distracted them from the safe operation of their taxicabs.1.2.1: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1. 3.3: Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.4: Destination-Activity orientation will have a positive influence on injury occurrence Y Y Y Y Y 3 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y H2: Driver characteristics will influence behaviour in traffic H2.1: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.2 :Freeway urgency will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.3:Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.2: Freeway urgency will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.2: Travel frequency will have a negative influence on total BIT score H2. limitations were imposed on administration time by driver willingness to participate and by research cost considerations. instruments employed to measure hopelessness and hostile automatic thoughts used language and response formats not conducive to verbal administration procedures.2.1. the following fifteen hypotheses and sixty sub-hypotheses were formulated: Table 3.1.2. Gender was not included as a demographic variable in Study 3 because all taxicab drivers in the sample were male. Third.1: Driver experience will have a negative influence on total BIT score H2.2. potentially raising questions of reliability and validity.4:Destination-Activity orientation will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.1: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.1: Research Hypotheses STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 H1: Behaviour in traffic will have a positive influence on motor vehicle crash outcomes 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. a risk that would have been unethical to impose both on the drivers and on the research assistants who were collecting the data.

3.1.2: Gender will influences Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.1.1: Ethnicity will influence Locus of Control: Internality H4.1: Gender will influence Aggression H10.3: Aggression will have a positive influence on Externally-focused Frustration H11.1: Gender will influence Hopelessness H5.2: Ethnicity will influence Hopelessness H5.2.3: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H4.1: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Internality H4.1 (continued) STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 3 H3: Demographic variables will influence behaviour in traffic H3.1: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Usurpation of Right-of Way H7.3: Age will have a negative influence on Hopelessness H6.2: Ethnicity will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.2.2: Externality-Chance will have a positive influence on Hopelessness H6.3: Externality-Powerful-Others will have a positive influence on total BIT score H9: Hopelessness will moderate the locus of control-BIT Relationship H9.1: Internality will have a negative influence on total BIT score H8.2: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Freeway Urgency H7.2: Age will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.3.4: Aggression will have a positive influence on Destination-Activity Orientation 92 .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 H11.3.2.2: Aggression will have a positive influence on Freeway Urgency H11.1: Gender will influence total BIT score H3.3: Age will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others Y Y Y Y Y Y H5: Demographic variables will influence hopelessness H5.1: Internality will have a negative influence on Hopelessness H6.3: 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 H4.2: Externality-Chance will have a positive influence on total BIT score H8.3: Ethnicity will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H4.1.1: Aggression will have a positive influence on Usurpation of Right-of Way H11.2: Hopelessness will moderate the Externality(Chance)-BIT relationship H9.Table 3.2: Ethnicity will influence Aggression H10.1: Age will influence Locus of Control: Internality H4.3: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Externally-focused Frustration H7.1: Hopelessness will moderate the Internality-BIT relationship H9.2: Ethnicity will influence total BIT score H3.3: Hopelessness will moderate the Externality(Powerful-Other)-BIT relationship H10: Demographic variables will influence aggression H10.4: Hopelessness will have positive influence on Destination-Activity Orientation H8: Locus of Control will influence behaviour in traffic H8.3: Externality-Powerful-Others will have a positive influence on Hopelessness H7: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on behaviour in traffic H7.

using the same procedures as in Study 1.1 (continued) STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 3 Y Y Y H12: Locus of control will moderate the aggression-BIT relationship H12.3: Age will have a negative influence on hostile automatic thoughts H14: Hostile automatic thoughts will have a positive influence on Behaviour in Traffic H14.2: Ethnicity will influence hostile automatic thoughts H13.1: Gender will have a positive influence on hostile automatic thoughts H13.5 3.1: Internality will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12. registered in a freshman course offered within the Faculty of Management. Data were collected during three consecutive trimesters. Participants in Study 2 were undergraduate students at the same private university.1 Methods of Data Collection and Analysis The Sample Participants in Study 1 were undergraduate students at a private university in peninsular Malaysia.3: Thoughts of Revenge will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation Note: Y=YES 3. with psychological tests and inventories administered to groups of students during lecture sessions.1: Thoughts of Physical Aggression will have a positive influence on total BIT H14.2: Thoughts of the Derogation of Others will have a positive influence on BIT H14.5. and those from the third round of data collection were included in Study 1C. within a 14-month period.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 H13.1: Thoughts of Physical aggression will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation H15.2: 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 .2: Thoughts of Derogation-of-Others will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation H15. those from the second round of data collection were included in Study 1B.Table 3.3: Thoughts of Revenge will have a positive influence on total BIT score H15: Hostile automatic thoughts will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H15. Participants from the first round of data collection were included in Study 1A. 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.

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

” “On a clear highway.2. I usually think about what I have to do when I get there. Table 3. I usually feel like pushing them off the road. as indicated in table 3.on” versus “When a traffic light turns green and the car in front of me doesn’t get going immediately.” “I often find myself checking the time while driving to work.” “I often blow my horn at someone as a way of expressing my frustration. I usually drive a few kilometres above the speed limit. Items were presented in two alternate forms (Form A and Form B).91) were found to be internally consistent. based on a principal components analysis of earlier-reported data. On each form. Destination-activity orientation 8 Total 52 95 . to school or to an appointment with someone. Freeway urgency 14 III. Externally-focused frustration 6 IV. In a later study.” “I usually get upset at drivers who do not signal their driving intentions. of items 24 Sample items “When I am in a traffic jam and the lane next to mine starts to move.” “I get extremely irritated when I am travelling behind a slow moving vehicle.2: Dimensions of the BIT scale Factor I. Six of the items are answered on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree”. then the item of the pair representing the opposite end of the continuum was placed in Form B and vice versa. Items in Form A and Form B are presented in random order.80. Their analysis revealed four dimensions.” “When a motor vehicle cuts in front of me. Papacostas and Synodinos (1988) provided additional psychometric parameters of the BIT scale. such that if the TABP alternative of an item pair was placed in Form A. Synodinos and Papacostas reported that Form A and Form B (which correlated . 20 items are answered on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from “most like me” to “least like me”. I just wait for a while until it moves”) for a total of 52 item stems. with a coefficient alpha of .” “While travelling to work (or to school). Usurpation of right-ofway No.” II. I try to move that lane as soon as possible.

References to “miles per hour” were changed to “kilometres per hour”. I will not be given leadership responsibility without appealing to those in positions of power”. High scores on the externality-powerful-others (P) scale indicate that respondents expect that powerful others exert a high degree of control over their lives. A sample item is “I have often found that what is going to happen will happen”. A sample item is “When I get what I want.Certain items in the original American version were re-worded to make them relevant to the Malaysian context and driving jargon.5. References to the “gas pedal” were replaced by “accelerator”. References to the faster. 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. 3. High scores on the internality (I) scale indicate that respondents expect to have a high degree of control over their own lives. The phrase “cross-junction” was added to items pertaining to behaviour at intersections. it’s usually because I worked hard for it”. A sample item is “Although I might have good ability.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. 96 . passing lane were changed from “left lane” to “right lane” and the word “pass” was replaced with “overtake”. ranging from +3 (“agree strongly”) to –3 (“disagree strongly”). High scores on the externality-chance (C) scale indicate that respondents expect expect chance forces or luck to have control over their lives.2. Participants scored all 24 items on a 6-point scale.

1982. if not.3: The Five Subscales of the Aggression Questionnaire Subscale Physical Aggression (PHY) Verbal Aggression (VER) Anger (ANG) Hostility (HOS) Indirect Aggression (IND) Total No. if endorsed. 1993. Each of the 20 statements is scored 1. anger. I may mess up someone’s work.” “I sometimes feel that people are laughing at me behind my back. Of the 20 true-false statements.3).” “At times I feel I have gotten a raw deal out of life. Beck et al. I may tell them what I think of them.4 Aggression Questionnaire (AQ) This questionnaire is a 34-item scale measuring constructs related to the expression of aggression. Item scores are summed to yield a total score ranging from 0 to 20. Participants indicate a response on a five-point Likert-type scale (1 = “not at all like me”.” “I let my anger show when I do not get what I want.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. 3.5.” “If I’m angry enough. or 0. Durham. 2005. a sample item of which is “I look forward to the future with hope and enthusiasm”.” “I often find myself disagreeing with people. Eleven items are keyed true to indicate pessimism about the future.” “At times I feel like a bomb ready to explode.2.3. 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”. 5 = “completely like me”) that best represent how well the item describe them.” “I get into fights more than most people. A total aggression score can be calculated from summed item responses. verbal aggression. High internal consistency has been reported across a range of samples (Benzein & Berg.” “When people annoy me.5.” 97 . Tanaka et al. I might give him or her the silent treatment. Table 3. and five subscales measure physical aggression. 1974). 1996). 9 are keyed false to indicate optimism about the future.2. hostility and indirect aggression (see Table 3.” “When someone really irritates me. of items 8 5 7 8 6 34 Sample Items: “At times I can’t control the urge to hit someone. High scores are taken to indicate a generally pessimistic view of the future and a high degree of hopelessness.

Shapiro.6 Personal Information Form (PIF) Participants also completed a 4-page questionnaire recording personal information. Snyder et al. Table 3. ethnicity and history of motor vehicle crashes and injuries. derogation of others and revenge respectively.5. . Boyd.4). (1997) reported high internal consistency for all three sub-scales. Cascardi & Pythress. gender.2. 3.92. age. 98 . 1997.88 for the five subscales (Buss & Warren. 2000) and discriminant validity (Archer & Haigh. Questions included details about the participant’s licensing and driving background. High scores on a sub-scale indicated that type of hostile thinking had occurred to the participant frequently. Previous studies have established high levels of concurrent validity (Harris. 5 = “all the time”).5 Hostile Automatic Thoughts (HAT) This 30-item self-report index measures the frequency of recurring hostile thoughts. 2000).88 and . Three factors – physical aggression. 1996).2.91 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.” “I just want to hurt this person as bad as s/he hurt me.” 3. Williams.” Participants responded on a 5point Likert-type scale (1 = “not at all”. 1997. Each item includes a statement expressing some hostile thought and respondents are asked to indicate “whether that thought (or one like it) has occurred to you about another driver when you have been driving.5. with coefficient alpha values of .High internal consistency has been reported with a coefficient alpha of .94 for the total aggression scores and ranging from . derogation of others and revenge – were identified and are included as subscales (see table 3. of Items 11 10 9 30 Sample Items “If I could get away with it.” “I want to get back at this person.4: The Three Subscales of the Hostile Automatic Thoughts (HAT) Scale Factor Physical aggression Derogation of others Revenge Total No.71 to .

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

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

1: Gender influence the level of BIT H3.4: Hopelessness influence the level of Destination-activity Orientation Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression 101 .1: Gender influence the Locus of Control H4.2: “Frequency of traveling” influence the level of BIT H2.2: Hopelessness influence the level of Freeway Urgency H7.Table 3.5: Statistical Methods for Hypothesis Testing Data Analysis Methods The Direct Effect of BIT on Accident Involvement H1.2: Externality (Chance) is positively related to Hopelessness H6.1: Internality is negatively related to hopelessness H6.1: Gender influence the level of Hopelessness H5.1: The level of BIT influence the crash occurrence H1.3: 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: The level of BIT influence the crash injury Logistic Regression Logistic Regression The Direct Effect of Driving characteristics on BIT H2.3: Externality (Powerful-Other) is positively related to Hopelessness Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression The Direct Effect of Hopelessness on BIT H7.3: “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 influence the Locus of Control H4.1: “Length of having driving licence” influence the level of BIT H2.3: 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 H4.3: Hopelessness influence the level of Externally-focused Frustration H7.2: Ethnicity background influence the level of BIT H3.3: Age influence the Locus of Control Independent Sample tTest Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance The Direct Effect of Demographic Factors on Hopelessness H5.1: Hopelessness influence the level of Usurpation of Right-of Way H7.2: Ethnicity background influence the level of Hopelessness H5.

3: The higher Externality (Powerful-Other).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 H8.1: The higher the Internality.Table 3.1: Gender has a positive influence on hostile automatic thoughts H13. the lower the BIT level H8. 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 H9.1: Gender influences the level of Aggression H10.3: Aggression influence the level of Externally-focused Frustration H11.4: 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 H12.2: Externality(Chance) moderates the Aggression-BIT relation H12.5 (continued) Data Analysis Methods The Direct Effect of Locus of Control on BIT H8.2: The higher Externality (Chance).3: Age influences the level of Aggression Independent Sample t-Test Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance The Direct Effect of Aggression on BIT H11.2: Ethnicity influences hostile automatic thoughts H13.1: Hopelessness moderates the Internality-BIT relation Multiple Linear Regression H9.3: Age has a negative influence on hostile automatic thoughts Independent Sample t-Test Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance 102 .1: Internality moderates the Aggression-BIT relation H12.2: Hopelessness moderates the Externality(Chance)-BIT relation H9.2: Ethnicity background influences the level of Aggression H10.2: Aggression influence the level of Freeway Urgency H11.3: Hopelessness moderates the Externality (Powerful-Other)-BIT relation Multiple Linear Regression The Direct Effect of Demographic Factors on Aggression H10.1: Aggression influence the level of Usurpation of Right-of Way H11.

hopelessness. locus of control. hopelessness.2: Thoughts of Derogation-of-Others have a positive influence on BIT H14. When significant differences were observed.7. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) differed for male and female drivers. t-tests were used to determine whether participants’ scores on psychological variables (BIT. 103 . locus of control. ANOVA was used to determine whether participants’ scores on psychological variables (BIT.2 One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) ANOVA is used to compare means for more than two groups. In the present research.3: Thoughts of Revenge have a positive influence on BIT Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression The Moderating Effect of HAT on the Aggression-BIT Relation H15.1: Thoughts of Physical Aggression have a positive influence on BIT H14.2: Thoughts of Derogation-of-Others will moderate the AggressionBIT relation H1353: Thoughts of Revenge will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation Multiple Linear Regression Multiple Linear Regression Multiple Linear Regression 3. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) differed for drivers with different ethnic backgrounds. 3.7.5 (continued) Data Analysis Methods The Direct Effect of HAT on BIT H14. 2000).Table 3.1 Independent-sample t-tests Generally.1: Thoughts of Physical Aggression will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation H15. t-tests are used to compare the means of two groups. post hoc analyses were carried out using the Scheffé method (Klockars & Hancock. In the present study.

R-square and coefficient values were then estimated to determine the significance of the moderating effect of hopelessness. the moderating effects of the variables were tested using hierarchical regression methods. For instance. the products of P x hopelessness scores were added into the regression equation. It is useful for analysis of variance models with one or more factor variables or covariates and a single dependent variable. second. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) and behaviour in traffic (BIT). Also. the direction of the relationship (positive or negative). In the present research. Application of multiple regression analysis involves more than one single independent variable. hopelessness. multiple regression analysis was used to test whether internality (I). 3. GLM univariate analysis of variance was used to determine whether there was an interaction effect between ethnic background and psychological factors (locus of control. to test whether hopelessness moderated the P-BIT relationship.7.4 Linear Regression Analysis This analysis is used to determine if a relationship exists between a dependent variable and an independent variable and. if so.3.5 Multiple Regression Analysis This analysis aims to examine if there is a relationship between the dependent variable and independent variables. 104 . linear regression was applied to examine the relationship between psychological variables (locus of control. hopelessness. externality-chance (C) and externalitypowerful-others (P) have an effect on hopelessness.7. 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. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) on behaviour in traffic (BIT).7. 3. In the present research.

3. 3.7.7. “1” was scored if a crash injury had occurred and “0” if no crash injury had occurred. 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). each of the two outcome variables (crash occurrence and injury occurrence) was framed as a binary variable. Since driver experience and travel frequency were expected to have an influence on the outcome variables. seeks to determine the odds that an event will or will not occur. SEM was carried out. The result was a measurement model described as a contextual-mediated model. logistic regression. Linear or multiple regression seek to measure the degree of influence that variables will have on a dependent variable. these variables were controlled as covariates in the logistic regression equation. 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. In the present research. and (b) examine the interrelationships among variables included in the research design. In the present research. on the other hand. 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. 710). to (a) assess the validity of the instruments. Goodness-of-fit indicates how 105 . That is. the purpose of which was to distinguish the distal and proximal contextual factors related to crash outcomes. using LISREL. “1” was scored if a crash had occurred and “0” if no crash had occurred.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.7 Structural Equation Modelling. as well as between several latent constructs” (p.

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

0.7. the ratio indicates a good fit.10 indicate poor fit. an insignificant p-value can result in good fit. 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). Carmines and McIver (1981) have noted that.. 1998.00 in which values greater than .7.3 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. 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.validation index (ECVI). (2006) have highlighted that for sample size greater than 250 (with a number of observed variables less than 12). 3. the parsimony goodness-of-fit index (PGFI). 2006).7. with unknown but optimally chosen parameter values. 3. 107 .7.2 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. and a measure of parsimony fit. 2006). Thus.7. pp. when the ratio of χ2 to df yields a value of less than 3. the closer the fit between the hypothesized model (established under the null hypothesis). 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. the normed fit index (NFI). the higher the probability associated with χ2. an insignificant p-value is expected. fit the population covariance matrix if it were available” (Byrne. Hair et al. one incremental index.1 Chi-Square (χ2). 3. 1998).7. 112). However.

Thus.00. 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. 3.00 with value closes to 1.7. the normed fit index (NFI. 3. 3.6 Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index (AGFI) An adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI. The index can range from zero to 1.7. with higher values indicating better fit. it is known as one of the most widely used indices (Hair et al.7. Bentler & Bonnet.7. an RMR greater than . Tanaka & Huba. 2006).7.Root mean square residual (RMR) is another badness-of-fit measure. CFI is an improved version of the normed fit index. 108 . Since the CFI is insensitive to model complexity. The index ranges between zero and 1..00.00 being indicative of good fit. and a model with perfect fit would produce an NFI of 1.7.00 with value more than .4 Normed Fit Index (NFI) One of the original incremental measures of fit.5 Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) and Comparative Fit Index (CFI) The GFI can range from zero to 1. but AGFI values are typically lower than GFI values in proportion to model complexity.10 usually suggests a poor fit of the data for the model. 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. Values range from zero to 1.00. The AGFI penalises more complex models and favours those with a minimum number of free paths.

