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Several researchers at other institutions have provided assistance in the form of test instruments, unpublished papers and guidance over the course of this project.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

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

viii . The advantages of multi-disciplinary approaches to the study of roadway crashes are discussed. 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. all four BIT components were associated with higher occurrence of both self-reported motor vehicle crashes and crash-related injury. Among distal variables. BIT exerted a strong mediational influence over the effects of distal variables on crash outcomes. as well. Results indicated that. consistent with the assumptions of the contextual mediated model. 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. particularly with respect to an ongoing debate within traffic psychology over the comparative importance of theories or models of driving behaviour. BIT. As reported in previous studies.Results indicated a complex series of interactions between the variables. 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. Implications for both theory and practice are discussed. As hypothesised. The role of the proximal variable.

3.TABLE OF CONTENTS COPYRIGHT PAGE DECLARATION ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS DEDICATION ABSTRACT TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES PREFACE CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1.4.1 Roadway Crashes in Malaysia and Public Perceptions of Causality 2.3.2.1 Concepts.1 Risk Homeostasis Theory (RHT) 2.2 The Emergence of Traffic Psychology as a Scientific Discipline 2.1 1.1 Human Factors in Roadway Crashes: A Vexing Research Challenge 2.2 2.2 Studies of Causal Factors in Malaysian Roadway Crashes The Professional Background 2.6 Background of the Study Road Safety in Malaysia The Problem Statement The Professional Significance of the Study Overview of the Methodology Delimitations ii iii iv vi vii ix xv xviii xx 1 1 2 4 5 7 9 12 12 12 17 19 19 21 21 22 24 24 25 26 28 30 31 31 CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 2.3.3.3.2.4 Risk Theories 2.2.1.4 1.2.1.3 The Individual Differences Approach 2.3.2 1.3.2.3 1.3.2.1 An Applied Perspective 2.2 Differential Accident Involvement 2.1 Human Factors and the Motor Vehicle Safety Problem in Malaysia 2.5 1.3 ix . Theories and Models 2.2 Traffic Psychology: Slow Progress in Theory-Building 2.2 A Multidisciplinary Approach Theories of Driving Behaviour 2.3.1 Accident Proneness 2.

2 Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) Descriptive Models of Driver Behaviour 2.3.3 Aggression Proximal Variables in the Present Research 2.1 Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) 2.2 Locus of Control and Driving Behaviour 2.5.3.2 A Contextual Mediated Model of Personality and Behavioral Predictors of Motor Vehicle Crashes 2.1 Type A Behaviour Pattern and Motor Vehicle Crashes 2.5.2.1.5 Hierarchical Theories of Driver Adaptation 2.3.5.5.1 The Haddon Matrix 2.2.5.1.1 Driver Characteristics: Driver Experience and Driving Frequency 3.4.2 Hopelessness 2.7 Attitude-behaviour Theories 2.3.5 Use of the Contextual Mediated Model in Other Research Distal Variables in the Present Study 2.4.3.5.3.1 Unidimensional and Multidimensional Constructs 2.5.6.3.6 2.5.5.1.4.4.4 2.2 Gender 2.1 3.2.2 Conceptualization and the Research Framework Definition of the Variables 3.2.4.2.1 Experience 2.3.4 Hopelessness 3.5.4. Gender and Ethnicity 3.2 Process Models 2.2.3.5.3.6 Task Capability Interface (TCI) Theory 2.2.6.4.1.2 Demographic Variables: Age.5.5.1 Locus of Control 2.2.9.2 Driver Characteristics 2.2 Zero Risk Theory 2.2 Driving Frequency and Traffic Exposure 2.1.3 Locus of Control and Ethnicity 2.3.2.2 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 Statistical Models 2.5.4 Studies of Driving Behaviour Using the Contextual Mediated Model 2.3.5 Aggression 78 78 84 84 84 84 85 85 x .2.1.1 Age 2.7.3 Psychological Variables 2.2.4.2.1 Demographic Variables 2.2.5 2.3 Locus of Control 3.3 Core Concepts in the Contextual Mediated Model: Moderation and Mediation 2.3 Ethnicity 2.

7.7.2.1 Study 1A 3.4 Normed Fit Index (NFI) 3.1 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) Scale 3.7 Structural Equation Modelling 3.2.7.7.5 3.6 Personal Information Form (PIF) Procedure 3.3.2.7.7.5.2.5 Study 3 Formulation of Hypotheses Methods of Data Collection and Analysis 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 .4 3.5.2.5.4 Study 2 3.3 Beck Hopelessness Scale (BHS) 3. p-Value and χ2/df Ratio 3.3 3.3 The General Linear Model (GLM) Univariate Analysis 3.7.1 The Sample 3.7.7 Expected Cross-Validation Index (ECVI) 3.6 Hostile Automatic Thoughts 3.3.7.2 Levenson Locus of Control Scale 3.9 Injury Occurrence Research Design of the Studies 3.7.5.7 3.6 Logistic Regression Analysis 3.2.8 Parsimony Goodness-of-Fit Index (PGFI) 3.7.7.2 Research Instruments 3.7.3.5 Hostile Automatic Thoughts (HAT) 3.7.6.5 Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) and Comparative Fit Index (CFI) 3.7.8 Kolmogorov-Smirnov One-Sample Test 3.7.1 Studies 1 and 2 3.3.2 Degree of freedom (df) 3.4 Linear Regression Analysis 3.7.6 3.3 Study 1C 3.3.7.7 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) 3.7.2.7.7.7.7.3 Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) and Root Mean Square Residual (RMR) 3.2.2 Study 1B 3.1 Chi-Square (χ2).1 Independent-sample t-tests 3.5.4 Aggression Questionnaire (AQ) 3.7.6.5 Multiple Regression Analysis 3.5.5.3.2.2 Study 3 Analysis of the Data 3.5.6 Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index (AGFI) 3.8 Crash Occurrence 3.2 One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) 3.2.7.

4 4.6.2 4.11 Hypothesis 11: Aggression Influences Behaviour in Traffic 4.5.15 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 4.2.1.2 Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 1 4.2.1 Hypothesis 1: Behaviour in Traffic Influences Motor Vehicle Crash Outcomes 4.9 Hypothesis 9: Hopelessness Moderates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Behaviour in Traffic 4.6.14 Hypothesis 14: Hostile Automatic Thoughts Influence Behaviour In Traffic 4.12.1 Description of the Sample 4.1.4 Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 3 Reliability and Validity 4.12 Hypothesis 12: Locus of Control Moderates the Relationship Between Aggression and Behaviour in Traffic 4.2.13 Hypothesis 13: Demographic Factors Influence Hostile Automatic Thoughts 4.3 4. Gender and Ethnicity 4.5.1 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the BIT Scale 4.12.2 Hypothesis 2: Driver Characteristics Influence Behaviour in Traffic 4.6.5 4.6.6.1 Results of Study 1 4.6.3 Results of Study 3 Hypothesis Testing 4.1 Internality as a Moderator 4.10 Hypothesis 10: Demographic Factors Influence Aggression 4.6.1 Reliability Test Results: Cronbach’s Alpha 4.3 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the AQ Scale 4.3.CHAPTER 4: ANALYSIS OF DATA 4.6.2.3 Validity Test Results 4.7 Hypothesis 7: Hopelessness Influences Behaviour in Traffic 4.2.3 Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 2 4.6.2.6 Hypothesis 6: Locus of control Influences Hopelessness 4.2 Externality-chance and Externality-powerful-others as Moderators 4.6.2 Results of Study 2 4. Skewness and Kurtosis Crash and Injury Occurrence Data Distal and Proximal Variable Data 4.6.8 Hypothesis 8: Locus of control Influences Behaviour in Traffic 4.5 Hypothesis 5: Demographic Variables Influence Hopelessness 4.1.2.2 Parallel-Form Reliability 4.6.4 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the HAT Scale Normality.6.2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Levenson Locus of Control Scale 4.1 Age.6.3.1.6.3.5.3 Hypothesis 3: Demographic Variables Influence Behaviour in Traffic 4.4 Hypothesis 4: Demographic Variables Influence Locus of Control 4.6 xii .6.6.3.