Browne & Cudeck. the model with the higher ECVI value is generally regarded as presenting a better fit.. Although values range from zero to 1. Values range between zero and 1. 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. 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. James. 750).3. In such cases.8 Parsimony Goodness-of-Fit Index (PGFI) A third class of measures is sometimes recognised as the parsimony indices. it takes into account the actual sample size and the difference that could be expected in another sample. a PGFI value is meant only to be used in comparing it to another model’s PGFI value” (Hair et al. it is most commonly used when comparing the performance of one model to another. p. 3.7 Expected Cross-Validation Index (ECVI) The expected cross-validation index (ECVI. The ECVI also takes into account the number of estimated parameters for a given model. in this case. The parsimony goodness-of-fit index (PGFI. considering its fit relative to its complexity..7.7. based on the combination of fit and parsimony represented by the index. It should be noted that.7. 1994). Mulaik & Brett. means a model with fewer estimated parameter paths (Hair et al.7. 109 . 2006.00. Like other parsimony fit indices. designed specifically to provide information about which model among a competing set of models is best. 2006). A parsimony fit measure is improved by a better fit and/or a simpler model which.00. and the model with the higher PGFI is considered preferable. 1982) uses the parsimony ratio to adjust the GFI in order to compare two models. “a PGFI taken alone is not a useful indicator of a single model’s fit.

3. p. 2000).05. and platykurtic if it is less peaked. the distribution of test scores to the normal distribution. 1956). in this case. It determines whether the scores in the sample can reasonably thought to have come from a population having the theoretical distribution (Siegel. it is said to be positively skewed. 1976). “It is conventional to speak of a distribution as leptokurtic if is more peaked than … the normal distribution. Kurtosis refers to the flatness or peakedness of one distribution in relation to another. which means that it falls between leptokurtic and platykurtic distributions” (Ferguson. 37). When p-values for the Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic are greater than our α=. In this case.9 Skewness and Kurtosis Skewness refers to the symmetry or asymmetry of a frequency distribution. the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to assess whether there was a significant departure from normality in the distribution of variable scores. If a distribution is assymetrical and the larger frequencies tend to be concentrated toward the low end of the variable and the smaller frequencies toward the high end. the distribution is said to be negatively skewed (Ferguson. 1976. the larger frequencies being concentrated toward the high end of the variable and the smaller frequencies toward the low end.7. then it is possible to conclude the the data do not violate the normality assumption (Carver & Nash.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.7. Many parametric statistics assume that variables are distributed approximately normally and SPSS calculates values for skewness and kurtosis to assist in determing 110 . The normal distribution is spoken of as mesokurtic. 3. If the opposite holds.

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

5% 57.13 years (SD = 1.4% 269 27.6% 82 15.9% 977 100% 100% Female Total 112 .5% 6.5% 27.5% MalaysianIndian 64 14. descriptive statistics are presented and the results of hypothesis testing are reported.6% 15.9% Total 441 100% 45. 4.1). Ages of participants ranged from 18 to 29 years.6% 12.9% 23. There were 855 participants for whom the primary mode of transportation was the automobile and 133 for whom the motorcycle was the primary mode of transportation (see Table 4.1% 121 22. with a mean age of 20.1% 34. It begins with a discussion of reliability and validity tests of the instruments. The contextual mediated model was tested using (1) regression analysis (SPPS) and (2) structural equation modelling (LISREL). A contextual mediated model showing interrelationships between variables is introduced.1% 562 57.4% 333 62.CHAPTER 4 ANALYSIS OF THE DATA This chapter presents the results of the research. Thus 977 participants were included in the analysis.1 Description of the Samples Age.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 33.55). Then.4% 146 14. with results of these tests reported in this chapter.3% 8.1% 536 100% 54.1.9% 14. Thirteen of the participants did not complete all the questionnaires and two participants completing questionnaires reported that they did not have driving licences.1 4. Gender and Ethnicity Participants were 992 undergraduate students at an English-language Malaysian university. Table 4.5% Ethnicity MalaysianChinese 229 51.

range from 18 to 29).63.Female participants (approximately 55 per cent) slightly out-numbered males.89 years (SD = 1. In Study 1B. 301 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode of transportation to be the automobile comprised the sample. followed by Malay (27. 302 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode of transportation to be the automobile comprised the sample.5 per cent). In Study 1A. but 16 were excluded from the sample due to language and comprehension difficulties or because they chose to withdraw from data collection before all instruments had been administered.01 years (SD = 1. Malaysian-Chinese represented the highest number of participants (57. A crosstabulation between gender and ethnicity (see Table 4. range from 18 to 27). with a mean age of 20. In Study 2. range of 18 to 26). 122 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode of transportation to be the motorcycle comprised the sample. with a mean age of 20. Thus.5 per cent) and Malaysian-Indian (14. with a mean age of 20. In Study 3. 149 taxicab drivers participated.25 years (SD = 1.53.43 years (SD = 1.68.1) showed that most of the drivers were female Malaysian-Chinese.9 per cent). with a mean age of 19. 113 . 252 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode of transportation to be the automobile comprised the sample. In Study 1C.35. range from 18 to 25).

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 % 12.1.2: Age. Gender and Ethnicity of Participants in Studies 1.D. range from 23 to 73). Participants who had received their driving licenses in Selangor.7 4. Kuala Lumpur.63 11.25 43.9 2.responses from 133 taxicab drivers were included in data analysis.3% of the sample.2.65 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 .01 20.5 8. Table 4.19 S.1 6.4% of the sample.3).5 114 .35 1. they hailed from across the country (see table 4.65.89 20.2 7. The mean age was 43. SD = standard deviation 4.43 19. 1. Table 4.19 years (SD = 11. 2 and 3 Gender STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 3 N 301 302 252 122 133 Mean Age 20.53 1.2 Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 1 Although participants in Studies 1A. 1B and 1C were all students at a single Malaysian university.68 1. Descriptive data for each sample are provided in Table 4. Johor or Perak made up 53. Participants from East Malaysia comprised 5.3 11.

1.2 17.8 11.3 Geographic Distribution of the Sample in Study 2 Participants in Study 2 were all students at a single Malaysian university.0 10.1. Perak or Penang made up 50.4).6 1. Participants from East Malaysia comprised 4.1 9.6 2.8 9.7 3. Participants who had received their driving licenses in Selangor.8 5.7 11.6 100 4.7 100 4.9% of the sample.Penang Perak Perlis Sabah Sarawak Selangor Terengganu 67 102 6 27 19 147 31 855 7. As the sample was 115 .5 14.4: 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 % 13.9 0.2 2.0 7.9 7.2 3.5 1.1% of the sample. but again they held licenses from various states (see table 4.4 Geographic Distribution of the Sample in Study 3 Participants in Study 3 were all professional taxicab operators who had been licensed to drive their vehicles commercially within Kuala Lumpur.4 4.4 0. Table 4.

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.intended to be representative of Kuala Lumpur taxicab drivers. the higher is the internal consistency of the measure.70 or greater is generally considered acceptable (Nunnally. 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. In the present research. A Cronbach’s Alpha of . no attempt was made to determine the geographic location in which drivers had originally received noncommercial drivers’ licenses. 1978). 2000). reliability was measured using Cronbach’s coefficient alpha. 116 . 4. This statistic reflects the consistency of respondents’ answers compared to all the items in a measure (Sekaran.1 Reliability and Validity Reliability Test Results: Cronbach’s Alpha Cooper and Schindler (2000) claimed that reliability relates to the accuracy and precision of a measurement procedure. Sekaran (2000) offered a similar definition in which the reliability of a measure indicates the stability and consistency with which the instrument measures a concept and helps to assess the “goodness” of the measure.2 4.5). The closer Cronbach’s Alpha is to 1.2.

726 Not Applicable Not Applicable α .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 .810 .730 .784 .711 .786 .727 .740 .824 . of Item α Study 2 (N=122) Motorcycle Drivers (student sample) Study 3 (N=133) Taxicab Drivers α .774 .910 .720 .733 .808 .798 .740 .772 α .747 .734 .830 .714 .701 .781 .720 .715 .782 .702 .737 .739 .741 .742 .Table 4.5: Summary of Internal Reliability Coefficient Results Study 1A (N=301) Study 1B (N=302) Automobile Drivers (student sample) Study 1C (N=252) Variables No.890 .718 .783 .904 .738 .715 .887 .727 .817 .827 .749 .782 .701 Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable 117 .811 .703 .808 .906 .735 .754 .756 .783 .788 .881 α .768 Not Applicable Not Applicable .707 .

1998).903 . we may be fairly certain that the measures are reasonably reliable.804 . 2002) was used to establish evidence of construct validity for various measures.803 . 1985).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 .805 .808 Study 2 .05 indicate good fit.10 indicate a mediocre fit. The results of parallel-form reliability for the BIT instrument in different studies are shown in Table 4. 1998). it was also possible to measure reliability as a coefficient of correlation between Form A and Form B (Synodinos &Papacostas. Reliability coefficients in all studies where both forms were used are acceptable since Form A and Form B were highly correlated.811 .807 .4.3 Validity Test Results In the present research. values ranging from .08 to . and those greater than .2. 1998. 118 .876 .929 . ordering or other test construction factors” (p. In Study 3.806 . Byrne. 205). more than .2 Parallel-Form Reliability In the case of the BIT scale. 1998).857 .10 indicate poor fit (MacCallum et al.802 4. confirmatory factor analyses using LISREL (Jöreskog & Sörbom.804 Study 1C .801 . 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.916 .6.2. depending on which is used (Byrne. with minimal error variance caused by wording.958 .807 Study 1B . The root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) index measures the error of approximation in the population and determines whether the model. Sekaran (2003) notes that “if two comparable forms are highly correlated (.80.953 . RMSEA values less than . only Form A was used.80 or above). Table 4.800 . fits the population correlation matrix or covariance matrix. with unknown but optimally chosen parameter values.804 .

92 1.00 . it is possible to have negative GFI. GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index.99 .070 . CFI= Comparative Fit Index 119 .98 Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation.00 1. the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) is estimated to indicate whether complete covariation in the data is achieved. 4. and destination-activity orientation. Table 4. As shown in Table 4.00 .97 1.000 .100.92 .Jöreskog and Sörbom (1993) reported that.000 . A third statistic.00 .000 .99 .00 1.000 .00 . it is generally considered an acceptable fit to the data (Bentler.00 1.97 .91 .061 .098 . RMSEA values in each case were less than .047 .000 .089 .96 .074 . 1992).054 .7: Validity of BIT scales – Summary of Confirmatory Factor Analyses Study 1A RMSEA Study 1B CFI RMSEA Study 1C CFI RMSEA GFI GFI GFI CFI Behaviour In Traffic (BIT)  Usurpation of right-of-way  Freeway Urgency  Externally-Focused Frustration  Destination-Activity Orientation .00 1.3. If the value of CFI exceeds .2. This reflects that the model fits worse than no model at all. indicating good fits.96 .91 .1 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the BIT Scale In the present research.90.96 .000 . parameter values for all four of these factors were within acceptable ranges.00 1.024 .00 (the closer to 1.000 .90.7. the higher the goodness-of-fit).00 1.00 .98 .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 .077 . although the GFI index ranges from zero to 1.98 1.00. freeway urgency.99 .000 .00 1.92 .00 1.048 .00 1.98 .00 .95 1.93 . externally-focused frustration.98 1.99 . drivers’ behaviour in traffic was measured by the four component factors of the BIT scale: usurpation of right-of-way.96 1.097 .99 .97 1.097 . and both GFI and CFI were more than .

95 1. indicating good fits (See Table 4.030 .99 .085 .085 .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).92 .2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Levenson Locus of Control Scale Locus of control was measured across three dimensions: internality (I).95 . Table 4.91 .93 .091 .92 .97 . Each component of the locus of control was measured separately.98 Study 2 RMSEA Study 3 CFI RMSEA GFI GFI CFI Locus of Control  Internality  Externality (Chance)  Externality (Powerful-Other) .096 .98 .91 .93 .96 .2. RMSEA values were less than . verbal aggression (VER). externality-chance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P).2.100.081 .99 . GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index. and both GFI and CFI were more than . CFI= Comparative Fit Index 4. CFA revealed that parameter values for I.083 .93 .96 .3.97 .90. hostility (HOS) and indirect aggression 120 .93 .073 .059 .95 .93 .98 .98 Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation.91 . Five component factors of aggression were measured: physical aggression (PHY). anger (ANG).3.081 .058 .96 .98 .063 .071 .93 .92 .00 . C and P scales were all within acceptable ranges.96 .052 .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) .4. under the assumption that locus of control is a multidimensional phenomenon.000 .8.93 .

055 . GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index.10: Summary of LISREL Results on Validity for HAT (Study 1C) RMSEA Hostile Automatic Thought (HAT)  Physical Aggression  Derogation of Others  Revenge GFI CFI .98 .92 .025 . CFA revealed that parameter values for all five aggression subscales were within acceptable ranges.98 . derogation of others and revenge.92 .(IND).98 .096 .4 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the HAT Scale The HAT was only used in Study 1C (with automobile drivers sampled from a student population).073 . CFI= Comparative Fit Index 4.97 .100.089 .97 . Three classes of hostile automatic thoughts were measured: physical aggression.96 .088 .090 .95 . A total aggression score was arrived at by summing the five subscale scores.070 .10).97 .90.97 .98 . CFI= Comparative Fit Index 121 .99 .98 .95 .100.3.047 .088 . Table 4.96 .081 .97 .92 .97 .070 . RMSEA values were less than . CFA revealed that parameter values for all three measurement scales were within acceptable ranges.095 .96 . indicating good fit (see Table 4.98 .97 .98 .058 . and both GFI and CFI were more than .97 .9: Validity of the AQ scales – Summary of Confirmatory Factor Analysis Study 1B RMSEA Study 1C CFI RMSEA Study 3 CFI RMSEA GFI GFI GFI CFI Aggression (AQ)  Physical Aggression  Verbal Aggression  Anger  Hostility  Indirect Aggression .97 .98 .98 . indicating good fits (See Table 4. Table 4.90. and both GFI and CFI were more than .098 .98 .97 Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation. GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index.93 .97 .083 .94 .098 .9).94 .081 . RMSEA values were less than .98 .98 .96 Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation.2.

280) -.920(.034 (.656(.140) . Skewness and kurtosis values of ± 1 are acceptable (Leech et al.280) -.511(.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 .278(. Marcoulides & Hershberger.140) .332 (.140) .805(.280) .280) -.280) -.099(.239 (.403(.099) 1.188(.154(.875(.183) 1.107) 1.190) 1.719(. Skewness and Kurtosis Data were studied to determine whether they were normally distributed and therefore capable of satisfying parametric assumptions.356 (.186) 1.140) -.280) .179(.379(.280) .064) 1.099(.057) 1.106) 1.280) -.010 (.280) -.140) .280) -.. Table 4.962 (.052) 1.353(. but with a non-signficant platykurtic tendency for the locus of control data.102) 1.140) .080(.020 (.410(.146(.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 1.219 (.280) -.331(. 1997).280) .085) 1.409(.203(.280) .140) .085 (. 2005.560(.280) .351 (.140) -.191) 1.260) .3 Normality.105 (.140) -.297(.241(.140) .280) .11: Normality Tests.091) 1.409(.195 (.560(.140) -.064(.179(. Normality can also be assessed by examining sknewness and kurtosis values (Hair et al.278(.192(.297(.280) -. 2006).4.120) 1. In all cases.140) -.107 (.582(.140) -.428) .064(.069) 1.140) .05).453(.226 (.246(.085 (.280) . indicating that the distribution of scores did not depart from normality..091(.204(. Table 4.082 (.11 indicates that variable distribution fell within these limits.280) .094 (.140) -.408(.280) .099) 1.297 (.183) 1.192) 1.140) -.085) 1.037(.126(.280) .323 (. values for the Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic were non-significant (p>.022 (.140) -.256 (.280) .140) .091(.140) -.126(.

187) 1.359 (.154) -.417) -.306) .113 (.135) 1.417) -.153) .919 (.915(.276 (.128 (.497(.057) 1.247) 1.159(.131(.435) -.051) 1.295(.153) .210) .375) 1.006(.223 (.106(.259) .147(.098) 1.198(.306) .120(.435) -.324(.841(.360) .640(.306) .153) 983(.463(.306) -.884(.003 (.153) .978(.417) -.210) .153) .338 (.822 (.435) -.276(.210) .256(.219) .435) -.106(.962(.913 (.210) -.157) .070 (.153) .247) .138(.052) 1.130(.209(.501(.128) .160 (.153) .805 (.102) .417) -.219) .567(.327 (.417) .022 (.510) 1.719(.423(.266 (.979(.210) .219) .048(.210) .417) -.088 (.306) -.Table 4.264) .098) 1.847 (.064) 1.306) -.147(.300(.807 (.306) .052) 1.715(.210) .306) -.138) 1.219) -.812(.362(.051) .360) .244(.195 (.959 (.219) .370(.099) 1.153) .972(.852(.629(.994(.359 (.962 (.478(.062(.414(.306) .219) -.321) 1.210) .306) -.265) 1.952(.366) 1.469) 1.153) .11 (continued) KolmogorovSmirnov Z (Significance Level) Kurtosis Statistic (Standard Error) Skewness Statistic (Standard Error) Study 1C Internality Externality (Chance) Externality (Powerful Other) Hopelessness BIT Usurpation right-of-way Freeway Urgency Externally Focused Frustration Destination-activity Orientation AQ Physical Aggression Verbal Aggression Anger Hostility Indirect Aggression HAT Physical Aggression Degrerotion Revenge 1.392(.084) 1.435) .007(.279 (.567(.100) .210) -.110 (.153) .354 (.271(.022 (.210) .142(.911 (305) 1.360) .417) .426) .417) -.153) .186(.417) -.417) -.417) .537(.030(.366(.973(306) .297 (.435) -.986 (.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 .101) 1.104) 1.451(.443(.293 (.210) -.219) .153) -.540(.011 (.852(.106 (.317) 1.948(.799(.681(.435) -.053(.267) .940(.533) .153) .236(.467(.503(.713(.153) .153) -.053(.435) -.417) .277(.024 (.001 (.360) -.306) -.156(.024 (.219) -.214) 1.913(.270) 1.

with 44. 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. if so. Table 4. column b). Male and female automobile drivers reported involvement in one crash with almost the same frequency.13). whether the accident had resulted in (1) no injuries or injuries insufficiently severe to seek medical attention (see Table 4.12. (3) injuries requiring hospitalisation (see Table 4. injury occurrence was much higher. (2) injuries severe enough to require out-patient treatment at a medical clinic (see Table 4.4 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. males were more than twice as likely to report involvement in two or three automobile crashes.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.4. However. For motorcycle drivers.3 per cent being hospitalised. column a). 1B and 1C selfreported that they had been involved in at least one motor vehicle crash over the preceding year (see Table 4.12.12. 124 . column c).

Table 4. involved in three crashes Total Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Gender Male Female 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 . involved in three crashes Total Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Gender Male Female 80 57 119 103 33 44 232 204 24 9 19 7 7 2 50 18 12 5 9 3 1 2 22 10 Total 137 222 77 436 33 26 9 68 17 12 3 32 More than half of the motorcycle drivers sampled in Study 2 reported that they had been involved in at least one motor vehicle crash over the preceding year (see Table 4. involved in two crashes Total Ethnicity No. male motorcycle drivers reported higher crash occurrence than female motorcycle drivers. involved in one crash Total Ethnicity No. 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. Gender and Ethnicity in Study 2 (N=122) Motorcycle drivers Ethnicity No. involved in one crash Total Ethnicity No.14) Regardless of ethnic background.13: Crash Occurrence Frequency.

5 4. All distal and proximal variables were positively correlated except internality (I) which was negatively corrected with other variables. freeway urgency. proximal and outcome variables within the sample of automobile drivers. Both externality-chance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P) were not significantly correlated with the HAT subscale measuring hostile automatic thoughts related to the derogation-of-others.05). standard deviations and relationships between distal. Table 4. Table 4. Study 1C. All these correlations were significant (p<. Table 4.4.16 shows means.15 shows means. crash occurrence and crash injury. Also.17 shows means. BHS was not significantly correlated with verbal aggression (VER). Most of these correlations were significant (p<. it was not correlated with injury occurrence. Although VER was significantly correlated with crash occurrence. and destination-activity orientation. proximal and outcome variables within the sample of automobile drivers.05). All distal and proximal variables were positively correlated except I which was negatively corrected with other variables. standard deviations and relationships between distal.1 Distal and Proximal Variable Data Results of Study 1 Study 1A. externally-focused frustration. All distal and proximal variables were positively correlated except I which was negatively corrected with other variables. I was significantly correlated with all variables except with VER and hostility. proximal and outcome variables within the sample of automobile drivers. However.05). Hopelessness (BHS) was the only independent variable that was not significantly correlated with crash occurrence and injury occurrence. Most of these correlations were significant (p<. Study 1B. 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.5. in Study 1B. standard deviations and relationships between distal. 126 .

396** .209** 1 .435** .45 6.5 5.516** 1 -.76 3.22 3.52 34.562** -.147* -.381** .818** 1 .3455 .339** .306** .476 .247** .513** .155** .246** .345** 1 -.201** .44 4.202** .69 24.482** .416** 1 .376** .D.191** .147* .239** .Table 4.331** 1 * Correlation is significant at .342** -.442 1 -.316** .625** .00 165.533** .553** -.96 19.901** .218** .211** .08 2.405** .152** .58 .88 7.57 4.544** -.942** 1 .2691 6.280** .716** .23 2.05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .749** .804** .278** .04 26.376** .388** .78 .97 43.371** .01 level (2-tailed) 127 . 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.340** .129* . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 9.15: Means.434** .64 7.662** 1 .036 .231** .391** -.186** .566** 1 -.471** .027 1 .

147** .236** .97 Outcome Variables2 16 .298** .69 8.347** 1 -.01 level (2-tailed) 128 .55 9 21.366** .491** .051 .380** .05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .97 4 4.254** .099 . Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1B (n=302) Mean S.555** .440**.462** .438** 1 .376** .411** .489**.964** 1 .195** .140* .272** .148* .393** .071 .445** .400** .039 .355** .9 13 46.00 14 19.3079 .240** .584** -.518** .254** .762** .587** 1 -.028 -.162** .816** .089 -.355** .213** .172** .324** .372** .286* .430** .496** .448** .343** .013 1 .9 12 71.4960 17 .697** 1 .5695 .275** .103 -.378** .369** .85 9.150** .414** .408** .276** .22 4.847** .855** .278** 1 -.444** .509** .516** .028 .9 28.213** .842** 1 .178** .173* .542** . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Distal Variables1 1 9.48 5.41 3.353** .14 4.531** .602** 1 .358** .731** .65 Proximal Variables1 11 170.386** .363** .200** .167** .312** 1 -.586** .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 .86 6.225** .Table 4.669** 1 -.763** .56 2 4.271** .254** .067 -.172** .45 5 87.06 3 2.294** 1 .176* .401** .157** .5 6 17.514** .91 15 27.521** .48 3.43 12.D.523** .407** 1 -.84 7.60 10 16.434** .337** .779** 1 -.66 3.82 7 13.003 .481** .688**.279** .403** .103 -.25 8 18.540** .550** .505** .452** .338** .816** .335** .342** .515** .341** .53 19.491** .355** .520** .443** .331** .334** .213** .461** .319** .921** .463** .343** .50 5.380** .16: Means.382** 1 -.153** .268** .84 5.159 -.331** .4624 1 -.310** .418** .

166** .192** .228** .230** .451** .18 -.203** .401** .003 .158** .413** .313** .292** .254** .17 -.277**.454** .89 5.323** .252** .03 5. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Distal Variables1 1 10.189** .85 19.227** .368** .268**.588** 1 14 20.516 .530** .218** .229** .345** .230** .270** .49 6.226** .641** 1 4 4.270** .36 -.167** .259** .286** .01 level (2-tailed) S 129 .292** .03 -.263** .241** .307**.183** .183** .404** .9 -.057 .311** .392** .305** .58 9.130** .235** .281** .277** .383** .308** .476** .97 -.349** 1 16 67.314** .502** .101**.151* .109 .109 .293** .189** .549** 1 Proximal Variables1 15 161.8 -.38 5.338** .265** 1 19 25.86 -.199**.402** .05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .210**.615** .278** .210** .277** 1 8 19.209** .288** .324** .150* .526** .302** .254** .448** .137* .11 12.306** .343** .725** .304** .483** .320** .70 1 2 4.484** .306** .051 .192**.075 .148** .366** .531** 1 10 16.377** .749** .081 .245** .119* 1 21 .378** .37 6.212** .224**.095 .264** .191** .174** .-181** .278** .275** .370** .804** .373** .191** 1 3 .275** . Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1C (n=252) Mean S.185** .745** 1 7 13.42 3.186** .98 4.434** .00 -.076 .228** .271** .78 8.222** .224** .17: Means.106 .7 -.258** .52 7.465** .261** .412** .518** .422 -.428** .151* .103** .446** .342** .395** 1 11 65.033 .424** 1 12 18.70 3.390** .862** .356** .355** .141* .230 .67 7.246** .219** .193**.387** .196** .139** .183** .199** .735** .281** .422** 1 9 22.120 .079 1 Outcome Variables2 20 .251** .354** 1 5 88.250** .110 .131* .379** .423** .80 17.D.64 -.91 -.501 .343** .456** .340** .038 .592** .202** .181** .291** .304** .856** 1 17 43.357** .348** 1 6 16.69 -.364** .534** 1 18 19.162**.31 -.016 .481** .70 8.241** .Table 4.235** .095 .294** .506** .17 -.296** .05 -.069 .310** .216** .895** 1 13 26.150* .7 28.166** .364**.545** .259** .565** .81 -.296** .508** .81 5.296** .082 .31 3.221** .298** .221** .367** .9 -.385** .747** .178** .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 .838** .402** .202** .

The BIT subscale measuring destinationactivity orientation was significantly correlated to crash occurrence but not to injury occurrence. standard deviations and relationships between distal. All distal and proximal variables were positively correlated except internality (I) which was negatively corrected with the BIT total score.2 Results of Study 2 Table 4. all BIT subscales. it was not correlated with crash occurrence or with crash injury. crash occurrence and injury occurrence. BHS was significantly correlated with total BIT score and with all of the BIT subscales. Of these negative the BIT subscales measuring freeway urgency and externally-focused frustration were significant. 130 . 4. proximal and outcome variables within the sample of motorcycle drivers in Study 2. freeway urgency. externally-focused frustration. 1B and 1C. Hostility (HOS) was significantly correlated with all other variables except with crash occurrence and crash injury.5. However. but it was not correlated with crash occurrence or injury occurrence.18 shows means. and destination-activity orientation. Similar to observed results in study 1A.BHS was significantly correlated to the total BIT score and to BIT subscales: usurpation of right-of-way.

6803 .621 3.232** .072 .630** .201* .259** .200* -.76 48.66 5.356** .291** .418** .D.413** .371** -.876** .485 11.535** 1 .111 -.251** .50 73.367** .043 .325** .314** .182* -.409** .313** 1 .05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .122 7.795** 1 * Correlation is significant at .226** .233** .614** .192* -.139 .264** .18: Means.758** 1 .165 .179 7.55 175.334** .212* .150 -.374** .Table 4.167 .4683 .415** .750** .5738 8.349** .269** .317** .219** .240** .081 8.028 1 .4966 1 .01 level (2-tailed) 131 .413** 1 .14 27.06 20.290** .66 1.383** .376** .183* 1 .30 .880 .500** .562** 1 .48 5. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 3.025 -.580** 1 .917 3.941** 1 .035 3. 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.323 23.428** .

Differing from Studies 1A. but remaining I correlations with BIT and AQ subscales did not achieve significance. In this study. However. neither an observed weak positive correlation between I and C. 1C and 2. In general. While physical aggression (PHY) and hostility (HOS) were significantly correlated with crash occurrence and injury occurrence. proximal and outcome variables within the sample of taxicab drivers in Study 3. Externality-chance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P) scores were significantly and positively correlated with crash occurrence and injury occurrence. 1B. AQ subscales were significantly and positively correlated with each other. standard deviations and relationships between distal.3 Results of Study 3 Table 4.5.19 shows means.4. 132 . correlations between I and distal. nor a weak negative correlation between I and P achieved significance. BIT total scores had a significant positive correlation with crash occurrence but not with injury occurrence. As indicated in Table 4. proximal or outcome variables in Study 3 were weaker than those observed in Studies 1 and 2. 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. verbal aggression (VER) and anger (ANG) were significantly correlated only with crash occurrence.19.

112 -.371** .071 .156 .0301 .150** .618** 1 .11 15.65 75.12 4.576** .35 11.178** .028 .01 level (2-tailed) 133 . Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 3 (n=133) Mean S.197* .021 1 * Correlation is significant at .07 8.234** .060 .165 .254** -.166 .05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .229** .030 .604** .121 .167** .117 .636** .292** .263** .454** .54 11.018 -.213** .182* -.070 -.646** .82 5.151 -.289** 1 .072 -.054 .275** .521** .067 .373** .121 .17 20.235** .120 .060 -.643** .218* .173* .222* .204* .091 .117 .271** . 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 12.103 .378** 1 .32 3.404 .106 .023 .092** .10 1.023 -.622** .286* 1 .152 .Table 4.156 .2000 .257** .401** -.039 .200* .177 1 .213** .82 11.872** .161 -.117 .43 8.194* .116 .4 5.141 .338** 1 .74 15.235** .807** .19: Means.025 -.864** 1 .013 .51 3.853** .13 3.109 -.114 .147** .255** .561** 1 .261** .236** .88 1 .180** .324** .05 3.721** .31 8.528** 1 .149 .588** 1 .048 .225** .020 .128 .072 .99 10.032 1 .240** .3 6.095 .84 2.268** .246** .153** 1 .276** .040 .42 66.08 15.418** .245** .749** .149 .061 .658** .240** .443** 1 .45 19.171 .194* 1 .D.148* .06 2.172** .816** .15 32.091 -.32 7.193* -.

1).278. p<.180. p<.01 B=.229.01 B=. p<. For the destination-activity factor.1.4 was not supported. p<.20). p<.01 B=.6 Hypothesis Testing This section reports the results of analyses to test the hypotheses formulated in chapter 3 (see Table 3.3 inclusive.1.01 B=. but not destination-activity orientation.1 through H1. 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=. that behaviour in traffic influences crash occurrence.01 Study 1C B=.01 134 .041.202.01. These results supported H1.01 B=.01 B=. These results supported H1.01 Study 3 B=. p<.238.01.20: Results of Logistic Regression Analyses Showing the Effects of BIT Component Factors on Crash Occurrence Study 1A Usurpation of Right-of Way Freeway Urgency Externally-focused Frustration Destination-activity Orientation B=. p<. p<. p<. Study 1C: B=. p<.1.080. Study 2: B=. analyses were conducted to test whether BIT scores influenced crash occurrence. freeway urgency.135.04. p<. H1. were significantly related to crash occurrence (see Table 4.048. p<. p<.034. p<.117.01 and Study 3: B=. 4. p<.102.01 B=.063.095. p<.146.090.172.095.01).1.125.315. p<. and externally-focused frustration.01 Study 1B B=.6. results of logistic regression analyses indicated that usurpation of right-of way. While controlling driver experience and driving frequency.01 B=.01 B=. Study 1B: B=.063. p<.088 p<.01.01 B=.01 B=.01 B=.01 Not Significant Study 2 B=.120. p<. When the relationships between the four component factors of the BIT scale and the likelihood of a crash outcome were tested. Table 4.01 B=.1 Hypothesis 1: Behaviour in Traffic Influences Motor Vehicle Crash Outcomes First. p<. p<.4.01 B=. p<.

2.019. p<. p<. These results supported H1.22. respectively). 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=.038. p<. p<. p<. logistic regression analyses indicated that usurpation of right-of way.165. Study 1C: B=.01 B=.075 p<. Table 4.24.120. Table 4.01 B=. p<.054. p<. p<. that behaviour in traffic would influence injury occurrence.118.2 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.01 B=.21).01 Not Significant Study 2 B=. Study 1B: B=. p<.064.059.01 Study 3 Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant 4.01 B=.01 B=.158.095. p<.074. p<.091.140.01 Study 1C B=.01 B=. p<.01 B=.087.01 B=.6. When driver experience and travel frequency were controlled.01 B=. p<. freeway urgency.035.01 B=.01. When the relationships between the likelihood of injury occurrence and the four component factors of the BIT scale were tested.23 and Table 4.05 Study 1B B=. p<.01. externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation were significantly related to traffic crash injury in all studies except Study 3 (See Table 4.21: 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<.01 B=.Behaviour in traffic also influenced injury occurrence in all studies except Study 3.01 and Study 2: B=. p<.033 p<. 1B and 1C (see Table 4.069.035. p<.01). 135 .

35 4. * p<.82 168.29 21.23: 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<.03 25.600** Table 4.98 171.77 8.22: 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<.44 178.64 26.05.82 33.25 5.92 157. N M SD F 221 60 19 2 168.320** 64 110 41 17 69 173.60 185.68 26.16 3.32 147.73 170.35 24.074* 110 81 37 45 29 181.01.Table 4.31 161.35 155.15 161.35 33.32 28.41 167.89 21.88 28.30 22.01 N M SD F 186 88 18 9 161.98 33.48 171.64 27.77 165.184** 136 .06 19.43 20.52 25.50 28.56 175.25 25.

05).060** In Study 1A.39 19.00 14.88 167.01 14.05. N M SD F 187 46 16 3 159. 137 .73 24.06 8.345* 67 69 33 45 38 170.05).01).52 3. drivers who travelled everyday had significantly higher total BIT scores when compared to those who travelled several times a week (p<.05).12 154. 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<.05) and about once every two weeks (p<. about once every two weeks (p<. On the other hand.25). drivers with 3 years of licensed driving experience had significantly lower total BIT scores when compared with drivers that had 3 years experience but less than 5 years of licensed driving experience (p<. the effect of travel frequency on total BIT score was significant.01). Drivers who travelled every day had significantly higher total BIT scores when compared to those who travelled several times a week (p<.01).77 16. motorcycle drivers’ experience was not significantly related to total BIT scores (see Table 4.01).12 161. * p<. In Study 1B.01).Table 4. In Study 2.29 15. Drivers who travelled everyday had significantly higher total BIT scores when compared to those who almost never travelled (p<.73 157.81 167.14 15.61 165.01. In Study 1C. and those who almost never travelled (p<.00 16.24: 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<.06 160.53 17. Drivers who travelled about once or twice a week had significantly higher total BIT when compared to those who almost never travelled (p<.

31 78. Not significant N M SD F 3 16 23 91 82.528** In Study 3.65 73. * p<.437 (N.31 2.753* 38 48 27 20 77. In other words.74 77.81 161. However.55 10. both driver experience and taxicab experience were tested.63 1. it is concluded that Hypothesis 2.S.47 5.859 11.68 20.62 10. the direction of the difference was opposite to what had 138 .56 3.82 162.01.50 24. Table 4.01.S) 52 32 7 17 14 182.27 14.26). It was found that the driver experience was statistically related to total BIT score (see Table 4.64 24.37 9.58 188.80 22. However. * p<.S.60 72.S) Therefore. taxicab driver experience was not statistically related to total BIT score. 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.05.05. Not significant N M SD F 77 31 10 4 174.89 20.55 73.81 175.26: 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<.81 22.52 172.Table 4. that drivers’ demographic characteristics would significantly influence total BIT scores was supported in studies of automobile drivers.71 168. N. N.97 8.26 10.33 78.920 (N.09 15.25: 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<.381 10.316 1.94 20.50 184.

Hypothesis 2 was partially supported in the study of taxicab drivers. 1B. the observed effect was opposite to what had been predicted by H2. t-tests indicated that mean total BIT scores differed significantly between male and female participants. only H2.2 was supported in that travel frequency significantly influenced total BIT score but driver experience had no statistically significant effect. however. 1B. 139 . the lower was the total BIT score. ethnicity and age – were investigated. the direction of the effect was consistent with the hypothesised relationship between driver experience and total BIT score. in that driver experience significantly influenced total BIT score but taxicab experience had no statistically significant effect.27). Contrary to the subhypothesis. In Study 3. driver experience and travel frequency actually increased total BIT scores. 1C and 2 differed between different ethnic groups (see Table 4. Contrary to the two sub-hypotheses. only H2.1 was confirmed.been predicted by H2. In Studies 1A. where male automobile and motorcycle drivers scored significantly higher than female drivers.1 and H2.6.2. though. 1C and 2. ANOVA results for age. the longer the taxicab operator had been driving. In Study 2. Again. travel frequency actually increased total BIT scores. 4. In this case. ANOVA indicated that mean total BIT scores in Studies 1A. Hypothesis 2 was partially supported in the study of motorcycle drivers.3 Hypothesis 3: Demographic Variables Influence Behaviour in Traffic The direct effects on total BIT scores of three demographic variables – gender.2. indicated no significant differences in mean total BIT scores. For ethnicity.