2 Use of Self-Report Methods 5.5.4.3 Timeframe for Data Collection 179 182 185 185 187 189 190 194 194 196 197 201 201 202 203 203 204 204 210 211 5.6 xiii .6.3.5.7.1 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hopelessness and Crash Outcomes 4.1 Study 1C: Automobile Drivers 5.5.4 Testing the Contextual Mediated Model 5.4 5.5 5.8.4 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Crash Outcomes Comparison of Automobile Drivers.3 Best Fit or Best Model 5.9.5.8.5.5.2 5.6.3 Study 3 Testing Mediational Relationships Using SPSS 4.16 Summary of Hypothesis Tests Testing the Contextual Mediated Model Using Structural Equation Modelling (LISREL Analysis) 4.3 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hostile Automatic Thought and Crash Outcome 4.7 4.4.3 Study 3: Taxicab Drivers 5.6.8.5.9 Relationship Between Aggression and Behaviour in Traffic 4.2 Study 2 4.9. Motorcycle Drivers and Taxicab Drivers 4.8.4.2 Differences between Automobile Drivers and Taxicab Drivers 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 5.2 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Aggression and Crash Outcomes 4.1 5.6.7.3 A Contextual Mediated Model for Understanding Factors Influencing Unsafe Driving Hopelessness Locus of Control 5.1 Generalisability of Findings 5.9.2 Study 2: Motorcyclists 5.7.1 Study 1C 4.1 Advantages of Using SEM 5.3 Locus of Control and Ethnicity: Malay and Chinese-Malaysian Drivers Aggression Testing the Contextual Mediated Model Using Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) 5.3.2 Goodness of Fit 5.3.1 Internal and External Locus of Control as Determinants of Driving Behaviour 5.2 Locus of Control and Ethnicity: Indian-Malaysian Drivers 5.5 What Can be Learned from Testing Contextual Models with SEM? Limitations of the Study and Methodological Considerations 5.5.1 Differences between Automobile Drivers and Motorcycle Drivers 4.4.8 4.

Training and Rehabilitation 5.5.7.7.7.4 Measurement of Driving Frequency Implications and Areas for Further Study 5.2 Factors in Behavioural Adaptation (BA) 5.4.1 Generating and classifying crash prevention interventions 5.4.4 Preventive Measures: “The Three E’s” 5.7 5.7.7.2 Engineering Interventions 5.1 Theory vs.6.7.4 Enforcement 212 215 215 218 220 221 221 221 229 230 CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION 233 REFERENCES GLOSSARY APPENDICES Appendix A List of Published and Research Scales Appendix B Personal Information (PIF) 237 287 294 297 xiv .4.3 Driver Selection.7.3 Education 5.7.4. Models in Traffic Psychology 5.

9 4.8 111 121 121 122 4.4 115 117 118 119 4.6 4.5 4. Gender and Ethnicity of Participants in Studies 1.2 Malaysian Roadway Crashes and Casualties. Kurtosis and Skewness Statistics 13 14 57 91 95 97 98 101 112 114 2.4 3. 2 and 3 States from Which Study 1 Participants Had Acquired Their Original Drivers’ Licenses States from Which Study 2 Participants Had Acquired Their Original Motorcyclists’ Licenses Summary of Internal Reliability Coefficient Results Parallel-Form Reliability for Form A and Form B (BIT) Validity of BIT scales – Summary of Confirmatory Factor Analyses Validity of the Levenson Locus of Control Scale – Summary of Confirmatory Factor Analysis Validity of the AQ scales – Summary of Confirmatory Factor Analysis Summary of LISREL Results on Validity for HAT (Study 1C) Normality Tests.1 2.5 4.1 4.3 3. 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.2 3.11 xv .LIST OF TABLES No.2 4.10 4.3 114 4.3 3.1 3. Table Page 2.7 4.

23 136 4.16 128 4.29 xvi .28 4. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1B (n=302) Means.4.19 133 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 4.25 138 4.20 134 4. Gender and Ethnicity in Study 2 (N=122) 125 Means.22 136 4.12 4.26 138 139 144 145 4. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1A (n=301) Means.17 129 4.15 Crash and Injury Occurrence Crash Occurrence Frequency.24 137 4. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 2 (n=122) Means.21 135 4.27 4.18 131 4. Gender and Ethnicity in Study 1 (N=855) 124 125 Crash Occurrence Frequency.14 4. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1C (n=252) Means.13 4.

32 4.2 5.41 175 5.31 4.36 4.37 4.30 4.34 4.6 xvii .4.38 Direct Effects of Gender on AQ Total and Subscale Scores Direct Effects of Ethnicity on AQ Total and Subscale Factors 149 150 Effect of Aggression on Total BIT Scores and on BIT Component Factors 152 Summarised Results on the Hypotheses and Sub-hypotheses SEM Comparison (Study 1C) Different Contextual Models (Study 1C) Different Contextual Models (Study 2) Different Contextual Models (Study 3) BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hopelessness and Crash Outcomes 160 163 167 169 171 173 4.40 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Aggression and Crash Outcomes 174 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hostile Automatic Thought and Crash Outcomes BIT Mediates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Crash Outcomes Goodness of Fit Statistics for Model 1C5 and 1C6 (Initial and Subsequent Analyses) Distribution of National Population and Sampled Participants by State State of Origin Compared with Crash Frequency and Vehicle Registrations (Study 1) State of Origin Compared with Crash Frequency and Vehicle Registrations (Study 2) Spearman rank correlations for States of Origin for Participants in Study 1 and Study 2 Engineering Applications for Crash Prevention 174 4.4 208 5.5 209 225 5.33 4.35 4.1 199 206 207 5.39 4.3 5.

2 2. 2007) 50 Hierarchical Levels of Driving Behavior (after Keskinen.5 Figure Task Cube (from Summala. 2.1 2.1 4. 2000) Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen. 1997) Contextual Mediated Model of Personality. 1989) The Haddon Matrix (Noy.4 148 xviii . 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. 2003) Inter-variable Relationships in Mediation Models Inter-variable Relationships in Moderation Models Page 36 37 40 42 44 46 47 2.8 Proposed Contextual Mediated Model for Safety Research in Agriculture (from Downe.10 64 80 81 82 83 146 3.6 2.2 147 148 4.1 3.9 59 2. 1996) Task-Capability Theory (after Fuller.4 4.7 2.3 2.2 3. Hatakka. Behavioral Predictors and Motor Vehicle Crashes (from Sümer.4 2.3 4.LIST OF FIGURES No.3 3. 1996.

10 4.12 4.9 4.13 xix .5 4.7 4.4.8 4.6 4.11 Interaction of Ethnicity and Verbal Aggression on Freeway Urgency Moderating Effect of Internality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship Moderating Effects of Externality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship Moderating Effect of Externality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship Contextual Mediated Model Study 1C5 Contextual Mediated Model 1C6 (Four BIT Factors) Contextual Mediated Model Study 1C (Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thoughts) Contextual Mediated Model Study 2 Contextual Mediated Model Study 3 153 154 155 158 165 166 168 170 172 4.

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

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

This first chapter of this dissertation presents the background of the study. This dissertation is a report of research into relevant psychosocial variables and their effects on self-reported driving behaviour.112). 2002. 2004. A total of 10. behavioural and attitudinal characteristics of drivers and the environmental situations in which they find themselves (Haight. 1983).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. More challenging has been the attempt to link personality and psychosocial variables to driver behaviour and performance. McKenna. There was a total of 341. including the study of a large number of variables. However. 2007). p. as a “social menace”(Abdul Kareem.000 fatalities were recorded (Ministry of Transport Malaysia.roadway. 1989). Very early initial attempts to identify an “accident proneness” personality trait (Tiliman & Hobbs. there are conflicting findings and associated problems with this research” (p. the vehicle and the new technologies that are increasingly being deployed by the road and fitted in vehicles” (Carsten. Malaysia is also a nation with a disproportionately high frequency of motor vehicle accidents. The research comprised five separate studies of Malaysian drivers aged 18 to 73 years. with the intent to determine the degree to which measures of aggression. 2 . “the literature on personality has a long history. locus of control. 2003).252 accidents in 2006 and over 6. 21). According to Dewar (2002b).2 Road Safety in Malaysia Malaysia is a nation of motor vehicle users. 1949) have since been replaced by more complex explanations that focus on the interaction between emotional. and as a “major public health problem” (Subramaniam. concludes by noting the delimitations of the research.351. The chapter 1. describes its significance and presents an overview of the methodology used. 2005). often labelled as “tragic” (Koh.732 motor vehicles were registered in 2006.790. The high rate of roadway accidents and deaths has been described in both scholarly and popular print or internet media in extreme terms.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“bullies” and “selfish”. “peaceful”. Malaysia has experienced remarkable increases in population. A succession of online weblogs and internet sites authored by tourists and local writers alike have condemned Malaysian drivers as dangerous. they indicated “angry”. Recently. and as a “major public health problem” (Subramaniam. 2007). pointing out that annual fatalities exceed the total deaths among American combat personnel over four years of fighting in Iraq (Zolkepli.000 fatalities were recorded (Ministry of Transport Malaysia. the Minister of Health characterised Malaysian roads as “worse than a war zone”. but when asked to “describe what Malaysian drivers are like”. when asked to provide five adjectives which would “describe what Malaysians are like”. there were 341. in order of frequency. or as “negligent” (“Malaysia Records Highest Single-Day Death Toll”. In newspaper reports.1 Human Factors and the Motor Vehicle Safety Problem in Malaysia Roadway Crashes in Malaysia and Public Perceptions of Causality In 2006. Nation-wide statistics seem to underscore the popular concern over safety issues. 2007). a sample of 348 first-year university students indicated.252 motor vehicle accidents in Malaysia. as a social “menace”(Abdul Kareem. 2007). in aggregate. 2005). “selfish” (“Our Roads are Filled”.CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 2. 2007). to a rapid increase 12 . “patient”. often labelled as “tragic” (Koh. The high rate of roadway accidents and deaths has been described in scholarly and popular print or internet media in extreme terms. “discourteous” (Davin Arul. 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. industrialisation and motorisation. “laid-back” and “considerate”. “obnoxious” and “cowardly” (“Cowardly Malaysian Drivers”. Downe and Loke (2004) reported that. Malaysian drivers have been consistently characterized as “confrontational”. “impatient”. “ugly motorists” (“Rude Drivers”. 2003). A developing country in Southeast Asia. “friendly”. inconsiderate and aggressive. 2005). 2005). 2006). 1989). “reckless”. Over 6.1 2. economic expansion.1. These are thought to have contributed.