Study 2 t=3. N.68. post hoc analyses indicated that MalaysianChinese automobile drivers and motorcyclists scored significantly lower total BIT scores than either Malaysian-Indian or Malay drivers (p<.05 F=11. 1C and Study 2.2 were confirmed. Note: Not significant In Study 1A.3 was not supported. N.01 F=8. t(250) = 2. p<.44.S.62.S. In all studies.99.1 and H3. Therefore. p<.01 F=1. H3.56. male 140 . p<.01 F=9. In Study 1B. In Study 3.01 F=.2 was confirmed.66.9.05).01 F=1. 4. H3. Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers scored significantly higher total BIT scores than Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers (p<. p<.S. it was found that female automobile drivers scored significantly higher levels on the I dimension when compared to male automobile drivers. p<. so the null hypothesis could not be rejected and H3. in that gender and ethnicity significantly influenced total BIT scores.53. p<.S.01). p<.81.01 F=19. In Study 1A and Study 2. age had no statistically significant direct effect on total BIT scores. it is concluded that Hypothesis 3 was partially supported in studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers. however. Study 1B t=2. Externality-Chance (C).27: Effects of Demographic Factors on total BIT Scores Study 1A Gender Ethnicity Age t=2. N. In Study 1B. For taxicab drivers studied in Study 3. In Study 1C. p<.562.4 Hypothesis 4: Demographic Variables Influence Locus of Control The direct effects of the same three demographic variables on locus of control were also investigated.00.74.05.01 F=2.05 F=4. and Externality-Powerful-Others (P).05). in that ethnicity significantly influenced total BIT scores. p<.05. results showed that gender had no influence on the three dimensions of locus of control: Internality (I). Malaysian-Indian taxicab drivers had significantly lower total BIT scores than either Malaysian-Chinese taxicab drivers (p<. N. p<. N.6. Study 1C t=3.98.12.S Study 3 Not Applicable F=3.Table 4.

05. p<. F(2. Post hoc analyses indicated that Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers had significantly lower I scores than did either Malaysian-Chinese or Malay drivers (p<. p<.370. Malaysian-Indian drivers had significantly higher scores on the C dimension than did Malay drivers (p<. 249) = 3.05. In Study 1B.476. 1C.05 respectively.05) and Malaysian-Indian drivers scored significantly higher on the P dimension than did drivers in all other ethnic groups (p<. In Study 1C. 298) = 3. 141 .503. p<. t(299) = 2. p<. For Studies 1A. 299) = 5. all ethnic groups had significantly different mean I. F(2. F(2.05 and F(2.05 respectively. ethnic group differences were significant only with respect to mean C and P subscale scores. Post hoc analyses showed that Malaysian-Indian motorcycle drivers scored significantly lower than all other ethnicity groups on the I dimension (p<. ethnic group differences were significant only with respect to P subscale scores. p<. 298) = 3. ethnic group differences were significant only with respect to I subscale scores. p<. p<.041. 2 and 3 the age variable had no significant direct effects on any of the three dimensions of locus of control. In Study 1A.941. E and P scores. Consistent with findings in Study 1A.527. post hoc analyses showed that Malaysian-Indian drivers scored significantly higher on the C and P dimensions than did Malaysian-Chinese drivers (p<.01).01. F(2. 298) = 6.05).01 respectively).01).462.automobile and motorcycle drivers scored significantly higher on the P dimension than did female automobile and motorcycle drivers.05 and F(2. 1B.05). Post hoc analysis showed that MalaysianIndian automobile drivers scored significantly higher than did Malaysian-Chinese drivers (p<.01 respectively. p<. In Study 2.490. 299) = 3. F(2.566. 119) = 5.05 and p<. t(120) = 2.

Therefore. H4. that gender and ethnicity influence hopelessness.2.2. that age influences hopelessness. H5. Hypothesis 5 was not supported with respect to automobile drivers in Study 1. Hypothesis 4 was partially supported in studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers. externality-chance and externality-powerful-others.3.3 was supported. ANOVA results found no significant differences in mean BHS scores between ethnic groups or different age groups among automobile drivers in Studies 1A. so H4.079. However. 4.1 and H5.1. H5. p<. it was observed that age had no significant effect on any of internality. it was found that the gender and ethnicity of motorcycle drivers did have a significant direct effect on hopelessness. 1B or 1C. Female motorcycle drivers scored significantly lower than male motorcycle drivers. that ethnicity significantly influenced internality. in that gender was observed to significantly influence the externalitypowerful-others scores. In addition. t(120) = 2.05.3. H4. H4. In Studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers. based on the results of t-tests and ANOVA.3.2 and H4. In Study 1. was not supported in either Study 1 or Study 2. in Study 2.2.1. ethnicity and age on hopelessness were investigated. Hypothesis 5 was partially supported in Study 2 with the sample of motorcycle drivers.3 were not supported.Therefore.3. externality-chance and externality-powerfulothers. 142 .5 Hypothesis 5: Demographic Variables Influence Hopelessness The direct effects of gender.01). Malay motorcycle drivers had a significantly higher BHS score when compared to Malaysian-Chinese motorcycle drivers (p<.6. were supported. Independent sample t-tests on data from Studies 1A. Age was found to have no influence on BHS scores with the sample of motorcycle drivers in Study 2.2 and H4.1.3 were supported. 1B and 1C found no significant differences in mean scores of hopelessness (BHS) between male and female automobile drivers. H4.2.

306. Therefore.3. respectively).01. p<. p<. that externality-chance and externality-powerful-others would influence hopelessness. internality (I) had a significant negative effect on hopelessness (BHS) (B = -. were supported. p<. In Study 2.01) but C and P had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = .1. it is concluded that Hypothesis 6 was supported in studies of automobile drivers.6. In Study 1B.2 and H6.186. p<.342. that the three locus of control dimensions influence hopelessness. 4.01 and B = .01 and (B = .01. was not supported. I was found to have a significant negative effect on BHS scores (B = -. In Study 1C. H6.341. were supported. H6. with the sample of motorcycle drivers.01 and B = . p<. p<.4. H6.290.01) but externality-chance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P) had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = . but C and P had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = . p<. p<. results of linear regression analyses indicated that hopelessness had a significant positive effect on total BIT scores and on scores for each of the four BIT component factors (see table 4.01) but C and P had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = .2 and H6.354. with higher levels of internality related to lower levels of hopelessness and higher levels of both externality dimensions associated with higher hopelessness.01.312.7 Hypothesis 7: Hopelessness Influences Behaviour in Traffic In studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers. respectively). that internality would influence hopelessness.01 respectively).239.6. I had a significant negative effect on BHS scores (B = -.3.371. Hypothesis 6 was partially supported in Study 2. H6.254.28). respectively).254. p<.6 Hypothesis 6: Locus of Control Influences Hopelessness In Study 1A.01 and B = . p<. no significant effects were observed between I and BHS scores in the sample of motorcycle drivers. 143 . p<.1.

In Study 1C.01 B=. p<. p<.247. p<. p<. 144 . B=.415.05) and destination-activity orientation (B = . p<.05 B=.151. H7.01 B=.232.1. p<.418.191. p<. p<.317.153. p<.01).280. p<. p<. that hopelessness would have a significant positive effect on freeway urgency was not supported in Study 1B.3 and H7. that hopelessness would have a significant positive direct effect on usurpation of right-of-way.01).2. p<.01) and destination-activity orientation (B = . with both automobile and motorcycle drivers. externally-focused frustration (B = .200. p<. the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = . it is concluded that Hypothesis 7. p<. the higher the hopelessness scores. p<.415.01 B=.4.191. In Study 2. freeway urgency (B =.232. p<.01 B=.01).01 B=.287. the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = .153.01 B=.S.099.28: 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=. freeway urgency (B = .05). meaning that H7 was only partially supported for that study.05 Study 2 B=. p<.01 B=. externally-focused frustration (B = .280.01).317. p<.151. externally-focused frustration (B = . externally-focused frustration (B = .275. externallyfocused frustration and destination-activity were supported in both Studies 1 and 2. H7. was supported in Studies 1A.05 B=. the higher the hopelessness scores. it was observed that the higher the hopelessness scores. 1C and 2.151.247.254.01).141.141.287.349.157.05).254.01 B=. Therefore.01 B=. freeway urgency (B = . p<. p<. p<. H7.Table 4. p<.05 Study 1C B=. p<. p<. p<.05) and destinationactivity orientation (B = . p<.157.05 In Study 1A. p<.01 B=.01 Study 1B B=. p<.01 B=.01) and destination-activity orientation (B = . that hopelessness would have a significant positive influence on total BIT scores. p<. N.151.01 B=.05) but not for freeway urgency. the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = .05). p<.01). p<.288. In Study 1B.01). p<.275. it was observed that the higher the hopelessness (BHS) scores.278. p<.349. the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = .01 B=. p<.

Table 4.29: Direct Effects of Locus of Control on Total BIT Scores Study 1A I C P Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 Study 3 B=-.239. Therefore.336.01 B=.1 and H8.3 that externality-powerful-others would influence total BIT scores. that internality would negatively influence total BIT scores was supported. the higher were mean total BIT scores of automobile and motorcycle drivers in Studies 1 and 2.3.01 B=-. p<. Hypothesis 8 was partially supported for motorcycle drivers in Study 2. p<. Results of multiple regression analyses (in studies of car. motorcycle and taxicab drivers). p<. the higher were mean total BIT scores automobile drivers in Study 1.S. N. p<. p<. but not of the sample of taxicab drivers in Study 3.S. B=. B=.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.6. that locus of control would influence total BIT scores were supported in Study 1. N.044.01 B=-. Hypothesis 8 was partially supported for taxicab drivers in Study 3.01 B=-.3.297.208.077.01 B=.1. H8.S.01 B=.753.2 and H8.29). p<. p<. N. but not H8.006.2. p<. the lower were mean total BIT scores. results indicated that the higher were subscale scores for C. p<.315. H8. that the higher the subscale score for I.2. results indicated that the higher were subscale scores for P.01 B=.229.339.01 B=. p<.4. With regard to H8. but not of the motorcycle and taxicab drivers in Studies 2 and 3 (See Table 4. it is concluded that Hypothesis 8 was supported for automobile drivers in Study 1.178. With regard to H8.01 B=-. where only H8.1.1.388. provided support for hypothesis H8.05 B=.625.01 B=. that internality and externality-chance would influence total BIT scores were supported. 145 .168.01 B=. H8. p<. p<. with internality observed to exert a positive effect on BIT and the two externality dimensions to exert negative effects.

p<. Scores for the three locus of control dimensions – internality. 146 .Additional analysis: Interaction of ethnicity and locus of control on BIT. Mean Score on Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) 175 Ethnicty Malay MalaysianChinese 170 MalaysianIndian 165 160 155 150 low high Internality Figure 4. results revealed that Malay automobile drivers with high internal control had significantly lower scores on BIT subscales measuring usurpation of right-of-way.710. Further. 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.2).05.909.272. p<.1: Interaction Effects between Ethnicity and Internality on BIT In Study 1C. F=4. it was found that Malay automobile drivers with high internal locus of control scored significantly lower in total BIT than did Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers with high internal control Malaysian-Indian student car drivers.581.01 (see Figure 4. freeway urgency and externally-focused frustration than did Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers with high internal control. F=4.01 and F=8.01 respectively (see Figure 4.1).1). =8.704. F=7. p<. In Study 1C. it was found that Malay automobile drivers with high externalitychance scores had significantly higher BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of way than did Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers with low externality-chance scores. p<.01 (see Figure 4. p<.

537) and the moderator (hopelessness) showed a significant result. 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. p<. Hopelessness moderated the relationship between internality and the total BIT score and between externality-chance and to total BIT score. 147 . in Study 2. Residuals Normality: Skewness=.05.034.00 low high Externality (Chance) Figure 4. the results of hierarchical regression indicated that the R2 value changed after the internality x hopelessness interaction was added in the regression model (R2=.00 62. Kurtosis=-.00 Malay MalaysianChinese 72. hopelessness did not moderate the relationship between locus of control and BIT.2: Interaction Effect between Ethnicity and Externality-Chance on Usurpation of Right-of Way 4.282. B = .00 64.327. 1B and 1C.Mean Score on Usurpation of Right-of Way Ethnicty 74.05. F=4. R2=.00 66.444.00 MalaysianIndian 70. p<.3).6. However. First.9 Hypothesis 9: Hopelessness Moderates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Behaviour in Traffic For Studies 1A.00 68. multiple regression showed mixed results.033.

Residuals Normality: Skewness=.BIT Level Effect for drivers with high hopelessness score Effect for drivers with low hopelessness score Internality Figure 4.3: 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=. Kurtosis=-. R2=. 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. p<.4). Effect for drivers with high hopelessness score BIT Level Effect for drivers with low hopelessness score Externality (Chance) Figure 4.01.459. B = .070. p<.371).4: Moderating Effect of BHS on the Externality (Chance) -BIT Relationship 148 .01. and the moderator (hopelessness) showed a significant result. F=18.463.608.167.

249) = 5.467. p<.032.31). 4. the H9. In both studies.10 Hypothesis 10: Demographic Factors Influence Aggression Analyses tested whether gender.S t=2. p<. p<.6.S t=2. p<. p<.677. Hypothesis 9 was partially supported in Study 2. N. p<. Hopelessness did not moderate the locus of control-BIT relation for automobile drivers.298.480. N. however.690. In Study 1C. F(2. p<. p<.05 Study 1C t=2. p<.S t=1.30: Direct Effects of Gender on AQ Total and Subscale Scores Total Aggression (AQ) score Physical Aggression (PHY) Verbal Aggression (VER) Anger (ANG) Hostility (HOS) Indirect Aggression (IND) Study 1B t=2. However. p<.05 t=4. In Study 1B and Study 3.603. t(300) = 2.210.01. it is concluded that Hypothesis 9 was not supported in Study 1.2.1.Therefore. mean total AQ scores differed significantly between ethnic groups.521.690.01 t=-.164. Table 4. ANOVA revealed no significant differences between ethnic groups in mean total AQ scores. that hopelessness would moderate the relationship between externalitychance and total BIT scores.01 t=4. With motorcycle drivers.01 t=2. t= .S.30). that hopelessness would moderate the relationship between internality and total BIT scores. ethnicity and age exerted direct effects on drivers’ Aggression Questionnaire (AQ) scores.01 The relationship between ethnic background and aggression was tested for automobile drivers in Studies 1B. Mean total AQ scores differed significantly between male and female participants in Studies 1B and 1C.01 (see table 4. When mean subscale scores for the five AQ component factors were tested. and H9.05 t=.820. Post hoc analysis showed that Malaysian-Chinese 149 .780. were supported. verbal aggression and indirect aggression (see Table 4.05 respectively. N. p<. N. results indicated that male automobile drivers scored significantly higher than female drivers on measures of physical aggression.01 t=2. male automobile drivers had significantly higher total AQ scores than did female automobile drivers. 1C and 3.187. and t(250) = 2.603.

422. p<. Malay automobile drivers scored significantly higher VER scores than drivers from other ethnic groups (p<.S. F=. Malaysian-Chinese and Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers were significantly different. 299) = 5. N.01). the mean verbal aggression (VER) scores of Malay.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=2.01. 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. N.561.05. F=2. p<.041.S.155. F=1.01.763.432.01 F=.S. p<. In Study 3. The mean indirect aggression (IND) scores of Malay. F=1.432. F=1. In Study 1C. N.S. F=1. 150 .01). Malaysian-Chinese and Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers were also significantly different.S F=10. p<. N. F=4. N.077. F=2.526. Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers had significantly lower IND scores than drivers from other ethnic groups (p<.182.S.S.S. p<. F=2.01). Malaysian-Chinese and Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers were significantly different.05 Study 1C F=5. N. Similar to the findings in Study 1B. mean IND scores of Malay. F(2. Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers had significantly lower IND scores than drivers from other ethnic groups (p<.01). N. F=1. When AQ subscale scores were tested for Study 1B and Study 1C. p<. F=5.629.564. N.021.567.S. N.S. 249) = 10. N.automobile drivers in Study 1C had significantly lower total AQ scores than did Malay or Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers (p<. In Study 1B. p<. N.632.01 Study 3 F=1.904.S. N.804. 299) = 4.041.01 F=2.S.521.S. F(2. F=2. Table 4. F(2.398. N.57. mixed results were found. ANOVA revealed no significant differences between ethnic groups in mean scores in any of the AQ subscale scores.S. N.

total BIT scores and scores on usurpation of right-of way and freeway urgency subscales were higher. H11. however. externally-focused frustration. with regard to the taxicab drivers sampled in Study 3. 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. VER and IND subscale scores. VER and IND) of five component factors among automobile drivers sampled in both Studies 1B and 1C. In Studies 1B and 1C. were all supported.3 and H11.2. freeway urgency.Therefore. 4. it is concluded that Hypothesis 10 was partially supported. However. were supported. the higher were automobile drivers’ total BIT scores and scores on the four components. and destination-activity orientation (see Table 4. H10.4. This means that when taxicab drivers’ aggression scores were higher. H10. it is concluded that Hypothesis 11.29). in studies of both automobile drivers and taxicab drivers.3 and H11.32).2 (that ethnicity would influence aggression level) was supported only in Study 1C and only with respect to total AQ. only H11.11 Hypothesis 11: Aggression Influences Behaviour in Traffic In Study 1B and Study 1C. 151 . that aggression would have a positive influence on total BIT scores. that aggression would have a direct positive effect on the usurpation of right-of way. 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. Therefore. The higher the total aggression scores. that aggression would have a direct positive effect on externally-focused frustration and on destination-activity orientation. was supported. In Study 3.6. freeway urgency.3 (that age would negatively influence aggression) was not supported.1 (that gender would influence aggression) was supported with respect to measures of total aggression and to the same three (PHY. H11. externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation.1. H10. respectively.4. H11.

p<. p<. respectively. p<. their total BIT scores tend to be higher. and B = . Results of regression analyses also showed that anger (ANG) had a significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1B and Study 1C.385. it was found that there was an interaction effect between ethnicity and verbal aggression (VER) on freeway urgency. p<. p<.Table 4.380. p<.01 B=.121.520. p<. B = .01.01 B=.01 B=. B = .540.505. indirect aggression (IND) was also found to have significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1B and Study 1C. p<.01 B=.048.32: Effect of Aggression on Total BIT Scores and on BIT Component Factors Study 1B B=.461. respectively. Also. 1B.438.387.01. p<.881.263. p<. but that this does not apply to taxi drivers. p<. Study 1C and Study 3.01 B=. With both automobile and taxicab drivers.01 respectively. p<. no interaction effects were found in all studies – Study 1A. Verbal aggression (VER) was found to have no significant influence on total BIT scores. B=. N.428.324.263.204. p<.01. p<.05 B=. Malay automobile drivers with high VER scores tended to score 152 . p<. B = .01 Study 3 B=.01 Study 1C B=.01 and B = . Additional analysis: Interaction effects of ethnicity and aggression on BIT. p<. p<. When the interaction effect of ethnicity and hopelessness was tested on the BIT and its four component factors. p<. but not in Study 3. This implies that when automobile drivers have higher levels of ANG and IND.5). and B = . p<.565.01 respectively. the higher were total BIT scores.05 B=.01 B=. but not in Study 3. N. B = .545.05 (see Figure 4.235. However.S.183. Similarly.370.01. B = .216.483. Linear regression analyses indicated that physical aggression (PHY) had a significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1B.229. B = .491.01.370. p<. 1C. Total BIT Score Usurpation of Right-of-way Freeway Urgency Externally-Focused Frustration Destination-Activity Orientation The effects of AQ subscale factors on the total BIT score were also tested. p<. the higher the levels of PHY and HOS. Study 1C and Study 3. p<. p<.01 B=.01 B=. hostility (HOS) was found to have a significant positive influence on BIT in Study 1B.S. p<.01 and B = . F=3. Study 2 and Study 3.01 B=.01.

F=81.01.6.01. F=100. p<. p<. p<. The moderating effect of I was significant.00 IndianMalaysian 48. B=-. Mean Score on Freeway Urgency Ethnicty 52. Kurtosis=-.significantly higher on freeway urgency than did Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers with high VER scores. respectively. R2=.00 Malay ChineseMalaysian 50. p<.961.5: Interaction of Ethnicity and Verbal Aggression on Freeway Urgency 4. Study 1C and Study 3. for Study 1B. In other words. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-.316. Kurtosis=-.271. and R2 values changed after the I x AQ interaction was added in the regression models (R2=.100.6.076.929.645.00 46.362.131.00 44.01. Residuals Normality: Skewness=.00 42. aggressive drivers with low internal locus of control would 153 .01.12.297.003.172.516.00 Low High Verbal Aggression Figure 4. p<. R2=. 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.12 Hypothesis 12: Locus of Control Moderates the Relationship between Aggression and Behaviour in Traffic 4.05. and B=-. B=-.1 Internality as a Moderator Hierarchical regression analyses revealed that internality (I) moderated the relationship between aggression and total BIT score. R2=.

897.01 respectively. R2=.069. B = . Kurtosis=.794.297. R2=. R2=.271.6).2 Externality-chance and Externality-powerful-others as Moderators In Study 1B and Study 1C. R2=.606. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-463. p<.have higher BIT scores compared to drivers with high internal locus of control (see figure 4.6: Moderating Effect of Internality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship 4.01. R2=.507.431.01 and B = . Kurtosis=.757. respectively). Residuals Normality: Skewness= -. 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. and the moderating effects of C and P were 154 .109.088.01.360. This applied to both automobile drivers and taxicab drivers. p<. F=78. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-. respectively). F=94. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-.015.12. F=71.271.704.694. p<. Kurtosis=-. Consistent with the findings from Study 1B. p<. R2=. 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=.015. and the moderating effects of C and P were significant.01. R2 values changed after both the C x AQ and P x AQ interactions were added in the respective regression models (R2=. Kurtosis=-.117. p<.01. F=91. In Study 1B.297. p<.387.369.6.

01 and B = . Therefore. externality-chance and externality-powerful-others 155 . 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.2.302. H12.1.3. p<.332. with the samples of automobile drivers study for student car drivers.7). and H12. that the internality. and the moderation effect was not significant. 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. R2 values did not change after either the C x AQ or P x AQ interactions were added in the regression models. 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. p<. it is concluded that the Hypothesis 12 was supported in Studies 1B and 1C. hierarchical regression results showed that neither C nor P moderated the relationship between aggression and total BIT scores for taxicab drivers in Study 3.01 respectively. H12. B = .

with the sample of taxicab drivers. On the subscale measuring statements about revenge. Post hoc analysis indicated that Chinese-Malaysian automobile drivers had significantly lower total HAT scores than either Malay or Indian-Malaysian automobile drivers (p<. Hypothesis 12 was only partially supported in Study 3.05) or Indian-Malaysian automobile drivers (p<. that internality moderates the relationship between aggression and total BIT scores was supported.3.737. H122 and H12.05. p<. Post hoc analysis indicated that Chinese-Malaysian automobile drivers had significantly lower scores on the subscale measuring statements about physical aggression than did either Malay automobile drivers (p<. t(250) = 3.05. p<. t(249)=2. There were also significant differences between ethnic groups on subscale scores measuring statements about physical aggression F(2.dimensions of locus of control moderate the relationship between aggression and total BIT scores were supported. Only H12.885. p<. and about revenge F(2. 248) = 3.13 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.263.343. 249) = 4.279.05). No significant differences were observed between age groups with respect to total HAT scores or to scores on any of the three HAT subscales.6. Also. p<.01). 156 . F(2. However.1. that externality-chance and externality-powerful-others moderates the relationship between aggression and BIT scores were not supported. 4.01.01 but not on about the derogation of others. Chinese-Malaysian automobile drivers had significantly lower scores than IndianMalaysian automobile drivers (p<. male automobile drivers scored significantly higher on HAT subscales measuring statements about physical aggression.05). p<. 249) = 5.01. ANOVA results showed that ethnic groups differed significantly with respect to mean total HAT scores.314. p<.01 and revenge: t(249) = 3. There were no significant differences between ethnic groups with respect to hostile statements about the derogation of others.

1. Therefore. p<. This means that.364. the higher the total HAT scores.01. and also scores measuring the four BIT component factors: usurpation of right-of-way. The effects of HAT subscales measuring the three classes of hostile automatic thoughts. the higher the scores on the three classes of hostile automatic thought. that age would influence hostile automatic thoughts. respectively. p<. This means that. (that thoughts about physical aggression.192. was supported.224. were supported. was not supported. it is concluded that the Hypothesis 13. derogation of others and revenge had a significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1C B =.01. B = .6. that gender and ethnicity respectively would have significant direct effects on hostile automatic thoughts. derogation of others and revenge) positively influence total BIT scores.413. B = .2. H13. was partially supported. B = . externally-focused frustration.01.307.394.277.01. linear regression analyses indicated that total HAT scores predicted total BIT scores.14 Hypothesis 14: Hostile Automatic Thoughts Influence Behaviour in Traffic In Study 1C. 4. B = . that demographic variables would influence hostile automatic thoughts. H13. were supported. the higher were total BIT scores.Therefore. p<. p<.2 and H14. B = .01.1 and H13. H14. p<. Linear regression analyses indicated that subscales measuring thoughts about physical aggression.01 and B = . on total BIT score were also tested. 157 . the higher were automobile drivers’ total BIT scores and scores on the four components.379. B = . it is concluded that the Hypothesis 14. freeway urgency.3. p<. H14. that hostile automatic thoughts would influence behaviour in traffic. p<.3.01 and destination-activity orientation. with the sample of automobile drivers studied.01. p<.

6.8: Moderating Effect of Externality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship It was observed that two of the HAT subscales. B = . p<. Normality Residuals: Skewness=.297. R2=. In other words.8).15 Hypothesis 15: Hostile Automatic Thoughts Moderate the Aggression-BIT Relationship Hierarchical regression analysis indicated that HAT scores moderated the relationship between aggression and BIT.911.-554. F=55. and the moderating effect of HAT-Physical 158 .809. Physical Aggression and Revenge. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-. R2 values changed after the HAT x AQ interaction was added in the regression model (R2=. Kurtosis=.297.188.085). 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.072). p<. F=57. p<. R2=.01. Effect for aggressive drivers with high HAT score BIT Level Effect for aggressive drivers with low HAT score Aggression Level Figure 4. The R2 value changed after the HAT-Physical Aggression x AQ interaction was added in the regression model (R2=.002.05. also moderated the relationship between aggression and BIT.565.01.4. Kurtosis=. 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. and the moderating effect of HAT was significant.013.

H15. it is concluded that Hypothesis 15. B = . H15. R2=.246. 159 .294. was not supported. The HAT subscale measuring thoughts about the derogation of others did not moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic. p<.Aggression was significant. p<. and the moderating effect of HAT-Revenge was significant.16 Summary of Hypothesis Testing The following table provides summarised results for the hypotheses and subhypotheses in this study (see Table 4. that total HAT score would moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic. that hostile statements about physical aggression and revenge respectively moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic. was supported.2. p<.01. F=59. Kurtosis=.475. Therefore.026. that hostile statements about the derogation of others moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic. The R2 value also changed after the HATRevenge x AQ interaction was added in the regression model (R2=.3.33). B = .01.1 and H15.01.207.6. 4. were supported.297. Normality Residuals: Skewness=.092). However.

S S P.33: Summarised Results of the Hypotheses and Sub-hypotheses STUDY 1A H1: BIT will have a positive influence on motor vehicle crash outcomes H1.S N.S N.3.S P.2: Ethnicity will influence total BIT score H3.S S S S S N.Table 4.S S N.1: Age will influence the Locus of Control: Internality S S S S S S S S S S S S S S P.S P.S S S N.S S S N.S 2 S S S S S S S S S S S P.1.S S S S S N.3: Age will have a negative influence on total BIT score H4: Demographic variables will influence the Locus of Control H4.1: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.1.S.3: Gender will influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H4.S N.2. S N.1.S S S S S N.S N.1: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.4: Destination-activity orientation will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H2: Driver characteristics will influence behaviour in traffic H2.S N.S N.2.2.S N.S N.S N.3: Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.S N.S S N.2: Traveling frequency will have a negative influence on total BIT score H2.S S S N.S N.1.1.S S S N.S P.1: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.S N.S N.2: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.1: Gender will influence total BIT score H3.S N.S S S S P.1: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Internality H4.2: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.1.S S N.S P.1: Driver experience will have a negative influence on total BIT score H2.1: Ethnicity will influence the Locus of Control: Internality H4.S S S N.S P.2: Freeway urgency will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.3:Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.S N.S S S S S S N.S N.S S N.S N.S 160 .S 3 P.3: Ethnicity influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H4.S N.2: Ethnicity will influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.1.S 1C P.2.2 :Freeway urgency will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.S N.2.2.S S S N.S P.S N.S 1B S S S S S S S S S S S S S S P.4:Destination-activity orientation will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.2.2: Taxicab experience will have a negative influence on total BIT score H3: Demographic variables will influence behaviour in traffic H3.S N.

S N. P.S STUDY 1C N.S N.1: Internality will have a negative influence on total BIT score H8.1: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Usurpation of right-of way H7.S N.3: Externality-Powerful-Others will have a positive influence on Hopelessness H7: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on behaviour in traffic H7.1: Internality will have a negative influence on Hopelessness H6.S= Not Supported.S S S N.S N.S N.S N.3.2: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Freeway urgency H7.3: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Externally-focused frustration H7.S P.2: Externality-Chance will have a positive influence on total BIT H8.S N.S 1B N.S S S S S S S S S S S S S S N.S N.3: Age will influence Hopelessness H6: Locus of Control will influence Hopelessness H6.2: Externality-Chance will have a positive influence on Hopelessness H6.S 161 .S N.S 3 N.S N.S S S S S S S S P.S S S S S P.S P.S N.33 (Continued) 1A H4.S N.S N.S N.S N.2: Ethnic background will influence of Hopelessness H5.S N.S N. blank=Not Applicable N. N.S S N.S N.S N.S S S N.1: Gender will influence Aggression H10.2: Age will influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.S S S S S S S S S S S S S S N.3: Hopelessness will moderate the Externality-Powerful-Others--BIT relationship H10: Demographic variables will influence aggression H10.3: Age will have a negative influence on Aggression S=Supported.S N.S P.S N.S S S N.S S N.S S S S S S S N.S N.S S N.S P.2: Hopelessness will moderate the Externality-Chance--BIT relationship H9.S N.S P.S= Partially Supported.S N.S N.S 2 N.S P.3: Age will influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H5: Demographic variables will influence Hopelessness H5.3.4: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Destination-activity Orientation H8: Locus of Control will influence behaviour in traffic H8.S N.3: Externality-Powerful-Others will have a positive influence on total BIT score H9: Hopelessness will moderate the Locus of Control-BIT relationship H9.S N.S N.Table 4.1: Gender will influence Hopelessness H5.S N.S N.S N.S S S N.S N.2: Ethnic background will influence Aggression H10.1: Hopelessness will moderate the Internality-BIT relation H9.

S S 2 3 P.1: Thoughts about Physical Aggression will have a positive influence on total BIT score H14.1: Gender will have a positive influence on hostile automatic thoughts H13.1: Thoughts about Physical Aggression will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H15.S 162 .2: Thoughts about the Derogation of Others will have a positive influence on total BIT score H14.1: Aggression will have a positive influence on usurpation of right-of way H11.S S S N. P.3: Thoughts about Revenge will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship S=Supported.S S S N.2: Aggression will have a positive influence on Freeway urgency H11.S= Not Supported. N.33 (Continued) 1A H11: Aggression will have a positive influence on behaviour in traffic H11.Table 4.2: Ethnic background will influence hostile automatic thoughts H13.3: Externality-Powerful-Others will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H13: Demographic variables will influence Hostile Automatic Thought s H13.S N.3: Thoughts about Revenge will have a positive influence on total BIT score H15: Hostile Automatic Thoughts will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H15.4: Aggression will have a positive influence on Destination-activity orientation H12: Locus of Control will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12.S= Partially Supported. 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.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 H12.3: Aggression will have a positive influence on Externally-focused frustration H11.S S S S S P.2: Thoughts about the Derogation-of-Others will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H15.S N.S S N.S P.1: Internality will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12.S S N.

F2.068 . These models were re-specified by adding different proximal context factors.7. Externality Chance (C). Study 2: motorcycle driver.060 Note: Internality (I). AQ. 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. P I.00000 . AQ and Hostile Automatic Thought (HAT). F2.093 . P. Usurpation of right-of-way (F1). P.05522 .00000 . externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation as proximal context factors. AQ.34. F3.93 . hopelessness or subtracting the latent variables in order to obtain the optimal goodness-of-fit index.00000 . All proposed models measured: (1) internality. This contextual mediated model was tested six times and the goodness-of-fit indices for these models are indicated in Table 4. F2. Table 4. Aggression (AQ). HAT I. P. F3.58 35. 4. BHS. BHS. F3.087 .4. F2. AQ. freeway urgency (F2).90 110.93 .f. F2. C.96 RMSEA .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. C. F3 F1. C.93 .96 . F4 F1.02 d. F3.52 (Jöreskog and Sörbom.g. BHS I.80 104.97 . C. externality (Chance) and externality (Powerful-Other) as distal context factors. two were worthy of further examination. and (3) crash occurrence and injury occurrence as outcome. Externality Powerful-Other (P). e.1 Study 1C The contextual mediated model in this study was tested with four distal factors – Locus of Control. F3. AQ I. HAT I. HAT Proximal Factors F1.045 . F4 F1. Hostile Automatic Thought (HAT). 23 28 33 38 24 33 p-value GFI .34: SEM Comparison (Study 1C) Distal Factors 1C1 1C2 1C3 1C4 1C5 1C6 I.00111 . freeway urgency. 2002).00126 .38 100. Hopelessness. F4 F1. Three studies (Study 1C: automobile driver.97 63. (2) usurpation of right-of-way. C. externally-focused frustration (F3) and destination-activity orientation (F4) Of the six models tested. Model 1C5 had better fit but necessitated dropping one of the component factors. F2. P. C. 163 . Hopelessness (BHS). F4 F1. F4 χ2 49. P.102 .

48. The five distal variables accounted for 67% of the variance in BIT scores.060. RMSEA=. ECVI=.22 respectively (see Figure 4.043.98).f. goodness-of-fit was characterised as excellent (χ2=35.29 and .51 and PGFI=.97.02. For Model C6.13.26. d. and PGFI=. An alternate model. To aid this discussion. The five distal variables accounted for 70% of the variance in BIT scores. ECVI=.96.destination-activity orientation (F4). For Model C5. goodness-of-fit was characterised as very good (χ2=63.=24.92) on accident involvement.23 respectively (see Figure 4. Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thought had effects on BIT.045.92) on accident involvement.10).3.5. 5. CFI=. GFI=.043.99) and constituted the best fit of all six of the tested models.97. RMR=. The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that all possible paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant: Internality. Externality (Powerful-Other). which are detailed in sect. AGFI=. retained all four of the BIT component factors and fit indices were acceptable.97.28 and . Externality (Chance).96. 164 . GFI=. For Model C6. Externality (Chance). . of the BIT score.14. but not as good as for C5.=33. Making a decision to select one of these models over the other raised a number of interesting points.91.26. .32. d. For Model C5.f. RMSEA=. values were: NFI=. . The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that all possible paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant: Internality. subsequent additional analysis was carried out to calculate a range of comparative fit indices. The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=. C6.42. AGFI=. . The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=. . Externality (Powerful-Other). with path coefficients = -. with path coefficients = -. RMR=.35. values for these additional indices were: NFI=.10). Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thought had effects on BIT.94. . CFI=.42.

99 P-value = .32* Externality (Chance) .26* Crash Occurrence Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) .79* .045 RMR=.05 BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way.043 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.97 GFI=.51* .f =24 CFI=.63* .58* . BITF4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4.57* Injury Occurrence .Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome Internality -.005522 N=252 RMSEA=. *p<. BITF2=Freeway Urgency.9: Contextual Mediated Model 1C5 (Three BIT Factors) 165 .92* Accident Involvement .22* Hostile Automatic Thought Model Statistics χ2=35. BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration.29* Aggression (AQ) .13* Externality (Powerful Other) BIT1 BIT2 BIT3 .97 d.

56* .31* Externality (Chance) . *p<.26* Crash Occurrence Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) .58* Injury Occurrence .98 P-value = .05 BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way.13* Externality (Powerful Other) BIT1 BIT2 BIT3 BIT4 .060 RMR=.96 d.22* Hostile Automatic Thought Model Statistics χ2=63.f =33 CFI=.00126 N=252 RMSEA=.29* Aggression (AQ) .50* .39* .043 Note: Values showed are path coefficients. BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration.92* Accident Involvement . BITF4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4.10: Contextual Mediated Model 1C6 (Four BIT Factors) 166 .77* .Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome Internality -. BITF2=Freeway Urgency.63* .02 GFI=.