415 52.091 37.252 Motor Vehicle Casualties 2002 Fatalities Severe Injuries Minor Injuries Total 35. 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.425 2003 6.98 deaths per 10. In Malaysia.253 source: Royal Malaysian Police (2007) The road accident death rate in Malaysia dropped from 8.2). This suggests that studies.645 54.287 in 2006. 2003. 2005). the number of crashes has increased 80% over the past ten years. & Wong. Subramaniam & Law. Table 2.395 2006 6.252 in 2006 (Ministry of Transport Malaysia.236 49.109 in 1996 to a total of 341.815 2005 328. Radin Umar.000 vehicles (Law.286 9. one- third of all crashes in Malaysia involve automobile users or motorcyclists within the 16. Generally. Studies 13 . The number of road fatalities has decreased slightly from 6.in the number of road traffic crashes (Abdul Kareem.304 in 1994 to 6.000 vehicles in 2006.012 19.to 25-year-old age group (see table 2.1 summarises the five-year incidence of crashes and injuries. Mohd Zulkiflee.653 2004 326.200 9. 2002-2006 Motor Vehicle Crashes 2002 Total 279.040 2004 6.741 38. Abdul Rahman. in Malaysia.287 9.891 8.218 2005 6. from 189.552 37.20 deaths per 10.000 vehicles in 1996 to 3.885 35. higher than any other age grouping or combination of consecutive age groupings. 2005). but still lags behind frequencies in developed countries which generally fall below 3 deaths per 10.228 9.425 5. 2005).1: Malaysian Roadway Crashes and Casualties. Some of the urgency in discussions of Malaysia’s road safety problem has been related to the high frequency of roadway deaths and injuries occurring among adolescent and post-adolescent age groups (Radin Umar. Table 2.7111 2003 298. 2007).264 2006 341.417 47.

27 458 2. or an average of RM4. 2001.08 2.56 3.005 15.034 4. has resulted in considerable economic loss for the country.72 554 2.05 2.81 1.61 99 0.448 17.620 7.21 3.91 984 4.378 11.15 43 0. 2006).11 2.68 128 0.94 1.08 541 2. Recent international analyses have placed the total economic burden at around RM7 billion yearly. 2003). and particularly among younger drivers.180 10.921 100 20.551 12. 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.038 13.216 10.65 121 0.48 105 0.416 6.97 1. Palamara.81 3.68 3.63 160 0.086 9.947 10.99 164 0.29 2.820 13.431 7.23 2.709 8.81 2.49 450 2.71 543 2.47 280 1.7 billion.85 147 0.4 billion to RM5. in 1999 alone.967 100 19.329 100 source:Royal Malaysian Police (2000.6 million a day on motor claims (Abdul Kareem.309 10. 2001).94 625 3.178 15.15 3. It has been reported that.025 9.023 5.48 323 1.05 1.110 10.of university-aged drivers are critical to understanding behavioural and situational factors that predict the most commonly occurring class of crashes (Stevenson.65 2.85 2.953 17.82 1.803 9. 2002.45 30 0.67 206 0.469 15.049 15.29 708 3.315 17.341 12.07 2.16 90 0.76 22.06 608 3.389 6.80 203 0. Morrison & Ryan.22 150 0.64 135 0.54 708 3.92 1.07 2.08 1.593 11.84 1.997 14. or about 2.26 463 2. general insurers paid RM1.31 3.205 11.67 billion.05 2.94 2.50 979 4.77 3.2: Numbers of Automobile Drivers and Motorcyclists Involved in Road Crashes by Age Group 2000 2001 2002 2003 Number % Number % Number % Number % 37 0.90 159 0.37 337 1.92 2. 14 . with one road accident victim admitted to hospital every six minutes (Bernama. Table 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.40 1.10 3.15 572 2. 2005).08 585 2.418 100 19.41 302 1.

The economic consequences can be estimated. traffic congestion. In spite of numerous road safety campaigns the number of accident cases have been increasing. 1999). 2005). (Bernama. if people want to die? (Lim. which is actually a nightmare. 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. But it is nothing compared to bringing down the number of road deaths. The loss of potential income of the dead and maimed in turn dwarfs those medical outlays (Bakri Musa. lane definition. signs and lighting have been levied in certain quarters 15 . In 1999. Public interest and political frustration has given rise to extensive speculation over the possible causes of the problem. physician and journalist has commented that: The human toll is unquantifiable. economic figures and accident statistics provide only partial indications of the impact of the highway safety problem on Malaysian society. What else can we do. 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. Some seven years later. 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. or the pain of the maimed. and that alone justifies making concerted efforts to address the issue … The economic costs in property damages are huge. 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. 2006). Criticisms of road configuration.Yet.

693 deaths among motorcycle operators and pillion riders. serious injury and death (Per and Al Haji. 2007). 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. 1997). though. is often mentioned as a factor. Researchers. unlike in other countries. given greater risks of accident. approximately 45 per cent of all registered vehicles in 2006 (Road Transport Department Malaysia. The relatively high population of motorcycle riders. Who they are. newspaper columnists. Maybe these drivers just never realised how simple it is to avoid accidents (Looi. as compared with 1. 2006). 2001. In 2006. Generally. 2005). how they think. 2005). They don’t even stop to look left and right or look in the rear view mirror. what they do – virtually all facets of the Malaysian driving population have come under increasing public scrutiny in an effort to further a better 16 . the Royal Malaysian Police (2007) reported 3. Those countries have had a motoring culture for nearly a century but our road-users are relatively newer to motoring (Sadiq. 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. In a recent newspaper interview. They are also bad in giving ample time to others and this is an example of non-defensive driving.(Abdul Rahman et al. 2007). Krishnan & Radin Umar. for instance.215 deaths among motorcar drivers and passengers. most accounts have come around to commenting on driver demographic and behavioural characteristics as significant factors in motor vehicle crashes (Che Ali. 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.

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

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

West and French.2. 1993). bad road conditions. personality characteristics (Elander. experiential. Because at least one driver is involved in every traffic crash. The majority of accidents are not caused by problems of the vehicle. Among engineering factors. Panosch and Bukasa (2004) argued that: Road safety is less a technical but rather a human factors problem. 1991). Lajunen and Summala (1997) noted that traffic safety researchers have attempted to identify the relationships between drivers’ individual characteristics and their involvement in motor vehicle crashes. particularly. Christ.1 The Professional Background Human Factors in Roadway Crashes: A Vexing Research Challenge Attention to the demographic. levels of driving experience and.2 2. 1993. roadway engineering has a much greater influence than automotive engineering (p. driver experience and skill and the relationship between risk and factors such as speed choice and alcohol consumption” (p. “human behaviour makes a direct contribution to crash risk through the extent of knowledge and understanding of traffic systems. driver behaviour (what the driver chooses to do) has much greater influence on safety than driver performance (what the driver can do). Among human factors. personality and behavioural characteristics of drivers has not been exclusive to the Malaysian scene.2. the largest opportunities for harm reduction: A clear hierarchy of factors can be specified. but rather 19 . According to the Commission for Global Road Safety (2006). Evans (1996) further argued that changes in driver behaviour offer. 62). Human factors are far more important than engineering factors. 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. by far. Åberg. 784). etc. This has included the examination of age and gender.

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

2. 1997a). the lack of replication of many studies. information processing. 2002.1 An Applied Perspective Ever since Tillman and Hobbs (1949) stated that “a man drives as he lives” (p. the extent of exposure of drivers to the driving task (af Wahlberg. 2003).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. 321). 1996.2 The Emergence of Traffic Psychology as a Scientific Discipline 2. It would seem that very few of the studies on accident predictors are actually possible to interpret in any straightforward way. Underwood & Milton. there has been an interest in driver personality. 1993). 2003). 482).2. Other methodological factors that may cloud the relationship between psycho-social variables. driving behaviour and crash-related outcomes include: the use of self-reported crash data. and the influence of car and driver stereotypes on attributions of crash blameworthiness (Davies & Patel. motivation and behavioural performance as potential underlying causal factors in driver behaviour (Jonah. Nevertheless. Wagenaar & van Koppen.2. Novaco (2000) argued that: The field of transportation has always had a rich potential for psychology. 2. the use of inconsistent crash definitions. psychologists have given scant attention to this topic. 1965) but did not really gain momentum until the 1980s (Risser. the picture that emerges is indeed grave. 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. 21 . Preston & Harris. 2005). 1961. especially considering the salience of transportation in the routines of daily life. and we are left with a very vague knowledge of what psychological variables can actually predict accidents (p. accuracy of witness recall of crash details (Crombag.