HAT-P.00000 GFI RMSEA . 167 . externally-focused frustration (F3) and destination-activity orientation (F4) As depicted in Figure 4. HOS.94 169.35: Different Contextual Models (Study 1C) Distal Factors PHY. The results for the goodness-offit indexes are shown as follows: Table 4. VER.66).081 .13 respectively. HOS.91. F2. IND. d. HOS.66 153.35). Verbal aggression (VER). HOS.93 . F3 F1.41 d.80) on the accident involvement. GFI=. path coefficients = . HAT-D. HAT-R Proximal Factors F1.078.078 Note: Physical aggression (PHY).In addition. F4 F1. HAT-P.f.00000 . F2. F3 F1. Hostile Automatic Thought-Physical aggression (HAT-P). HAT-P.91 . F3. IND. HOS.=61.084 . Hostile Automatic Thought-Revenge(HAT-R). HAT-D.73 169. Hostility (HOS). ANG. VER.00111 . IND. IND. F4 χ2 108. HAT-D. IND PHY.f.10.00000 . freeway urgency (F2).95). CFI=. ANG. ANG. the final model has provided a reasonable fit to the data (χ2=153. Angry (ANG). Hostile Automatic Thought-Derogation of others (HAT-D).00000 .66 131. ANG. HAT-P. HAT-D. the contextual mediated model was tested using Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thoughts and their latent variables (component factors) as distal context factors. Usurpation of right-of-way (F1). RMSEA=. F3. ANG. 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).92 .41. F4 F1.084 . HAT-R PHY. HAT-R PHY. Aggression (AQ). F2. using automobile drivers sampled in Study 1C.91 . The proposed contextual mediated model was tested five times (see Table 4. The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=. F2. Indirect aggression (IND). F2. 42 61 50 61 61 p-value . Hostile Automatic Thought was found to have a direct effect on the AQ (path coefficient=. F3. VER.91 . HAT-R PHY.080 .65 and .

*p<.62* .69* Anger .05 . BIT3=Externally-Focused Frustration.63* Indirect Aggression .60* Injury Occurrence Physical Aggression .83* .66* .72* .82* Revenge BIT1=Usurpation of Right-of way. BIT4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4.13* Model Statistics χ2=153.65* Crash Occurrence Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) .61* .95 P-value = .41 GFI=.80* Accident Involvement .65* .058 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.90* Derogation of Other Hostile Automatic Thought .f =61 CFI=.91 d.078 RMR=.11: Contextual Mediated Model Study 1C (Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thoughts) 168 .Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome Physical Aggression .68* Aggression (AQ) BIT1 BIT2 BIT3 BIT4 .000 N=252 RMSEA=.58* .29* Hostility . BIT2=Freeway Urgency.

12 d. BHS F1. F3 F1. C.94 .66) on the accident involvement.86 23 28 23 .17631 . F2. path coefficients = -.33 33. Internality and Externality (Chance) the Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) but not Externality (PowerfulOther).06722 . the final model for the student motorcycle drivers did not include hopelessness. P.2 Study 2 In Study 2. p-value GFI RMSEA I. F3.36). GFI=. P I. freeway urgency (F2).7.36: Different Contextual Models (Study 2) Distal Factors Proximal Factors χ2 29. The four distal variables accounted for 49% of the variance in BIT.94.07580 . Compared to the Study 1 for student car drivers. C. CFI=.=28. Externality Powerful-Other (P).65 and . F2.047 .80 respectively (see Figure 4. Externality Chance (C). The contextual mediated model was tested using locus of control and hopelessness as distal context factors.94 . The proposed contextual mediated model was tested three times (see Table 4. F2. C.12. d.4. Usurpation of right-of-way (F1). RMSEA=.98).058 . The goodness-of-fit indexes for these models are shown as follow: Table 4. F4 F1.047.062 Note: Internality (I). Hopelessness (BHS).f. the participants were motorcycle drivers. externally-focused frustration (F3) and destination-activity orientation (F4) The model including Locus of Control has provided the best goodness-of-fit to the data (χ2=29.95 . The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that three paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant. F3. F4 39. BHS I. The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=. P. 169 .12).f.

BIT3=Externally-Focused Frustration. BIT2=Freeway Urgency.047 RMR=.99 P-value = .Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome BIT1 BIT2 .66* Accident Involvement Externality (Powerful Other) .05 Injury Occurrence Model Statistics χ2=29.12 GFI=.70* BIT4 .12: Contextual Mediated Model Study 2 170 . BIT4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4.05 BIT1=Usurpation of Right-of way.83* BIT3 .78* .95 d.88* Crash Occurrence .57* Internality -.89* .65* Externality (Chance) .046 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.80* Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) .f =23 CFI=. *p<.17631 N=122 RMSEA=.

171 .=21. F3.20 and .93 . p-value GFI RMSEA Crash Occurrence. F2. GFI=. Externality Chance (ExC).061. P.94 . P Proximal Factors F1.35265 .97 .068 Injury Occurrence Crash Occurrence. Usurpation of right-of-way (F1). C.82 28 . freeway urgency (F2). 37.59 17 . C.37: Different Contextual Models (Study 3) Distal Factors I. AQ F1.95). RMSEA=. The contextual mediated model was tested using locus of control and hopelessness as distal context factors. I.37). F3.39 21 . P.06743 .13). Internality and AQ.f. Hopelessness (H). C. Externality Powerful-Other (ExPo).079 Injury Occurrence I.40) on the accident involvement.7.95. F4 Crash Occurrence 31. but not Externality. path coefficients = -. This contextual mediated model was tested four times (see Table 4. AQ and only crash occurrence as outcome has provided the best goodness-of-fit to the data (χ2=31.39. F4 Outcomes χ2 d.027 I. the participants were taxi drivers. F4 Crash Occurrence 18. F3. C.03084 .4.95 . have effects on the Behaviour in Traffic (BIT). F2. The four distal variables accounted for 12% of the variance in BIT. F2. CFI=. AQ F1. The goodness-of-fit indexes for these models are shown as follow: Table 4. The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that two out of four possible paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant.f. F2. externally-focused frustration (F3) and destination-activity orientation (F4) Model included locus of control. d. F3.20 respectively (see Figure 4. AQ F1.3 Study 3 In Study 3. F4 50. The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=.00524 .22 23 .061 Note: Internality (I).

03 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) .Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome BIT1 BIT2 .13: Contextual Mediated Model Study 3 172 .95 P-value = . *p<. BIT4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4.20* Aggression (AQ) Model Statistics χ2=31.40* Crash Occurrence Externality (Powerful Other) .39 GFI=.61* BIT4 .63* BIT3 .20* Externality (Chance) .39* Internality -.061 RMR=.06743 N=133 RMSEA=.f =21 CFI=.053 Note: Values showed are path coefficients. BIT3=Externally-Focused Frustration. BIT2=Freeway Urgency.13 .95 d.74* -.05 BIT1=Usurpation of Right-of way.

the mediating effect of BIT on hopelessness and crash outcomes relationship could not be estimated.1 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hopelessness and Crash Outcomes In all studies.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.8.8. Step2=independent variable has a significant effect on the dependent variable. 2 and 3 are satisfied. (3) the relationship between aggression and accident involvement. BIT was a complete mediator for the relationship between AQ total score and crash occurrence. 4.8 Testing Mediational Relationships Using SPSS The mediating effects of BIT on: (1) the relationship between hopelessness and accident involvement. Step 3=mediator has a significant effect on the dependent variable. 173 . (2) the relationship between locus of control and accident involvement.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. Table 4. Therefore. hopelessness did not significantly influence the crash outcomes (see Table 4. consistent with path analysis results. 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.38). (4) the relationship between hostile automatic thoughts and accident involvement were tested using the four-step procedure proposed by Baron and Kenny (1986). and.39). 4.4. Not applicable = mediating effect could only be tested when conditions in Step1.

Table 4.39: BIT Mediates the Relationship between Aggression and Crash Outcomes BIT mediates Aggression-Crash Occurrence Relation Study 1B Study 1C BIT mediates AggressionInjury Occurrence Relation Study 1B Study 1C Step 1 Significant Significant Step 1 Significant Significant Step 2 Significant Significant Step 2 Significant Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Step 4 Complete Mediator Complete Mediator Step 4 Partial Mediator Complete Mediator 4. Externality-Chance (C) and Externality-PowerfulOthers – and crash outcomes (See Table 4.BIT was a partial mediator for the relationship between aggression and injury occurrence. Exceptions to this were found only with respect to the relationship between P and both crash outcomes in Study 1A.8. where the 174 .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 4.3 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hostile Automatic Thought and Crash Outcome The regression results showed that the BIT partially mediated the relationship between hostile automatic thought and crash outcomes (see Table 4. in Studies 1A.8.41). Table 4.4 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Crash Outcomes For automobile drivers.40). behaviour in traffic (BIT) had complete or partial mediating effects on the relationship between the three locus of control dimensions – Internality (I). 1B and 1C.

With respect to the relationship between I and the crash outcomes and the relationship between P and the crash outcomes.mediating effect of BIT total scores could not be estimated because requisite conditions in the second step of the analysis were not satisfied. no mediating effect of BIT could be estimated since 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. For motorcycle drivers in Study 2. BIT had no mediating effects on the relationship between I.41: BIT Mediates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Crash Outcomes BIT mediates I-Crash Occurrence Relation Study 1A Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 Study 3 BIT mediates I-Injury Occurrence Relation Study 1A Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 Study 3 BIT mediates C-Crash Occurrence Relation Study 1A Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 Study 3 BIT mediates C-Injury Occurrence Relation Study 1A Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 Study 3 Step 1 Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 1 Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 1 Significant Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Step 1 Significant Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Step 2 Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Not Significant Step 2 Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Not Significant Step 2 Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 2 Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Step 4 Complete Mediator Partial Mediator Partial Mediator Not Applicable Not Applicable Step 4 Complete Mediator Partial Mediator Partial Mediator Not Applicable Not Applicable Step 4 Partial Mediator Complete Mediator Partial Mediator Complete Mediator Not Applicable Step 4 Partial Mediator Complete Mediator Partial Mediator Complete Mediator Not Applicable 175 . Table 4. C or P and the two crash outcomes. For taxicab drivers in Study 3.

Study 2: t(422)= -2. There was no significant difference in scores on the P dimension between automobile drivers and motorcycle drivers.9.01.41: 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. Study 2: t(421)= -4. Study 2: t(422)= 8. Study 2: t(372)= 8. 176 . With respect to the three dimensions of locus of control.01. 1B and 1C scored significantly lower on hopelessness than did motorcycle drivers.1 Differences between Automobile Drivers and Motorcycle Drivers In a subsequent analysis. p <. p <.Table 4.442. Study 1C vs.665. p <. Study 1A vs.993. Study 1B vs. Study 1A vs. Study 2: t(421)= 7.9 Comparison of Automobile Drivers. p <.05.01. Automobile drivers also scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers on C.837. Study 2: t(372)= -3. It was found that there were significant differences in scores for hopelessness. 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. scores for distal variables (locus of control and hopelessness).01. Motorcycle Drivers and Taxicab Drivers 4. p <.01. Study 1C vs. automobile drivers scored higher than motorcycle drivers on I. p <. p <. Study 1A vs. Study 2: t(421)= -3. Study 1B vs.01.663. Automobile drivers in Studies 1A.162.426.

Study 1C vs. Study 2: t(421)= -3.01.01. and to injury occurrence. “freeway urgency”.01. p <. Automobile drivers scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers in injury occurrence. taxicab drivers scored higher than automobile drivers on the I dimension. respectively.687.01. Study 1A vs.484. Study 1A vs. p <.01. 4. 4. p <. t(986)= 34. t(253) = 2. p <. Automobile drivers scored higher that taxicab drivers on total BIT scores.01. p <.01. p <.01.Automobile drivers scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers with respect to the total BIT score. and t(986)= 35. Study 2: t(421)= -7. p <.01.9.01. t(986)= 37. 177 . Study 1B vs. p <.775.261. Study 2: t(372)= -6. Study 2: t(372)= -5. t(986)= 5.402. t(986)= 6. Study 1C vs. p <.801.577. p <. p <. Study 2: t(422)= -4. p <.433. Also. and on all four BIT subscales: “usurpation of right-of way”. Study 2: t(372)= -7. “externally-focused frustration” and “destination-activity orientation”. t(986)= 7. t(986)= 30.9. automobile drivers scored higher than taxicab drivers with respect to crash occurrence.01. Study 1B vs.211. t(986)= 3. Study 1A vs.614. There were no differences between motorcycle drivers and taxicab drivers on the P dimension. p <. Study 2: t(422)= -6. p <.977.747.01.01.01.200.837. p <. p <. Motorcycle drivers scored higher than taxicab drivers on C.926.01. p <.01. p <. Automobile drivers scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers in crash occurrence.186.2 Differences between Automobile Drivers and Taxicab Drivers With respect to locus of control.3 Differences between Motorcycle Drivers and Taxicab Drivers Taxicab drivers scored higher than motorcycle drivers on the I locus of control dimension. There were no significant differences scores on either C or P between the automobile drivers and taxicab drivers. t(253)= 8.704.861.01.01. Study 2: t(421)= -8. Study 1C vs.

t(253)= 8. p <.01and to injury occurrence. and all four BIT subscales: “usurpation of right-of way”. Also. p <.01.881. t(253)= 31.01. respectively. and t(253)= 37. p <.01.982. “freeway urgency”. t(253)= 35.016. t(253)= 11.977.946. t(253)= 39.01.567. p <. p <.01. p <.737. 178 .Motorcycle drivers had higher total BIT scores than taxicab drivers. t(253)= 8.01. p <. “externally-focused frustration” and “destination-activity orientation”. drivers scored higher with respect to crash occurrence.

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

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

… 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

10) than the automobile drivers and motorcyclists (28.01years. By virtue of their age and occupation.53.hierarchy. It appears that belief in chance or fate outcomes may be a more important factor in shaping the driving behaviour of novice or inexperienced drivers than it is for more experienced ones. but the externality-chance dimension had no significant effect.63.1. SD=131. taxicab drivers were considerably older (43. SD=1. it might also be assumed that their traffic exposure was greater than that of the students. SD=1. For taxicab drivers. it might be assumed that taxicab drivers could well have a broader social network. as well. the continued operation of their vehicle is fundamental to their livelihood so motivational factors may take precedence over attributions of external control.66) than the automobile drivers and motorcyclists (20. SD=22. In the present study. Hijar and Tovar (2005) have noted that social capital. Inclán. SD=11. although driving frequency was not measured for taxicab drivers.2 years. respectively). the extent to which an individual is connected to others through interpersonal networks.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. affected driving behaviour and decisions about the use of public roads. For taxicab drivers. social trust and norms that promote coordination and cooperation. Of course. 5. there are other possible influences. This would be an error more likely to be made by younger novice or less experienced drivers.7 months. internals reported that they engaged in safer behaviour in traffic. Further research is needed to examine the influence of driving experience.25 years. and 36. Because of occupational demands. SD=.16. Malaysian-Indian automobile 187 .3. respectively). They were also more experienced (266.5.1 months. traffic exposure and other variables on the effects that internality and externality exert on driving behaviour.6 months as licensed drivers. 20. as it did with the less experienced university students in the other groups.

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

Armstrong (1987) argued that urbanisation has affected 189 . 1999. The size of the urban population in Malaysia increased by 4.5% annually from 9.Malaysian participants scored lower in internality was contrary to Carment’s earlier conclusions with individuals from India. The first of these is the steady rate of urbanisation which began in the early-1960s and has continued through the last three decades (Gomez.8 million in 1996.3. and. by extension. but two possible influences stand out. 1966. 1999) where one’s skills at manipulating the system may have fostered a need for greater internal control. the reasons for this commonality in outlook are probably multi-factorial.7 in 1996. Gomez. Indeed. 1999. Again. 5. Nandy. Willford (2003) concluded that Indian-Malaysians. In reference to Carment’s explanation of the earlier results. the proportion of the population residing in urban areas increased from 51% in 1991 to 55. Sendut. This is consistent with recent findings among Malay and Chinese ethnic groups in Singapore. 2002. as a result. 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. Salih &Young. as a group. than between Singaporean-Chinese and Chinese participants from China. 1998. 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. Closer proximity of cultural groups can be assumed to increase contact and transmission of knowledge and awareness of value systems (Hofstede. an internal locus of control. have been largely limited from participation in social and political processes that would necessitate that sort of social skill development and. where Cheung et al.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. 1981). although they were consistent with more recent research by Sinha & Watson (2007). including locus of control. 1999). (2006) found greater commonalities in personality traits.5 million in 1991 to 11.

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

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

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

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

Martin. Carretie.. 2004. Additional studies are needed to investigate whether this relationship is best explained through an internal stimulus-response process. 2002. Tomkins. The present research has demonstrated linkages between hostile automatic thoughts. hostile automatic thoughts. Trabasso & Liwag. aggressive emotionality. 2000.5. 2002. as well as other task demands of driving in traffic. This can happen both in conditions of very high task demand and in conditions where the driver’s state is affected (p. As de Waard (2002) has argued: There are limits to the investment of effort. 2000. and attempting to exercise control over. an overburdening of cognitive workload capacity or both. Mercado & Tapia. Performance (e. Taylor & Fragopanagos.1) defined multivariate thinking as “a body of thought processes that illuminate interrelatedness between and within sets of variables” and proposed that 194 . and at the same time processing feelings of responsibility arising from one’s internal locus of control requires the investment of mental effort. In fact. As drivers contend with heightened feelings of aggression and increased internal chatter. lane control in driving) will drop if effort investment is insufficient or ceases.Robbins. 1997). subject to ambiguous interpretation (Chan. so too does the mental effort required (de Waard & Brookhuis. Making sense of. 2005). 1996. Tavris (1989) referred to anger as the “misunderstood emotion”. 1979) and disruptive to attentional processing of external stimuli (Adolphs.g.5 Testing the Contextual Mediated Model Using Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) 5. 1993). p. 1999. As the costs of achieving or maintaining a certain target level of performance increase. MartinLoeches. 5. 162). Hinojosa.1 Advantages of Using SEM Harlow (2005. Lambie & Marcel. they may well reach a “red line” at which more mental effort is required than is available. Stein. Dien. Watson & Wan. internal locus of control and tendencies toward more dangerous behaviour in traffic.

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

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

Fit index values (e. so that stronger evidence supporting the correct specification of a model can be adduced (Thompson. CFI..00 have been recommended to indicate good model fit (Hair et al. it has been stressed repeatedly by several authors no definitive set of rules has been established for model selection (Byrne. 1998). Structural equation modelling should. RMSEA and the χ2 /degrees of freedom ratio. GFI. RMSEA lower than .. 1998. it may be advisable to select one that offers the most useful information even if indices are slightly lower than its alternative. be a process that balances utility with statistical 197 . It is widely agreed that selection of the model should be a very good or an excellent fit.08 and a χ2 /degrees of freedom ratio less than 3. 2006.In the present research. Sambasivan & Ismail. 2006). both dealing with traffic psychology (Sümer.3 Best Fit or Best Model It is important to test multiple plausible rival models. 2003) and other disciplines (Elangovan. 2000) and there are many examples of research studies. Maruyama. we would argue.g. CFI and CFI) greater than . Hair et al. At the same time. the model with the best goodness-of-fit indices is selected over alternate models. 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. 2006) such that for analyses of sample sizes more than 250. It is argued here that. Sümer (2003) reported that some researchers have used critical χ2 /degrees of freedom ratios from 2 to 5 to indicate an acceptable fit.5. As a general rule. the fit indices for assessing the model included χ2 value and the associated df. significant p-values can be expected.90. provided competing models both present a pre-determined standard for goodness-of-fit. This has become such a widely accepted principle that decisions over model selection have become almost automatic (Klem. 2000). it should not be used as the sole indicator of SEM fit because it is affected by sample size (Hair et al. 2001. 2001. Md-Sidin. 5.. Although chi-square is the most fundamental absolute fit index. 2009) that have tended to select the model that has the best fit indices.

3). as suggested by Byrne (2001).1.7. a finding that was further supported by additional subsequent analyses using a further series of goodness-of-fit indices. it is concluded that the selection of Model 1C5 would be preferable 198 . when taking into consideration “practical considerations”.soundness. Sobel and Bohrnstedt (1985) pointed out that exclusive reliance on goodness-of-fit indices is unacceptable. Thus. provided the chosen one meets pre-determined standards for goodness-of-fit. In some cases. Both models were judged to have an excellent or very good fit. two structural equation models. However. it makes sense to choose a model with a slightly poorer fit but more useful information over the best-fitting model. destination-activity orientation. while Model 1C6 (see Figure 4. 88). 1C5 and 1C6. “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. More importantly. stating that. In the case at hand. If selection criteria were to be based solely on goodness-of-fit parameters. and practical considerations (p. Index coefficients from the original and subsequent analysis are shown in Table 5.10) excluded the fourth factor. 158).9) included all four components of the BIT scale. Byrne (2001) argued that: Fit indexes yield information bearing only on the model’s lack of fit. statistical. 4. they can in no way reflect the extent to which the model is plausible. of intervariable relationships for high-risk undergraduate automobile drivers were compared using an initial set of goodness-of-fit indices (see sect. this judgment rests squarely on the shoulders of the research. assessment of model adequacy must be based on multiple criteria that take into account theoretical. the choice between the two would be Model 1C6 given its superior index coefficients. Model 1C5 (see Figure 4. There is some support for this position in the literature.

97 0. F3 & F4 BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way.91 0. BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration.48 30. P. Given that multivariate analysis revealed a significant association between this BIT component and crash outcomes.060 0.51 Very Good Model 1C6 Distal Context: I. BITF4=DestinationActivity Orientation Outcomes: Crash Occurrence. C. AQ.045 0. HAT Proximal Context: BITF1.909 0. F2.94 0. Fit Statistics (Threshold values) Outcomes: Crash Occurrence.98 0.02 0.97 1.99 0. F2. F3 BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way.39 Best because it includes important information about destination-activity orientation behaviour that would be lost if Model 1C6 were chosen.42 11. 199 .96 1. Injury Occurrence 35. AQ. 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. P.96 0.499 0. BITF2=Freeway Urgency. BITF2=Freeway Urgency.043 129.97 0.02 0.1: Goodness of Fit Statistics for Model 1C5 and 1C6 (Initial and Subsequent Analyses) Model 1C5 Distal Context: I.Table 5. HAT Proximal Context: BITF1.97 0.034 97. C. BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration.02 0. Injury Occurrence Degrees of Freedom RMSEA GFI Chi-sq/Df RMR AIC NFI CFI AGFI PGFI NCP ECVI Overall model fit 63.97 0.

By selecting Model 1C5. 200 .48. For practical reasons. Hair et al. when drivers do let their attention wander from current road and traffic conditions they are at increased risk of experiencing a crash outome (Moller. Parker. based on the notion that each variable included may. Storey. a central psychological feature of the TABP in driving is not overlooked and the BIT framework is kept intact. 1990. while for Model 1C6. 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. (2006) have noted that models with a higher PGFI are preferable over competing models because they have a better fit relative to their complexity. goodness-of-fit. 1995. they should be dropped. 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. in particular. 2006). Further discussion in this section refers only to Model 1C5. in this analysis. but still acceptable. the PGFI coefficient for Model 1C5 is 0. the standard should be to include as much relevant information as possible. Reason. et al.It can be argued here that safety research demands a somewhat different standard in terms of model construction and selection. 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.42. Kayumov. 2006. 1996).1).. Schwebel. when variables do not improve the AGFI and PGFI. the decision was made to select Model 1C5 over Model 1C6. However. one that favours the maximum use of information in the cause of saving lives. Sambasivan (2008) stated that. Manstead & Stradling. it is 0. Results of this and other research have demonstrated that. provide the key to reducing injuries and saving lives (Reason.

crash occurrence (r = -. aggression.4 Testing the Contextual Mediated Models Using SEM 5. internality and aggression had direct effects on BIT and indirect effects. .4.45). externalitychance. The results suggested that the alternative model. indicating the importance of this factor in crash outcomes.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. four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way.5. . indicating that driving behaviour is closely related to involvement in motor vehicle crashes.5. Findings in this study underscored the strong role of BIT in predicting accidents.14.21). externality-powerful other.34) and injury occurrence (r = . As observed from the investigation of structural paths. externality-powerful other. freeway urgency. .1). This suggested that automobile drivers with high levels of 201 . 1991. and hostile automatic thoughts). 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.66).28 respectively). externally-focused frustration.35.29). the base model (with only locus of control variables) was compared against five alternative models (see section 4. on crash outcomes. Rothengatter.6. 2003).26. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) had significant effects on BIT scores (path coefficients = . Evans.35 and .18) and injury occurrence (r = -. Total scores of BIT were significantly correlated with crash occurrence (r = . with five distal factors (internality. for automobile drivers sampled. externality-chance.5. 2001. They appeared to be the strongest predictors among the five distal factors (path coefficients = -. Internality was significantly but negatively correlated with BIT (r = -. Distal factors (locus of control: internality.g. In Study 1C.28 and .23 respectively) and the BIT displayed a significant effect on crash outcomes (path coefficient = . Examination of the predictive relationship between distal and proximal variables yielded support for the contextual model and were consistent with previous findings (e. via BIT. Sümer.

This suggests that motorcyclists who believed that outcomes were determined by fate or chance tended to report engaging in riskier behaviour in traffic and had greater crash accident involvement. had a better fit than other alternative models.66) directly predicted crash outcomes. freeway urgency and externally-focused frustration) for the proximal factor.23) and injury occurrence (r = . crash occurrence (r = .80) indirectly and the proximal factor-BIT (path coefficient = .internality were more likely to have low total BIT scores. as well as low probability of crash and injury occurrence. on the other hand. 5. externality-powerful other and hopelessness). which sampled motorcyclists. with hopelessness removed as a distal factor but four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way.41). and four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way. freeway urgency. Aggression. Investigation of the path parameters revealed that only two of the distal factors. 202 . Results indicated that the first alternative model.24). Aggressive automobile drivers tended to have high level of BIT scores. One of the most compelling findings in Study 2 was that externalitychance scores had the highest correlations with BIT (r = . the base model (with only the locus of control variable) was compared against two alternative models.65 and . was significantly and positively correlated with BIT (r = . externality-chance. externally-focused frustration. freeway urgency.25).20) and injury occurrence (r = . externally-focused frustration.4.55).2 Study 2: Motorcyclists In Study 2. The second alternative model also had four distal factors but only three latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way. and destination-activity orientation) as proximal factors. internality and externality-chance (path coefficients = -. and high probabilities of crash and injury occurrence. The first alternative model had four distal factors (locus of control: internality. crash occurrence (r = .5. and destination-activity orientation) comprising the proximal factor and two latent constructs (crash and injury occurrence) comprising the crash outcome variable.

3). freeway urgency. the result was slightly different as a belief in chance as an outcome determinant had a significant effect on BIT scores. Results indicated that the third alternative model. with four distal factors (internality. externality-powerful other and aggression). All models included four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way. the results of measurement model analysis showed that one of the distal factors. for crash outcomes. Investigation of the path parameters revealed that there were only two of the four distal factors.5 What Can be Learned from Testing Contextual Models with SEM? The use of SEM provided support for the contextual mediated model.3 Study 3: Taxicab Drivers In Study 3. internality and aggression (path coefficients = -. For motorcyclists. However.5.6. the bestfitting model used only a single latent construct. externality-powerful other. and destination-activity orientation) comprising the proximal factor and one latent construct (crash occurrence) comprising the outcome variable. as a result. in turn and indirectly. 203 . freeway urgency. externality-chance. on the two latent variables comprising crash outcomes. such as internality. 5. externally-focused frustration. the base model (with only the locus of control variable) was compared against three alternative models (see sect. hopelessness. 4. for the sample of taxicab drivers. with the sample of taxicab drivers. Both dimensions of external locus of control had insignificant results. had significant direct effects on the four latent constructs that comprised the proximal variable (BIT) and. and destination-activity orientation) as proximal factors. externality-chance.5. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts. The second and third alternative models only had one latent construct. aggression). crash occurrence. had a better fit than alternative models.24 respectively) that had direct effects on the proximal factor and a simultaneous indirect effect on crash occurrence. Distal factors. externally-focused frustration.5. to measure outcome. had no significant effect on BIT scores. their crash occurrence. via BIT. This suggested that internality and aggression play important roles in affecting the behaviour in traffic of taxicab drivers and.4. Finally. The first alternative included four distal factors (internality. four latent constructs (usurpation of right-ofway.20 and . crash occurrence.

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

55). during the interval from 2000 to 2003. Study 1B: 100%.2%).2 compares the percentage of the national population located in each state and the percentage of the participants in the total sample coming from each state. With regard to whether the sample was representative of peoples of the various states and regions of Malaysia. Since.2). while Malacca and Negeri Sembilan were overrepresented.to 25-year old high-risk group was 99. the sample does not appear to be very repreresentative of the Malaysian population. involved drivers aged 16 to 25 years. 205 . Selangor. contributed the largest proportion of the sample. 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. young drivers are among the most likely to experience a motor vehicle crash. Approximately one-third of all automobile crashes. in Malaysia. Table 5. Ages of participants in this research ranged from 18 to 29 years. as elsewhere.In Malaysia.13 years (SD = 1. The proportion of the total sample for Studies 1 and 2 falling within the 16.6%. Sarawak and Kelantan were under-represented in the sample. Study 1C: 99.2% and Study 2: 99. it is helpful to examine the distribution by state in which research participants obtained their driving licenses. individuals usually obtain their license in the state in which they are registered as resident. The most populous state.31. Sabah. Based alone on the number of residents living in each state. with a mean age of 20.6% (Study 1A: 99. making it the single highest risk age group (see Table 2. The Spearman rank correlation coefficient for these two sets of scores is rs=.

150.1 (7) 8. Table 5.7 (2) 2.880 3. high-risk drivers in Malaysia. and there are different crash frequencies in each one.2 (13) 11.286 1.188 1.3 (12) 11.576 2. in this case.2 7.000 3.9 (3) 2.7 (14) But.503. In both cases.6 2.200.6 (10) 7.000 2. For that reason.000 2.807 733.887.5 (4) 4.6 5.0 8.004.8 6.300.3 compares the state of origin of participants in Study 1 with the more relevant measures of vehicle registrations and crash occurrence.000 Per cent of national population 26.2 11.4 provides similar comparisons for the state of origin of the sample of motorcyclists.2 (11) 12.818.5 (8) 3. 206 . Table 5.Table 5.4 5.500.2 3.674 1. a better assessment of sample representativeness by state would be to compare the proporation of participants with numbers of registered private vehicles and with the numbers of crashes in each state of origin. attempting to determine sample representativeness based on only state population would be flawed.2 (1) 3.000 1.9 (9) 7. Not all states have the same number of drivers. the state of origin is defined as the state in which the participants’ driving licenses were issued.260.0 12.387.100.8 (6) 6.9 9.6 0.19 Per cent (rank) of participants sampled 17.2: Distribution of National Population and Sampled Participants by State State 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Selangor Sabah Johor Sarawak Perak Kelantan Kuala Lumpur Kedah Penang Pahang Terengganu Negeri Sembilan Malacca Perlis State Population (approx) 7. It is important to remember that the purpose of this research was to study the population of young.000 215.000 1.2 (5) 0.396.0 4.500 1.6 6.

170 13.90 5.588.88 2.24 0.50 29.617 10.37 3.4 4.3: State of Origin Compared with Crash Frequency and Vehicle Registrations (Study 1) Average Motor Vehicle Crash Frequency (2000-2003) 34.34 11.93 0.70 3.Table 5.19 4.212 39.45 9.561 1.198 156.785 393.85 1.041 92.635 1.35 4.026 10.75 4.22 17.20 12.97 12.98 0.606 24.91 2.68 7.89 3.16 2.467 25.63 207 .600 135.735 165.251 324.029 273.19 3.84 11.27 14.55 7.43 2.19 7.428.76 3.064 9.490 525.28 3.725 70.92 25.70 12.93 9.88 3.768 6.163 10.774 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 12.230 266.093 5.13 6.496 187.137 698.24 2.496 Private Automobile Registrations (until 2003) 703.34 3.96 3.104 6.003 10.920 181.05 2.36 8.46 8.144 12.

36 8.221 36.212 39.33 4.305 276.64 1.59 12.722 255.28 3.46 14.496 % Private Vehicle Registrations (until 2003) 933.64 2.992 776.029 273.064 9.82 9.88 2.02 7.4: State of Origin Compared with Crash Frequency and Vehicle Registrations (Study 2) Average Motor Vehicle Crash Frequency (2000-2003) 34.76 3.15 5.48 1.46 5.989 6.45 2.38 4.467 25.37 3.4 4.561 1.75 5.679 90.856 310.768 6.170 13.93 7.79 13.02 10.727 161.98 0.74 208 .88 3.104 6.283 770.Table 5.49 12.606 24.66 11.112 347.20 15.003 10.43 2.38 0.63 13.026 10.59 1.617 10.63 11.725 70.10 9.03 4.995 233.49 0.14 7.27 14.22 3.93 9.144 12.656 821.133 705.35 4.288 444.958 % 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 12.92 25.615.

908** 1 3 Participants’ state of origin . Table 5.4.903** . 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. it is possible to say that sampling.3 and 5. participants came from – or. Even though data collection was carried out at a single university location.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) .701** 1 Study 2: Motorcyclists Motorcycle crash frequency (by state) Vehicle registrations (by state) Participants’ state of origin 1 2 3 1 . it can be argued that they were.Table 5. This sample was comprised of individuals within the age group that has the most motor vehicle crashes. Of course. Future studies of Malaysian driving behaviour will need to expand the range participant 209 . 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. were licensed as drivers in – the states with the most registered vehicles and the highest numbers of crashes.824** . both for the studies of automobile drivers and for the study of motorcyclists.796** 1 Were the participants studied in this research representative of high-risk Malaysian drivers? In terms of their age and their regional origin.5 shows the The Spearman rank correlation coefficient (rs) for the variables in Tables 5. was representative of a high risk driver population. At least on these dimensions. at least.

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

6. 5. (1993) and af Wählberg (2003) have commented on the problem of data collection timeframes in studies of motor vehicle crashes. the longer the time period for data collection. muscle tension.g. 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. questionnaires were administered to measure all variables and. 211 . Yet. 13). though. Miles and Johnson (2003) have noted that. for instance.3 Timeframe for Data Collection Elander et al. blood pressure..effects of personality on driving have drawbacks that cannot be overlooked. subjects would tend to under-report dangerous or illegal activities and that this tendency might usually be expected to be consistent across compared groups. the more information is lost through memory lapses. Visser and Denis (2004). Since generally motor vehicle crashes are fairly rare events. self-reported crash and injury histories and self-reported driving patterns measured by the Behaviour in Traffic scale could be prone to inaccuracy. In the present research. subjective accounts of crash or injury history should be validated against objective measures. as well. therefore. all data may be subject to the shortcomings of self-report methods.g.. in studies of driving behaviour. perhaps drawing from drivers’ insurance records or. errors of recall or contamination by post-event information (Belli & Loftus. heart-rate acceleration and electrodermal activity) and to overt driving behaviours (e. A further methodological problem occurs when one tries to measure states or traits with psychological tests and associate them retrospectively with crash situations that occurred some time ago. The assumption. 1996). as in a study reported by Chalmé. In future studies. steering wheel reversals and speed change frequencies)” (p. combined interview and observational methods. Particularly. inadequate data are collected when the research is conducted over short periods of time. 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.

and that one participant’s perception of frequent automobile or motorcycle use may seem infrequent to another’s. The driving frequency measure was alaso used a co-variate in analyses of relationships between other distal variables and proximal variables. Second. there is a certain imprecision to the measure. 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. participants were asked to recall if a crash or resulting injury had occurred within the past twelve months.4 Measurement of Driving Frequency One of the self-report measures used in this research requires particular discussion. in that the measure tells us little about the circumstances under which participants drove other than their perceived use against some unstated. individual standard. Mercer.In the present research. Some authors have asked participants to estimate the distrance travelled during a particular period (Lajunen & Summala. 5. First. 1971). 1999).2) that higher levels would result in less risky behaviour in traffic was supported. This method has been used in previous studies by other authors (Pelz & Schuman. Traits included in the contextual mediated model as distal variables have been found to be relatively consistent and resistant to change over this interval. 2002). The problem with this approach is that it is every bit as subjective as the categorical judgements of 212 .6. as well. it has to be acknowledged that the measure is subjective. 1997. other measures of driving frequency present as many or more problems. and the hypothesis (H2. Unfortunately. Results were used as a measure of driving frequency for Studies 1 and 2. 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. a timeframe that is consistent with reasonably accurate recall (Haber & Haber.