2002). This includes the research that serves this purpose” (p. psychology. Huguenin (2005) defines traffic psychology as “the psychological intervention. anthropology and sociology. that individuals tend to combine their interests in traffic psychology with some other area of specialisation such as educational psychology. Indeed. 246). Ochando. “the task of traffic psychology is to understand.2. traffic and transportation. eoncompassing engineering. These interrelationshps provide a vast terrain for psychological research (pp. or the psychological support for intervention. conferences and coordination of professional affiliations ever since (Groeger.654-655.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. in the field of traffic. attitudes about the origin and destination of the trip and resources for choosing alternative travel modes and schedules. 4). Temes and Hermida (2001) found. ergonomics. According to Rothengatter (2001).2.) 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. in a Spanish survey. transportation planning. Groeger (2002) argued that there is “no psychology which is specific to. traffic psychology has drawn from multidisciplinary perspectives.” (p. predict and provide measures to modify road user behaviour at the levels identified with. but that complex traffic 22 . medicine. To wit. or peculiar to. integrative and international viewpoint based on application in order to address changing situations and objectives” (p. as a general objective to minimise the harmful effects of traffic participation” (p. 2.2 A Multidisciplinary Approach From the outset. 3). 4) and describes it as an “interdisciplinary.

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

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

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

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

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

The individual values of each worker’s λ became known as the degree of accident proneness. and that this is due to some characteristic or summation of characteristics associated with corporeal dexterity. an idea that has had an uneven level of acceptance by ergonomists and traffic psychologists through the years. 1993. 1984). in certain cases. If each individual has a unique λ-value.3. p. personality. occupational and otherwise. weight and perhaps even intelligence. that individual is more likely at all times to incur an accident than his colleagues even though exposed to equal risk. In 1917. 290).3.1 Accident Proneness One concept that sought to integrate individual differences within a predictive theory relates to the “accident-prone personality”. but none have attempted a more general integration” (Elander. in response to concern over the number of accidental deaths and injuries in World War I production industries (Blackler & Shimmin. but persists today. during and following the war years. it should be a reasonably simple matter to find 28 . his or her accident proneness. found first that the frequency of accidents. The designation of a high-λ individual as “accident prone” implied that. 1962. λ. sensori-motor skill. Research by board statisticians. could be modelled almost exactly by the Poisson distribution but then that. the average number of accidents. According to Haight (2004). 1920). just as one can meaure height. “irrespective of environment.152). or higher conative or cognitive function” (Cresswell & Froggat. ‘Accident proneness’ had a nice ring to it. differed from person to person (Greenwood & Yule. p. the British government established the British Industrial Fatigue Research Board.finding. The difficulty was that no one knew how to determine its value for a given individual. 2. West & French. It provided a challenge to the psychology profession to devise a way to measure it.

but very low correlations between accident frequency at work. 1929. in traffic or when playing 29 . in successive years. that high-λ group would be comprised of the same individuals or of an entirely new cohort (Haight. 1991. a certain percentage would experience a higher accident frequency than would other groups year after year. 1997). however. p. it was pointed out are highly sensitive to the length of the survey period. more probably psychological (p. Farmer and Chambers (1926. inadequate or irrelevant. “Because crashes are so infrequent. subjects reported significant. Arbous and Kerrich (1951) and much later McKenna (1983) systematically destroyed the supportive literature. 294). by devising clever tests. at home. Mintz and Blum (1949) argued that “the method of studying accident proneness by demonstrating that small percentages of people have large percentages of the accidents is unsound and fallacious” (p. 1939) and many others. A study by Salminen and Heiskanen (1997) provided empirical support for this position. Johnson (1946). None of the experiments. inappropriate. in any sample. with extensive critiques that concluded statistical analyses were almost all invalid. with a series of tests constructed by Greenwood and Woods (1919). 422). Early work on the concept attempted to do just that. an individual driver’s prior crsh rate would not be an effective predictor of future crash rates even if some individuals did have expected rates higher than others” (Evans. noting that.out what that value is. 2004). 1956). as well. but did not take into consideration whether. with shorter periods giving sharper contrasts (Moore. The theory of the accident-prone individual also came under attack on a conceptual basis. 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. Scores on the λ dimension. in a Finnish telephone survey. The accident-prone concept. motivated largely by a desire to select lorry drivers in Europe who were less likely to become involved in costly roadway crashes (Barjonet & Tortosa. produced a positive. perhaps physiological. replicable result that correlated substantially with the accident experience of individuals (Haight. made an assumption that. 2004). 195).

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

researchers began to turn their attention to not-so-easy measures for changing driver behaviour. when they perceive a discrepancy between the observed level of risk and the desired target level of risk. The introduction of divided highways. Wilde (1982. 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.. they adjust their behaviour to eliminate the discrepancy. albeit not crash occurrence. That is.accident proneness (Chmiel. people strive to maintain a target level of risk all the time and. 1988) proposed that a control mechanism operates to keep overall risk per unit time constant. in fact. substantially. suddenly confronted with uneven pavement. experience more accidents than others. 2. 2.4. 2000). A driver who enters a construction zone. following their review of the literature. concluded that differential crash risk is not readily accounted for by previous crash rates.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. crash barriers. Dewar (2002b) noted that the notion of differential liability allows for the observation that some individuals do. large earth-moving 31 .1 Risk Homeostasis Theory (RHT) In an attempt to explain these findings. but avoids the assumption of a stable phenomenon that accounts for more accidents in all situations. in a study of driving on icy roads.3. compulsory seatbelts and vehicle design improvements reduced motor vehicle crash fatalities. 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. Elander et al.3. For example. However. and that transient factors probably interact with stable traits of the individual in their causation. After the relatively easy engineering measures were implemented to reduce the seriousness of the consequences of driver behaviour.

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

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

4. Only when the subjective risk reaches a level that was not anticipated will the drivers change their behaviour. In addition. Rothengatter (2002) has questioned how drivers can determine that a threshold has been exceeded if they do not constantly assess risk. or expecting. some degree of risk during the performance of this task. they experience uncomfortable feelings of fear and abruptly change behaviour. argued that “these so-called theories that purport to explain human behaviour in the face of risk are nothing more than hypotheses with a large body of empirical evidence refuting the studies that allegedly validate them” (p. 1988) proposed that drivers do not constantly assess risk while driving. 92). a necessary and highly controversial assumption in Wilde’s theory. 1987. zero-risk theory still retains some of its conceptual shortcomings. Summala (1986) suggested that estimating time-to-collision.2 Zero Risk Theory Another risk-based theory. Rather. Summala’s zero-risk model of driver behaviour (Summala & Näätänen.3. In other words. increasing safety margins” (Brown & Noy.(1986) concluded that “risk homeostasis theory should be rejected because there is no convincing evidence supporting it and much evidence refuting it” (p. While overcoming many of the criticisms levied at RHT with regard to the concepts of target risk and the risk discrepancy comparative process. 2004. drivers avoid ‘feeling fear’ (hence. 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 . At this point. experience ‘zero-risk’) when they drive by anticipating. Summala. for example. p. after a similar review. O’Neill and Williams (1998). 2. 81). is a very basic human skill that can be carried out in the absence of extensive conscious processing. Michon (1989) noted that most studies attempting to support the RHT deal with data only at the aggregate level. Fuller (2005) has argued that the theory’s premise that safe margins are learned creates an implausible requirement to recognise. 26). drivers compare the distance from hazards or time-tocollision to a subjective safety margin threshold and take action only when the threshold is exceeded.

Keskinen. used to explain drivers’ tendencies to approach as closely as possible to the risk threshold. 1997) refined his earlier theory into a hierarchical model of driver behavioural adaptation. Van der Hulst. Gregersen. age and social variables. A major element in the zero risk theory was the influence of motivation. pre-meditated decision not to wear seatbelts. much of which arises from personality. In an attempt to deal with this and to expand on the role of extrinsic and intrinsic motivators. 2. 1999). would vary depending on the combination of factors from the three dimensions. Summala (1996. level of psychological processing and a functional taxonomy of driving actions (see Figure 2. very little if any research has been carried out with respect to intrinsic motivation. it may not manifest itself as a less cautious speed or headway choice but rather as a conscious. and when confronted with various environmental conditions or psychological processes. for instance. Reeder et al. do appear to affect drivers’ willingness to accept risk levels that approach thresholds and. The cube presented three dimensions of driver behaviour: a functional hierarchy. as a result. in which he introduced a “task cube” to explain the driving process. On the other hand. Meijman & Roghengatter. what is a virtually infinite number of roads and traffic scenarios.learn how to respond safety to. Summala argued that behavioural adaptation. 2002. 1996. 1998.3. Glad & Hernetkoskis. If behavioural adaptation were to take place in response to the presence of a supplementary restraint system (SRS). 35 . their behaviour becomes less adaptive to prevailing circumstances (Delhomme & Meyer. and specific driver actions. Hataaka. A large number of studies show that external motives.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. such as time pressure.1).

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).1: Task Cube (from Summala. criticised the model for being overly complicated and resembling “more a description or a list of important variables than a solid model” (p. at the same time. a property absent within the task cube concept. 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. Headway control Obstacle avoidance Crossing management Passing and other maneuvers FUNCTIONAL TAXONOMY Figure 2. but that is not 36 . 1996) Keskinen et al. Even though it is true that the performance on one task can bear consequences for the performance for the other. for example.MOBILITY NEEDS LEVEL OF PSYCHOLOGICAL PROCESSING Decision making Supervisory monitoring FUNCTIONAL HIERARCHY Vehicle choice Trip decisions MOTIVATIONAL MODULE: MOTIVES EMOTIONS Attention control Perceptual-motor Control (constant mapping. seemingly concurrently. Rothengatter (2002) questioned the concept of a hierarchy. (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.

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

Intention is determined by the summed effects of: (a) attitudes toward the behaviour. p. for the most part. (2004) have argued that it is deserving of more attention than it has received to date. 40).6. 1991). however.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. time pressure). people’s behaviour is determined by their intention to perform the behaviour. Generally. the notion of matching competence with task demand promises to be very useful in understanding driver behaviour.3. been regarded as potentially more productive than earlier risk-based theories. emotional state.3. providing an account of the way in which attitudes. It generally refers to the thoughts and feelings that impel us to behave in one way and not in another” (Parker. Rothengatter (2002) has stressed that the perception of capability is often influenced by external factors (impairment. generally referring to a positive or negative 38 . 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. Langdridge (2004) describes the theory of reasoned action as one of the most important theories in attitude-behaviour research. 2. and Keskinen et al. institutions or issues (Chaplin. p. subjective norms and behavioural intentions can be used to predict behaviour. traffic psychology has seen a resurgence of interest in the role played by attitudes. 1985. According to the TRA. 126). neither of which was originally intended as a way of explaining driver behaviour. 1985. and is considered to be the immediate antecedent of behaviour. such that it is not capability but perceived capability that interfaces with task demand. Fishbein & Ajzen.7 Attitude-behaviour Theories 2. 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. Intention is the cognitive representation of an individual’s readiness to engage in a given behaviour. 1975) and the subsequent theory of planned behaviour (TPB: Ajzen. Since 1985. largely due to the focus that has been provided by the theory of reasoned action (TRA. Two limitations have been noted.Fuller’s theory has. objects. 2004.

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

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. PBC is considered a determinant of both the individual’s intentions and the individual’s behaviour. speed on a major road or overtake dangerously. 2003). The TPB has spawned a huge body of research. It has been applied to every conceivable type of road user behaviour and has reliably been able to produce comparatively robust relations between the model components and the behaviour in question” (Rothengatter. 40 . 253). Further. when intention is held constant. or sense of self-efficacy. greater perceived control (i. it will directly influence behaviour (Armitage & Christian. 2002. Its inclusion as a predictor of behaviour is premised on the notion that.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.. creating a proxy effect that increases the likelihood that behaviour will be successfully performed.3: Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen. on the performance of a wide range of behaviours. A belief that the described violations were not all that serious (attitudes). including driving and “it has to be admitted that the theory of planned behaviour has stood up well. stronger feelings that “I can do it”) will heighten an individual’s confidence level. to the extent to which PBC reflects an individual’s level of actual control. p.e. the perception of what others would think (subjective norms) and lower PBC all influenced the behaviours chosen by subjects and that hypotheses derived from the TPB were confirmed. In one study. 1989) Within the theory.

A large number of studies have reported epidemiological characteristics of drivers. Edwards (1996) developed a spatial model.2. vehicles. 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. for instance. Scuffham (2003) used a different approach to model the changes in seasonal patterns of fatal crashes in New Zealand according to unemployment rate. while Rautela and Pant (2007) modelled crash risk on mountain roads in India using geographical information system (GIS) data. 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. it was not significant (Scuffham & Langley. they found that real GDP per capita was related to the number of crashes. Attitude toward speeding. but PBC did not contribute to the prediction of speeding violations measured with an intelligent speed adaptation (ISA) device that logged km/hr and location at all times the vehicle was in motion.1 Descriptive Models of Driver Behaviour Statistical Models If traffic psychology lacks a general unified theory of driving behaviour.4.4 2. to predict weather-related crashes in England and Wales. pedestrians and road environments in a range of 41 . based on data extracted from police record forms. This might be seen as evidence of the proxy effect earlier described by Armitage and Christian (2002).2). Gross Domestic Product per capita and alcohol consumption. roadway configuration and crossing design were weighted.In another study. Wállen Warner and Åberg (2006) used structural equation modelling to predict drivers’ everyday speeding behaviour using the TPB as a frame of reference. subjective norms and PBC were all significant determinants of self-reported speeding.1. 2002). (2005) in their Malaysian study (see sect. Austin and Carson (2002). but after controlling for distance travelled. 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. 2.

1997) 42 .4). the road (R) and the environment (E).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). Seow & Lim. PRE-CRASH CRASH POST-CRASH BASIC ELEMENTS OF A HIGHWAY EVENT Human (H) Vehicle (V) Road (R) Environment (E) Figure 2. Nguntra. 2.4. Law. concealing the interactions that underlie the behaviour of real traffic systems (Noy. R. E and especially H factors. Mahasakpan. One way of accomplishing this may be through the creation of models that stress the mediational role played by certain V.2. some researchers have argued that the Haddon Matrix is limited by the way it considers each element independently. Swaddiwudhipong. Koonchote & Tantiratna.4: The Haddon Matrix (Noy.. 2000). Richardson & Downe. 1999). 1997. 1998. within specific situational contexts. 1994). More recently. Haddon (1970) proposed a framework in which each of these elements could be examined as part of an analytical matrix (see Figure 2.4.g. This model has been instrumental in stimulating research designs and accident interventions for the last thirty yeasrs (Williams. the vehicle (V).2 Process Models 2. and have proposed expanding the matrix to better provide for the analysis of inter-relationships between each of the four basic elements.locations and settings (e. however.

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

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

Mediation can be said to occur when some mechanism. Regression analyses can be used to test these causal paths to the outcome variable. Heppner & Mallinckrodt. which in turn exerts an effect on Y through path b (Baron & Kenny. In Sümer’s (2003) generic contextual mediated model. driver propensities to commit errors or violations. then the significance level of path c would be reduced to insignificance or a less significant level (path c’). Figure 2.2. then it can be concluded that complete mediation occurs. 2003).6(ii) illustrates the basic causal chain involved in mediation. M. in which there are two causal paths feeding into the outcome variable: path c′ depicts the direct effect of X on Y. Also termed intervening variables. 2004) and a distinction can be drawn between partial mediation and complete mediation (Wei. In Figure 2.6(i). such that path c′ is zero. moderating or mediating effects. Tix and Barron. 45 . the variable X is called the initial or predictor variable and it causes the variable Y. driver impairment and so on) were hypothesised to mediate the effect of distal variables on the frequency or likelihood of crash outcomes. 2004).2. while path a represents the effect of X on some mediator variable. 2006). 1986). 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.3 Core Concepts in the Contextual Mediated Model: Moderation and Mediation Inter-variable relationships within the contextual mediated model can have direct. called the outcome. proximal variables (including safety skill levels. mediators are variables that represent constructs proposed to explain the association between two variables (Hoyle & Robinson.4. drivers’ safety skills were a mediator of the effects of personality or cultural background on crash frequency. In the case where X no longer affects Y after M has been controlled. If. for instance. process or transformation exists through which one variable influences another (Frazier.

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

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

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

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

but young drivers are more likely to sustain crash-related injuries and to die in vehicular crashes (Massie.1 Age Young drivers are significantly over-represented among those injured or killed in road traffic crashes (Ballesteros & Dischinger.. 2003. proposed the use of a contextual mediated model for further research on agricultural safety (see Figure 2. Weinstein & Solomon. they have been less well studied than other groups and the general understanding of age effects is not clear. aggression) Safe Work Practices  hazard identification and reporting  risk avoidance  procedural compliance  use of safety devices and equipment  occupational hygiene  help-seeking and teamwork behaviour Experiential     safety awareness domain-specific skill years of work experience prior accident experience Figure 2.8). 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. 1995). Williams & Shabanova... Type A. 2007) 2.Downe (2007). Yet.g. uncertainty avoidance)  temperamental factors (e.8: Proposed Contextual Mediated Model for Safety Research in Agriculture (from Downe. Not only are they the most likely age group to be involved in crashes.5 2. 2003). in a study of safety training methods and personality factors in Malaysian rubber and palm oil plantations.g. Campbell & Williams.5. 2002. 1997.1 Distal Variables in the Present Study Demographic Variables 2.5. Odero et al.1. heterogeneity in group composition: Part of this may be due to 50 . Retting.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As experience grows.1 Experience Driver experience makes a difference in crash risk. increased experience usually. A large number of studies have shown that. Lajunen & Summala.g. etc. such as driving at different times of the day or days of the week. the motorist is less likely to encounter situations very different from those they have encountered before (p. 166). (c) not have had enough practice in carrying out the manoeuvre correctly. 2. Groeger (2000) reviewed the reasons for this: … the weight of practice more experienced drivers have makes much of what they do routine.2. 2001). Given the absence of relevant prior research on Malaysian cultural groups. and as such. Hatakka and Katila. Keskinen. although not always. in a given road and traffic scenario. 2002).behaviour in traffic. passenger distractions different vehicles.2 Driver Characteristics 2.5. 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 . On the other hand.5. 1995.. implies the driver has had a broader variety of driving experiences. with different weather conditions. allows many otherwise incompatible tasks to be performed together. journey lengths. (b) not know how to carry out a particular manoeuvre correctly. Allied to this. Laapotti. inexperienced drivers may (a) not know the correct manoeuvre so they try a different manoeuvre which turns out to be unsafe. 1971). they are less likely to make errors and commit violations that result in crashes (e. as drivers become more experienced. and indicating that those recording higher mileage per year have fewer accidents per mile (Pelz & Schuman. or (d) not have had enough experience of dealing safety with the effects of human factors on their performance (Fuller. directionality of the effect was not predicted.

When using those at the top of the hierarchy. Yet. and can be organised in a hierarchy that reflects the key purposes. as well as knowledge of risk elements and a cognitive map of control equipment in the vehicle and how it behaves. or most important facets of driving at different levels (see Figure 2.9). Hataaka and Katila (1992). but also through verbal and pictorial description or by imagining the course of traffic events (Keskinen et al. environment. Internal models have connections to motivational and emotional systems of the driver. When drivers tap into models at the base of cognitive hierarchy. Internal models contain knowledge of route. 2004). as young drivers generally have less experience than their older counterparts. experience effects have not been controlled (Rothengatter. social context company MASTERING TRAFFIC SITUATIONS  Adapting to the demands of the present situation VEHICLE MANOEUVRING  Controlling speed. 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. Hatakka. 2001). Experience can be gained through personal participation in traffic as a driver and through observing the behaviour of others. and sometimes confounded by gender differences. they take actions based on whether they are perceived to reflect lifestyle priorities and values. in many studies of age and gender differences. 1996. direction and position Figure 2. they tend to priortise conscious control of the vehicle over other elements of the driving experience. 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. including start and destination point and corresponding visual scenes.by Keskinen. It assumes that. as individuals acquire experience.9: Hierarchical Levels of Driving Behaviour (after Keskinen. 59 . 2000) The effects of driving experience and age are closely linked.

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

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

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

2. she assumed that the three resulting dimensions were conceptually independent.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. 1990). people who attribute behaviour to an internal locus of control. 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. 1975.3. view most events as dependent on chance or controlled by powers beyond human reach.5. people are thought to vary on a continuum between the two extremes of external and internal locus of control. In contrast. or internals. Stanley & Burrows.10). and second.g. 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. believe that very few events are outside the realm of human influence and that even cataclysmic situations may be altered through human action. Holder & Levi.1.1 Locus of Control 2.5. Hyman.. 1991. 15).5. 1981) extended this concept in two ways: first. Based on this multidimensional conceptualisation. Originally conceptualised by Rotter (1966. bipolar continuum along which individuals could be placed. Rotter’s (1966) original I-E conceptualisation of the locus of control construct viewed it as a unidimensional. 2006.3.3 Psychological Variables 2. 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. Levenson constructed a scale has been used widely in studies of locus of control (e. 63 . or externals . Levenson (1975. such that it could be possible for an individual to score high on all three (see Figure 2. 1999). according to the strength of their tendencies toward making attributions of internal or external control. one to reflect the influence of fate or chance (C) and the second to reflect the influence of powerful others (P). she separated the externality dimension into two.

Multidimensional Model Low Internality High Low Externality . luck. They also tended to bet more on safe outcomes than did the more externally oriented subjects. 64 .5. According to Phares (1976).1. Sinha & Watson.Luckner.Chance High Low Externality – Powerful Others High Figure 2.3. Liverant and Scodel (1960) studied betting preferences using a simple dice-throwing task. 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. 1989. 2007) and has given rise to a number of other instruments measuring multi-dimensional locus of control. E Unidimensional Model I Externalizers Individuals believe that what happens is determined by fate. these results supported the idea that internals would be more cautious in their control efforts while externals would engage in riskier behaviour.2 Locus of Control and Driving Behaviour Very early studies examined a link between locus of control and risk taking. They found that subjects with high internal control seemed to prefer intermediate probability bets or extremely safe bets over so-called long shots.

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

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

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

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

2. 1975. Ohberg. it was hypothesised that Chinese participants would tend toward higher externality scores while Indian participants would tend toward higher internality. (2003). Gilbody. while the two dimensions of externality would have positive associations. 2007. but there are two conceptual arguments for doing so. Hopelessness has not been previously studied as a predictor either of driving behaviour or of crash risk. McMillan. et al. Given the strong research evidence suggesting an association between internal locus of control and less risky driving behaviour (Lajunen & Summala. Weissman. 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. 1995.3. locus of control was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. hopelessness has been consistently shown to be a predictor of suicidal intent (Beck. Beresford & Neilly. Based on the findings reported by Gidron et al. First. 1991. 1973). Kovacs and Weissman. given the large number of studies indicating ethnic differences in locus of control (Crittendon.9% could be classified as having an intentional suicidal component. 1975). Sinha & Watson. 2007). indirectly. it was hypothesised that locus of control would moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic. Niméus. 1997. 2005). In the present study. Personality traits closely aligned with given mood states might well be expected to have an impact on the performance on driving tasks. Träskman-Bendz & Alsén.2 Hopelessness Rothengatter (2002) and Groeger (1997) have both noted the paucity of research on affect and driver behaviour. it was hypothesised that internality would have a negative association with unsafe behaviour in traffic.Justification of hypotheses about locus of control. Montag & Comrey. anticipate a negative outcome to any attempts that may be made to attain the individual’s major objectives or goals (Beck.5. on crash and injury occurrence. Finally. 1987. Cases usually 69 . without objective basis. Fox & Klerman. Pentilla and Lonnqvist (1997) studied all fatal car crashes in Finland from 1987 to 1991 and found that 5. Özkan & Lajunen.

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

Wright & Crundall. Barton and Malta. Mizell. 2. Deffenbacher. Demakakos. & Darviri. Bakou. learned cognitive scripts. 2003. this concept became the basis for what is now known as the frustration-aggression hypothesis of aggressive driving.3 Aggression Since the 1980s.5. and deindividuation. 71 . Tzamalouka. which acts to counter the influence of normative moral codes and to increase people’s impulsive responses to stimuli as one such disinhibitory cue. Although uncertainty persists as to whether road aggression is actually increasing. learned disinhibitory cues. sparked by a number of highly publicised accounts of road rage and improved techniques for measuring anger and aggression in drivers. 2000.hypothesised that participants scoring high on a measure of hopelessness would be likely to engage in behaviour in traffic that was less cautious. 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. 2002). It was hypothesised here that hopelessness would moderate the manner in which locus of control affected behaviour in traffic. physiological arousal. O’Connell (2002) has described the use of alcohol.. Richards. 1999) have argued that there has been a marked increase in the frequency of aggressive incidents and anger-related crashes. 2000. including subjective feelings of stress. Underwood. 2006). attention to the issue of aggressive driving has grown exponentially. 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. Lynch & Oetting. Filetti. Novaco (1991) proposed that driver aggression is produced when environmental triggers interact with a variety of predisposing factors. 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. While media reports and some authors (James & Nahl. Koumaki. 2002.3. Chapman. Malta & Blanchard. In a largely unrelated study. 1999. Wells-Parker et al. Chliaoutaks. there is no shortage of evidence to suggest a consistent and reliable association between aggressive driving and motor vehicle crashes (Blanchard.

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

and specific content. insecurity about status. McKee. Narda. Elofsson & Krakau.. 1999). 2006). Blumenthal. on crash and injury occurrence. Kamada. 1999. 1981. al. Carbone. of hostile automatic thought would moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic. 2002.6 2. TAPB is characterised by a sense of time urgency. Undén. Originally identified by Friedman and Rosenman (1974). Deffenbacher.with which individuals make cognitive statements reflecting aggressive sentiments. Those authors used the instrument to assess hostility and negative affect within a population of veterans diagnosed with combat-related posttraumatic stress disorder (Crowson. Later still. Oetting and Swaim (2003) used the same approach to examine angry cognitions made by drivers under varying conditions of provocation. aggression was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. Miyake. They found that perjorative labelling and vengeful or retaliatory thoughts correlated highly with self-reported aggressive driving. Based on the extensive research on the association between aggression and unsafe driving behaviour (Galovski et. 1998. that the total amount. Karlberg. Williams & Haney. (2003). hostility and difficulty achieving states of relaxation (Ben-Zur. competitiveness.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. Kumashiro & Kume. 1985). Sato. 1999. aggression. Lynch. Thurman. 73 . indirectly. In the present study. Magnavita.6. 2000. Petrilli. Justification of aggression-related hypotheses. Sani. 2. 2001). Rice. James & Nahl. Dewar (2002b) noted that TAPB has been one of the variables most consistently linked to driving performance. consistent with earlier research by Deffenbacher et al. It was also hypothesised. Frueh & Snyder. 2006. impatience. Bettencourt et al. it was hypothesised that aggression would have a negative effect on behaviour in traffic.

Chiron. socio-professional category. where Type A drivers were 4. 1979) and number of accidents. They found a robust association between scores on a measure of TAPB and later serious crashes. age. (1998). violations and self-reported driving impatience in a sample of 54 American students. Although there is some evidence as to the long-term stability of TAPB (Keltikangas-Jarninen. 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. but not with accident risk. and drivers’ attitudes toward traffic regulations – when examining the association between motor vehicle crashes and Type A scores in a prospective study of 20. Lafont and Lagarde (2005). category of vehicle. gender. driving style. similarly. Elander and French (1993) found that TAPB had a strong association with excessive driving speed. In none of these studies. Karlberg et al. Zzanski & Rosenman. Raikkonen. Chastang. Perry (1986) fond significant simple correations between scores on a commonly used measure of TAPB. traffic exposure or driver gender controlled as variables. Nabi. particularly in driving situations that require prudence. focused on the time urgency component 74 . Consoli. it may have been flawed by methodological deficiencies discussed by af Wählberg (2003) and by Elander et al. Other authors have examined which of the behavioural dimensions of TAPB has the strongest impact on driving outcomes. 1989.000 employees of a French oil and gas company. (2003) with respect to data collection time periods. 1990). however. the Jenkins Activity Survey (Jenkins. Although their research design accounted for the influence of potential confounds. did control for the effects of a range of potential confounding variables – annual mileage. studied police officers in Italy. West. tested drivers on a TABP questionnaire in 1993 and then tracked their driving behaviour to record crash history from 1994 to 2001. was driving frequency.2 times more likely to have an accident than others. In a correlational study of British drivers. however. for instance. Nabi et al. alcohol consumption. Perry and Baldwin (2000) argued that it was the tendency of Type A drivers toward a heightened sense of urgency and impatience that created crash risk.DeLorenzo and Sacco (1997).

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

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

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

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

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

It functions as a feeling of despair and discouragement. such that an individual might simultaneously believe that oneself and powerful others control an outcome. 1994). According to Farran et al (1995): Hopelessness constitutes an essential experience of the human condition. 3.5 Aggression Spielberger et al (1995). affective. but not chance. a separate score for internality (I). For the purposes of the present research. While Beck (1999) and others have reserved the term anger for the feeling that accompanies such an internal state. It has been accepted for a long time that aggression finds its 85 . a future directed information-processing bias or schema which functions to distort individuals’ subjective experience of external reality (Velting. hopelessness was measured as a unidimensional construct. aggression is regarded here as referring to the hostile behaviour that occurs as a result of it.2. Galovski et al (2006) and others have noted that the definitions of anger. overlapping and ambiguous. 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.2. anger was defined as a negative internal state of physiological arousal and cognition that involves interactions between physiological. For each of the five studies undertaken. hostility and aggression are often inconsistent. and a behavioural process in which the person attempts little or takes inappropriate action (p. motoric and verbal components (Sharkin. 3. 1988) and tends to manifest itself under antagonistic conditions (Novaco. 1999). externality related to chance (C) and externality related to the influence of powerful others (P) was obtained. Lester and Trexler (1974). In the present research. a thought process that expects nothing.each of these dimensions independently and at the same time. 25). cognitive.

1997) – on the behaviour in traffic of drivers in Study 1C. (b) verbal aggression – the tendency to be unduly argumentative and to use quarrelsome and hostile speech in dealing with others in antagonistic situations. Bergeron & Vallerand. The effects of participants’ total aggression. expressed through the presence of irritability. Lynch & Morris. through fighting. In the present research. (c) overt anger – the tendency to experience high levels of emotional arousal and a perceived loss of control. (d) hostility – including attitudes of bitterness. were also investigated. and. 1996). 2005).2. but it has only relatively recently been considered in light of driving aggression (Deffenbacher et al. Deffenbacher. frustration. generally to the point where the needs or feelings of others cannot be taken into consideration. Oetting. 3. Ellis (1962) and Meichenbaum (1977). The present research examined the effects of a set of cognitive statements – described as hostile automatic thoughts (Snyder et al. 2003. the following variables were examined: (a) physical aggression – the tendency to use physical force when expressing anger or aggression.6 Hostile Automatic Thoughts While the role of cognitive self-talk in directing behavioural responses has been accepted since the early work of Beck (1976). emotional lability and temperamental gesturing. Specifically. hitting or interpersonal violence. taken as a sum of measures of each of the foregoing. the three forms of hostile automatic thoughts were defined as: 86 . Vallières. (e) indirect aggression – the tendency to express aggressive impulses in actions that avoid direct confrontation. 1957. social alienation and paranoia.expression in a range of behavioural manifestations (Buss & Durkee.

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

within the preceding twelve months and provided details about the nature of the crash.9 Injury Occurrence Participants also indicated whether they had been forced to seek medical treatment for an injury incurred during the reported crash.1 Research Design of the Study Study 1A Specifically.g. gender and ethnicity) and two psychological variables (locus of control and hopelessness) on BIT was tested. the influence of driving experience. three demographic variables (driver age. urging others to move faster or out of the way by sounding the horn). In the resulting measure of this variable. 88 . (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 Study 1A. Then. Then. In the resulting measure of this variable. and.3.2. a “1” was scored if the participant reported a crash and a “0” was scored if the participant did not report a crash. to the extent of inattention conditions. travel frequency. while driving. 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.2. to contemporaneous roadway and traffic 3.. 3.them (e. the extent to which self-reported BIT of automobile drivers predicted crash and injury occurrence was assessed while controlling the effects of driving experience and the drivers’ self-reported travel frequency.3 3.8 Crash Occurrence Participants reported whether or not they had experienced a motor vehicle crash. 3. the interrelationships between the demographic variables.

Then. and (b) the moderating effect of locus of control on the relation between aggression and BIT. travel frequency. the influence of driving characteristics. 3. the interrelationships between the demographic variables. Finally. the psychological variables and BIT were examined.2 illustrates the research design for Study 1B. Finally. three demographic variables (driver age. hopelessness and aggression) on BIT was tested.1 illustrates the research design for Study 1A. (b) the moderating effect of locus 89 . hopelessness. Figure 3.2 Study 1B While again controlling the effects of driving experience and drivers’ self- reported travel frequency. the psychological variables and BIT were examined. Figure 3. In this study. three moderating effects were measured: (a) the moderating effect of hopelessness on the relationship between locus of control and BIT. Then. 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.3 Study 1C In Study 1C.psychological variables (locus of control and hopelessness) and BIT were examined. gender and ethnicity) and four psychological variables (locus of control. travel frequency. the extent to which self-reported BIT predicted crash and injury occurrence in automobile drivers was assessed. the mediating effect of BIT on the relationship between psychological factors and crash occurrence and injury occurrence was tested. In Study 1B.3. the mediating effect of the BIT on the relations between psychological variables and crash occurrence and injury occurrence was tested. Then. Then. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) on BIT was tested. the moderating effect of hopelessness on the relationship between locus of control and BIT was tested. 3. the interrelationships between the demographic variables. In this study.3. three demographic variables (driver age. gender and ethnicity) and three psychological variables (locus of control. two moderating effects were tested: (a) the moderating effects of hopelessness on the relationship between locus of control and BIT. the influence of driving characteristics.

Figure 3. Figure 3.4 illustrates the research design for Study 3. In Study 3. Then. the influence of experience. the psychological variables and BIT were examined. Finally. the mediating effect of the BIT on the relations between psychological variables and crash occurrence and injury occurrence was tested.4 Study 2 The research design for Study 1A was replicated.3. and (c) the moderating effect of hostile automatic thoughts on the relationship between aggression and BIT.5 Study 3 The final study used a sample of on-duty taxicab drivers. 90 . 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 illustrates the research design for Study 1C. and (b) taxi experience. the moderating effect of locus of control on the relationship between aggression and BIT was assessed. Figure 3.of control on the relationship between aggression and BIT. or the length of time they had been licensed to operate a taxicab. This was justified for three reasons. Two measures of experience were included: (a) driving experience. 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 3.1 illustrates the research design for Study 2. 3. or the length of time they had held a valid automobile operator’s licence. Then. Finally.3. the interrelationships between the demographic variables. In Study 3. Variables and analyses in Study 2 were the same as those carried out in Study 1A. First. the mediating effect of the BIT on the relations between psychological variables and crash occurrence and injury occurrence was tested. three demographic variables (driver age and ethnicity) and two psychological variables (locus of control and aggression) on BIT was tested. 3. using a sample that indicated motorcycles as their primary mode of transportation.

3:Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on crash 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 H2.2: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.1: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.3: Taxicab experience will have a negative influence on total BIT score 91 . a risk that would have been unethical to impose both on the drivers and on the research assistants who were collecting the data.1.2.1: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.1.1: Research Hypotheses STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 H1: Behaviour in traffic will have a positive influence on motor vehicle crash outcomes H1. 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. the following fifteen hypotheses and sixty sub-hypotheses were formulated: Table 3.1.3: Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1. instruments employed to measure hopelessness and hostile automatic thoughts used language and response formats not conducive to verbal administration procedures. potentially raising questions of reliability and validity.2: Freeway urgency will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.2 :Freeway urgency will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1. limitations were imposed on administration time by driver willingness to participate and by research cost considerations.1.4:Destination-Activity orientation will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.2.2. Third.2.1: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1. Second. 3.1: Driver experience will have a negative influence on total BIT score H2.given that data were collected during in situ interview and testing sessions with drivers during a rolling trip from point to point through Kuala Lumpur streets.2: Travel frequency will have a negative influence on total BIT score H2. Gender was not included as a demographic variable in Study 3 because all taxicab drivers in the sample were male.4 Formulation of Hypotheses Based on the conceptualisation and research framework.

2: Externality-Chance will have a positive influence on total BIT score H8.3: Ethnicity will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H4.1.3: Hopelessness will moderate the Externality(Powerful-Other)-BIT relationship H10: Demographic variables will influence aggression H10.2: Hopelessness will moderate the Externality(Chance)-BIT relationship H9.3: Age will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others Y Y Y Y Y Y H5: Demographic variables will influence hopelessness H5.4: Hopelessness will have positive influence on Destination-Activity Orientation H8: Locus of Control will influence behaviour in traffic H8.2: Gender will influences Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.2: Aggression will have a positive influence on Freeway Urgency H11.2.2: Ethnicity will influence Aggression H10.3: Externality-Powerful-Others will have a positive influence on Hopelessness H7: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on behaviour in traffic H7.2: Age will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.1: Gender will influence total BIT score H3.1: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Internality H4.2: Ethnicity will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.2.1: Gender will influence Aggression H10.1.1: Hopelessness will moderate the Internality-BIT relationship H9.3: Aggression will have a positive influence on Externally-focused Frustration H11.1: Aggression will have a positive influence on Usurpation of Right-of Way H11.3.1 (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 H7.1: Gender will influence Hopelessness H5.1: Ethnicity will influence Locus of Control: Internality H4.1: Internality will have a negative influence on total BIT score H8.4: Aggression will have a positive influence on Destination-Activity Orientation 92 .1: Age will influence Locus of Control: Internality H4.Table 3.1: Internality will have a negative influence on Hopelessness H6.3: Age 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: Ethnicity will influence total BIT score H3.2.2: Externality-Chance will have a positive influence on Hopelessness H6.3.3: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H4.3.3: Externality-Powerful-Others will have a positive influence on total BIT score H9: Hopelessness will moderate the locus of control-BIT Relationship H9.2: Ethnicity will influence Hopelessness H5.3: Age will have a negative influence Aggression Y Y Y Y Y Y H11: Aggression will have a positive influence on behaviour in traffic H11.1.2: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Freeway Urgency H7.3: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Externally-focused Frustration H7.

Table 3.1: Thoughts of Physical Aggression will have a positive influence on total BIT H14. registered in a freshman course offered within the Faculty of Management.3: Thoughts of Revenge will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation Note: Y=YES 3. Data were collected during three consecutive trimesters.5.3: 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: Thoughts of Derogation-of-Others will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation H15. Only participants with a valid driving licence who had indicated that a car was the mode of transportation they used most of the time when they travelled were included. All participants had a valid driving licence but had indicated that a motorcycle was the mode of transportation most of the 93 .2: Externality(Chance) will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12.1: Internality will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12.2: Thoughts of the Derogation of Others will have a positive influence on BIT H14.1: Gender will have a positive influence on hostile automatic thoughts H13.3: Thoughts of Revenge will have a positive influence on total BIT score H15: Hostile automatic thoughts will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H15.2: Ethnicity will influence hostile automatic thoughts H13.1: Thoughts of Physical aggression will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation H15. within a 14-month period. Participants in Study 2 were undergraduate students at the same private university. Participants from the first round of data collection were included in Study 1A. 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. and those from the third round of data collection were included in Study 1C.1 Methods of Data Collection and Analysis The Sample Participants in Study 1 were undergraduate students at a private university in peninsular Malaysia.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 H13.5 3. with psychological tests and inventories administered to groups of students during lecture sessions. those from the second round of data collection were included in Study 1B.

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

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

3. References to the faster.5. Participants scored all 24 items on a 6-point scale. A sample item is “When I get what I want. 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. ranging from +3 (“agree strongly”) to –3 (“disagree strongly”).2 Levenson Locus of Control Scale This widely-used questionnaire is based on Levenson’s (1981) multidimensional view of locus of control. High scores on the externality-chance (C) scale indicate that respondents expect expect chance forces or luck to have control over their lives.2. it’s usually because I worked hard for it”. A sample item is “Although I might have good ability. passing lane were changed from “left lane” to “right lane” and the word “pass” was replaced with “overtake”.Certain items in the original American version were re-worded to make them relevant to the Malaysian context and driving jargon. A sample item is “I have often found that what is going to happen will happen”. It contains three 8-item sub-scales that measure perceptions about the level of control exercised over the events and circumstances in their lives. 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. 96 . 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. References to the “gas pedal” were replaced by “accelerator”. References to “miles per hour” were changed to “kilometres per hour”.

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

2.88 and . 2000).92.6 Personal Information Form (PIF) Participants also completed a 4-page questionnaire recording personal information.” 3. Three factors – physical aggression.2. 1997. 1997. . of Items 11 10 9 30 Sample Items “If I could get away with it. Boyd. 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. Shapiro. 1996). I’d kill this person!” “I’d like to knock his/her teeth out” “What an idiot!” “This person is a loser.91 for physical aggression.5 Hostile Automatic Thoughts (HAT) This 30-item self-report index measures the frequency of recurring hostile thoughts. Williams. Snyder et al. gender.5.71 to . 98 . with coefficient alpha values of .4). Questions included details about the participant’s licensing and driving background.” “I want to get back at this person.” Participants responded on a 5point Likert-type scale (1 = “not at all”.” “I just want to hurt this person as bad as s/he hurt me.94 for the total aggression scores and ranging from . Table 3. 3. Cascardi & Pythress.High internal consistency has been reported with a coefficient alpha of . High scores on a sub-scale indicated that type of hostile thinking had occurred to the participant frequently. 5 = “all the time”). 2000) and discriminant validity (Archer & Haigh. (1997) reported high internal consistency for all three sub-scales.5. ethnicity and history of motor vehicle crashes and injuries.4: The Three Subscales of the Hostile Automatic Thoughts (HAT) Scale Factor Physical aggression Derogation of others Revenge Total No. derogation of others and revenge respectively. Previous studies have established high levels of concurrent validity (Harris. derogation of others and revenge – were identified and are included as subscales (see table 3.88 for the five subscales (Buss & Warren. age.

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

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

3: Age influence the level of Hopelessness Independent Sample t-Test Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance The Direct Effect of Locus of Control on Hopelessness H6.2: Ethnicity background influence the level of BIT H3.1: The level of BIT influence the crash occurrence H1.3: Age influence the Locus of Control Independent Sample tTest Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance The Direct Effect of Demographic Factors on Hopelessness H5.1: Gender influence the Locus of Control H4.3: “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: Externality (Chance) is positively related to Hopelessness H6.3: Age influence the level of BIT Independent Sample t-Test Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance The Direct Effect of Demographic Factors on Locus of Control H4.1: Hopelessness influence the level of Usurpation of Right-of Way H7.3: Externality (Powerful-Other) is positively related to Hopelessness Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression The Direct Effect of Hopelessness on BIT H7.1: Gender influence the level of BIT H3.2: The level of BIT influence the crash injury Logistic Regression Logistic Regression The Direct Effect of Driving characteristics on BIT H2.2: Ethnicity background influence the level of Hopelessness H5.5: Statistical Methods for Hypothesis Testing Data Analysis Methods The Direct Effect of BIT on Accident Involvement H1.1: Internality is negatively related to hopelessness H6.4: Hopelessness influence the level of Destination-activity Orientation Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression 101 .3: Hopelessness influence the level of Externally-focused Frustration H7.2: Ethnicity influence the Locus of Control H4.2: Hopelessness influence the level of Freeway Urgency H7.1: “Length of having driving licence” influence the level of BIT H2.2: “Frequency of traveling” influence the level of BIT H2.Table 3.1: Gender influence the level of Hopelessness H5.

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

7. locus of control.1: Thoughts of Physical Aggression will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation H15. When significant differences were observed. In the present study. In the present research.7. ANOVA was used to determine whether participants’ scores on psychological variables (BIT. t-tests were used to determine whether participants’ scores on psychological variables (BIT. post hoc analyses were carried out using the Scheffé method (Klockars & Hancock.1: Thoughts of Physical