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

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

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

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

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

openness. anxiety. The general lack of success in identifying predictors of safe driving. According to Ranney (1994). competence or hierarchical level of information processing (see sect. for instance. 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). Kerlinger (2000) and others. … has used performance-based measures to predict individual accident histories. it may be even more fruitful to focus the model on the interaction of variables that contribute to safe. sensation seeking (Sümer. much current research.3. not on everyday driving. The contextual mediated framework.7. 5.other studies. together with methodological difficulties associated with the use of accident measures.4). as defined by Grayson (1997). extraversion. Future research should attempt to expand the contextual mediated approach beyond studies of crash histories. conscientiousness. With several exceptions. depression. the process through which drivers make adjustments based on their perceptions of risk. Rather than describing and predicting the interaction of factors involved in causing crashes. 2003). psychoticism. provides breadth of focus and a more holistic perspective than many other attempts at modelling driving behaviour. agreeableness and neuroticism (Sümer et al. has focused primarily on accident-causing behaviour. and has relied heavily on post-hoc explanations.. 2005) were included as distal variables. 2. 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. while still very much a model and not a theory. crash-free driving.

no matter how reliable a safety device. It is possible that drivers with an internal locus of control will rely more on their own skills and abilities while they are driving and. individuals viewing themselves as being responsible for both positive and negative driving outcomes will be more likely to take precautionary measures such as wearing seat belts and being vigilant to roadway cures. should the device fail to perform the task for which it was designed. They argued that locus of control. is a concept that should be incorporated as an element in theories seeking to explain BA and its role in driving. Following this reasoning. Conversely. while intuitively appealing and providing some useful insight. 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. or at least to react more slowly.did not test any of those theories specifically. relying on it to competently perform the task it was designed for. they will become less involved with the driving task and be less likely to react. 219 . As a result. those with an external locus of control may be more likely to give up control to an external device. those who see themselves playing little or no part in the unfolding of events will act in a less cautious manner. Within their proposed conceptual framework. On the other hand. Brown and Noy (2004) stressed that theories of BA and driving behaviour in general. along with trust in automation and sensation seeking. will always maintain more direct involvement with the driving task than those scoring high on externality dimensions. fail by not considering individual driver characteristics or the range of motivations that determine driving behaviour. Such individuals would be more likely than internals to over-rely on a device to keep them oriented and alert. some of the variables considered are conceptually tied to them.

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

recognised that the cardinal bases of accident prevention fall into three categories: engineering. Unlike 100 years ago. 5.4 Preventive Measures: “The Three E’s” 5. or legal intervention. 1). Slinn.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. Specific measures aimed at reducing accident occurrence or injury can be classed according to whether they are predominantly based on engineering principles. 1961. Matthews and Guest (1999) have argued that traffic engineering has also undergone a transition in emphasis over the last decade. At the same time.2 Engineering Interventions Engineering applications in transportation have become increasingly cogniscent of human thinking processes. the technologies sophisticated and the interactions among humans.5. and the effective enforcement of regulatory legislation (Wheatley. This framework can be integrated with the “Three E’s” to identify specific crash prevention measures arising from the findings of the present research.4). 1957. for the last fifty years. the tasks we ask operators to perform today are highly cognitie. and machines are highly intricate (p. the Haddon Matrix (Haddon.7.1 Generating and classifying crash prevention interventions Ergonomists and safety scientists have. 1957).7. World Health Organisation. 1970) provides another system for classifying highway events for the purposes of research or accident prevention (see Figure 2. educational programming (including public awareness and driver training). Cooke and Durso (2008) have noted that: Most industrial tasks require human operators to interact with various technologies.4. education.7. These have been euphemistically termed the “three E’s”. From this has emerged the growing 221 . teams of humans.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

73). the probems of poor driver behaviour and knowledge in developing and emerging countries “are likely to be due. 2001). however. and must include broader awareness about the dangers of roads and traffic. and (c) driving test standards and requirements are inadequate” (p.5. in addition to teaching the practical manoeuvres and driving techniques associated with managing a vehicle. This is consistent with previous calls in Malaysia for safety awareness education.4. teachers or the police. 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. given ethnic differences observed with respect to drivers’ behaviour in traffic. They concluded that there is clarealy a need to improve road safety education. In a study of traffic awareness in developing countries.7. Professional driving instruction tends to be inadequate because (a) driving instructors are not properly tested or monitored. to some extent. publicity campaigns and incentive schemes to be offered as part of the activities within mosques (Che Ali Bin Che Hitam. It suggests that. 229 . Downing and Sager (1982) reported that children were significantly less likely to recive advice than in the United Kingdom from members of thir family. 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. (b) there are no driving or instruction manuals. to inadequacies in driver training and testing. Effective road safety education goes beyond driver training programmes. like community centres or places of worship. Training skills for anger management and frustration tolerance.3 Education According to Jacobs and Baguley (2004). it may be effective to conduct such awareness bulding within cultural centres. it is also important for them to devote some time to the affective and cognitive components of the driving task.

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

Parker. Azjen & Fishbein. Both biases seem rooted in an external locus of control. 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 . 498). Yergil (2005) notes that: In order to maintain the self-concept of a law-abiding citizen. Stradling. 1992). Another possible way to minimise the same contradiction is to diminish the significance of the violation by labelling it as an action that. Ajzen. after all. 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. to consensual beliefs of powerful others. By doing so. 1991. 2001) provides an interesting theoretical framework for considering the influences of these cognitions and their interplay with regulatory controls. Reason & Baxter.” 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 one hand attributing outcomes to a fatalistic notion of Just World and. The theory of planned behaviour (TPB. drivers need to resolve the contradiction between cognitions: “traffic laws are laws” and “I violate traffic laws. 2001. They showed that the frequency of violations was related to the evaluated percentage of other drivers who commit the same violations.sample of drivers by Manstead. is allowed to occur in a Just World. on the other. opinions about what significant others would think of the behaviour (subjective norms) and perceived behaviour control (PCB). 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).

232 . an orientation toward an external locus of control may influence PCB factors underlying the decision to comply with legal requirements or not. to traffic regulations. or not adhere. 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. By examining drivers’ response to traffic laws in the context of the theory of planned behaviour. Similarly.

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

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

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

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

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

Day. Aggressive Behavior. W. 238 . I. I.. (1987).105-110. 291-307. In Stroebe. Edwards. (1952). I. and Beckmann.[11] Ajzen. Age. (Eds. and Hewston. J. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. [20] Armstrong. M. Current Psychology: Developmental.J. 179-211. London: John Wiley & Sons.G. A. [15] Åkerstedt. J. and Kecklund (2001). and Tubré. From intentions to actions: a theory of planned behavior. M. (2003). Biometrics. Learning. Beliefs about aggression among male and female prisoners. C. J.H.D.A. (1997). Social. 623-633. [19] Armitage. 33(3).J. Bell.T. [18] Archer.E. 340-342. and Fishbein. A. and Haigh. 47. 404-415. Annual Review of Psychology.) Action-Control: From Cognition to Behavior. (2004). [14] Ajzen. Accident statistics and the concept of accident proneness. [12] Ajzen. Tubré. 22(3). Journal of Sleep Research. (2001). E. 23. T. S. 10(6). 27-58..C. [17] Arbous. gender and early morning accidents. Attitudes and the attitude behavior relation: reasoned and automatic processes. 50(2). Heidleberg: Springer-Verlag. 52. (1985). Nature and operation of attitudes. Personality. J. W. 303-313. [21] Arthur. The theory of planned behaviour. (2001). S. In Kuhl. A. [13] Ajzen. B. Women’s Studies International Forum. Ethnic differences and married women’s employment in Malaysia: do government policies matter? Journal of Socio-Economics. 10. 187-195. (1991). Human Factors. [16] Amin. Convergence of self-report and archival crash involvement data: a two-year longitudinal followup.) European Review of Social Psychology.. and Christian. and Kerrich. (Eds. I. Women’s friendships under urbanization: A Malaysian study. J. (2005). T. M. From attitudes to behaviour: basic and applied research on the theory of planned behaviour. 7.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brno. 22(4). C.) Traffic and Transport Psychology (pp. [131] Edwards. New York: Lyle Stuart Press. and Turecki. R. New York: Academic. N. 17-26). J. G. Kim. Behavioral correlates of individual differences in road-traffic crash risk: an examination of methods and findings. Annals of Internal Medicine. [137] Engel. and intention to quit: a structural equations analysis. 279-294. A. (2001). Psychological Bulletin. Lalovic. 4(3). (2002). [133] Elangovan. West. In Lefcourt.L. Chawky. G. G. 838-844.M. (2005).. 74. 50(13). Psychiatric risk factors for motor vehicle fatalities in young men. Causal ordering of stress. A. Amsterdam: Elsevier [130] Dyal.. Boyer.[128] Dumais.A. (2005). 249 . (1971). [132] Elander. G. To what extent can theory account for the findings of road safety evaluation studies? Proceedings of the International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT) 15th Workshop.B. (1993).ictct. Weather-related road accidents in England and Wales: a spatial analysis. Sudden and rapid death during psychological stress. Journal of Transport Geography. [135] Elvik.(Ed. H.D.. 159165.. [129] Dunbar. and French D. (1984). (1996). (1968). Volume 3: Extensions and Limitations (pp. Cross cultural research with the locus of control construct. satisfaction and commitment. Lesage. G.pdf [136] Engel. A. C. Annals of Internal Medicine. Reason and Emotion in Psychotherapy. 2007 from www. A.. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry. 293-300. In Underwood. Ménard-Buteau.R. Leadership and Organizational Development. 113. R... J. [134] Ellis. A life setting conducive to illness: the giving up complex. 209-306). 69. 201-22.. R. Czech Republic.) Research with the Locus of Control Construct. Retrieved December 25. (1962).L. Using epidemiological data to address psychological questions about pedestrian behavior. March 20-22.org/workshops/02-Brno/Elvik. A. J.. (Ed. 771-782.

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

and Barron. R. The task-capability interface model of the driving process. Perception of the risk of an accident by young and older drivers.[149] Ferguson. 9. Human Factors for Engineers (pp. and Ajzen. Journal of American College Health. Tix.. 66. and Seiden. 37. consequences and considerations. 77-97). (1998. (2002). S. [155] Forward.R. 412-426. causes. Intention and Behavior. Women and traffic accidents.W. R. 289-298. J. 51(1). In Proceedings of the 24th International Congress of Applied Psychology. San Francisco.H. (2004). Cross Cultural Management. (1986). K. R. In Fuller. and McCartt. [151] Firestone. and Santos. Attitude. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. E. [156] Frazier. R. Reading MA: Addison-Wesley. (1974). 137-145. Malays and Indians compared.18(4). 38(5).. 207-213. P. M. [157] Friedman. Progress in teenage crash risk during the last decade.P. I. Suicide and the continuum of self-destructive behavior. S. (2007). (1990). [152] Fishbein.E. I. P. [153] Fontaine. B. 461-472. Accident Analysis and Prevention. (2000). New York: Knopf. Towards a general theory of driver behaviour. S.. R. [154] Forward. Journal of Safety Research 38.A. (2005). M. and Järmark. Testing moderator and mediator effects in counseling psychology. The intention to commit driving violations – a qualitative study. Type A Behavior and Your Heart. 251 . S. [158] Fuller. R. A. [160] Fuller.W. [150] Finn. Belief. 115-134. Amsterdam: Elsevier. 47-55. (2006). (1975). Linderholm. Accident analysis and Prevention. A. Teoh. (2005).A. 12(4). H. 63-77.T. Cultural values in Malaysia: Chinese. R. and Rosenman. Journal of Counseling Psychology. S.A. August). Recherche Transports Sécurité.. and Richardson. and Bragg. R. Human factors and driving. [159] Fuller.

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

[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

P. The influence of demographic factors on seatbelt use by adults injured in motor vehicle crashes. [268] Leech. 659-662.M. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychiatry. K. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. Malay dominance and opposition politics. Additional dimensions of internal-external control. Volume 2: Developments and Social Problems (pp.V. Applied Ergonomics. 38. N. Jehle. IV. Human-factors engineering for smart transport: decision support for car drivers and train traffic controllers. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. D. (2005). [272] Lerner. [276] Levenson. (2001). H.. (1973). Mahwah. W.. G.K. (1974). [275] Levenson. 37. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. (1983). The locus of control as a moderator variable: stress. British journal of Psychology.C. Cancer as a turning point. 397-401.G. 303-304. 177-196. 253-269).. (2002). Barrett.M.M..407-423. SPSS for Intermediate Statistics: Use and Implementation. Journal of Social Psychology. L. A. H. H. [273] LeShan. D. Moscati. C. H.M. [267] Lee. [271] Lenior. A comparison of reported levels and expression of anger in everyday and driving situations. Multidimensional locus of control in psychiatric patients. 479-490.[266] Lawton. (1975). 3. [269] Lefcourt.. Billittier. 262 . H. 377-383. Activism and powerful others: distinctions within the concept of internalexternal control.M. New York: E. and Nutter. Dutton. Janssen. New York: Academic.) Research with the Locus of Control Construct. and Morgan. 93. R. Conner.L. In Southeast Asian Affairs 2002: An Annual Review. In Lefcourt. 41. G. (1976).B. A. Journal of Personality Assessment. 97. (Ed. pp. H. (1989). Accident Analysis and Prevention. 2nd Edition.A. (2002). [274] Levenson. R. and Stiller. [270] Lefcourt.J. H. Neerincx and Schreibers (2006). Locus of Control: Current Trends in Theory and Research. E.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ABS ensures that.GLOSSARY Acronyms and Symbols: ABS AQ BA BHS BIT C DDB FARS HAT I ITS IFRB Anti-lock braking system LoC Aggression Questionnaire MVA Behavioural adaptation P Beck Hopelessness Scale PBC Behaviour-in-Traffic RHT Chance SEM Dangerous driving behaviour SRS Fatality Analysis Reporting System TAPB Hostile automatic thoughts TCI Internality TPB Intelligent transportation system TRA Industrial Fatigue Research Board Theory of Reasoned Action Theory of Planned Behaviour Task capability theory Type A Behaviour Pattern Supplementary restraint system Structural equation modelling Risk Homeostasis Theory Perceived behavioural control Powerful others Motor vehicle accident Locus of control Definitions: Accident-proneness: a tendency toward accidents. on most surface types. presumably because of personality factors. allowing the wheel to turn. Immediately after releasing the pressure. 1939) and arising from the individual differences approach in psychology. to the individual” (Brown & 287 . traction is maintained steering and braking actions continue to be effective. the brake line pressure is relates. or benefits. Because the wheels continue to turn during the braking manoeuvre. As a result. (see also. differential accident involvement). 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 outcome of which is typically reflected by perceived advantages. drivers stop sooner and in a more controlled manner than with traditional rack-and-pinion braking systems. a concept generally attributed to Farmer and Chambers (1926. the ABS reapplies it until the wheels begin to lock-up again. Behavioural adaptation (BA): “the ability to adapt to novel conditions based on one’s experiences.

rather than a theory. Usually based on geographical location of the crash. time of week and. (see also. it is essential when searching for black spots to disaggregate the accident mass by splitting it into progressively smaller units by type. Also referred to as risk compensation. where effort to save lives may be concentrated. 288 . and (c) assumes that individuals may vary along a continuum with regard to factors that affect their risk of crash. Black event: a post-hoc extension of the black spot concept. driving and psychological variables influence self-reported behaviour in traffic and self-reported crash outcomes. (see also. drivers will alter their behaviour (see also. that corresponds to an accumulation of crashes in the statistical mass. 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. therefore allowing for the influence of external factors. the statistical model was based on the results of automobile users’ responses to psychological testing and questionnaires. The concept has been applied both to Summala’s (1996) hierarchical adaptation theory and to Fuller’s (2000) task capability theory. The central idea is that. task capability theory) .Noy. p. It differs from accident proneness in that it (a) denotes an area of study. black spot) Black spot: a term attributed to Heikki Summala of the Traffic Research Unit at the University of Helsinki. distal variable. first offered by Nebi Sümer of the Middle East Technical University in Ankara. accident proneness) Differential psychology: see individual differences approach. (see also. In the present research. hierarchical driver adaptation theory. black event) Contextual mediated model: an empirically-based path analysis. crash outcome) Differential accident involvement: a concept proposed by Frank P. including driver behaviour. as an alternative to the largely discounted notion of accident proneness. where possible. The contextual mediated model forms the basis of ordering variables within the research design for studies reported in this thesis. BA is a core concept in all risk theories of driver behaviour. 2004. (b) does not prejudge the causation of personality variables. 25). when confronted by differing levels of perceived or objective risk in the environment. characteristics of road users. (see also. road and traffic conditions. Turke showing the manner in which the certain demographic. proximal variable. it refers to a combination of circumstances. It refers to accumulations of motor vehicle crashes in amassed statistics. risk homeostasis theory. McKenna of the University of Reading.

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

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

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

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

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

Appendix A: List of Published and Research Scales 294 .

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

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

Appendix B: Personal Information Form (PIF) 297 .

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

sitting behind driver) ___ car (passenger) ___ bicycle (non-motorized) ___ I was walking ___ other (please specify: _______________) If yes. most of the time ___ no 11. How often do you travel on a motorcycle: as a driver (please check only one): ___ every day ___ several times a week ___ about once or twice a week ___ about once every two weeks ___ almost never ___ never as a passenger (please check only one) ___ every day ___ several times a week ___ about once or twice a week ___ about once every two weeks ___ almost never ___ never 9. do you have ready ACCESS to a motorcycle? (please check only one) ___ yes. When you want to use a car. Within the last twelve (12) months.8. what phrase best describes what happened? (please check only one): ___ my vehicle was changing lanes and hit (or was hit by) another vehicle ___ my vehicle hit (or was hit by) another vehicle that was changing lanes ___ my vehicle went out of control and went off the side of the road ___ my vehicle went through a red light (or sign) at an intersection (junction) ___ the other vehicle went through a red light (or sign) at an intersection ___ my vehicle hit another vehicle from behind ___ my vehicle was hit from behind by another vehicle ___ other (please specify:__________________________________________ ) 299 . most of the time ___ no 10. do you have ready ACCESS to a car? (please check only one) ___ yes. have you been in a motor vehicle accident that required you to be hospitalised for injuries? yes no If yes. some of the time ___ yes. When you want to use a motorcycle. some of the time ___ yes. all the time ___ yes. all the time ___ yes. 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. 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. in what kind of vehicle were you travelling when the accident occurred? ___ bus ___ motorcycle (driver) ___ car (driver) ___motorcycle (pillion. have you been in a motor vehicle accident that required you to go to a medical clinic for minor injuries? yes no If yes. What is your age? ___ male _____ years ___ female 17. have you been in a motor vehicle accident that resulted in damage over RM100 to your vehicle. What is your gender? 16. sitting behind driver) ___ car (passenger) ___ bicycle (non-motorized) ___ I was walking ___ other (please specify: _______________) If yes. Within the last twelve months. 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 . 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. Within the last twelve months. but no injuries? If yes. sitting behind driver) ___ car (passenger) ___ bicycle (non-motorized) ___ I was walking ___ other (please specify: _______________) If yes.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful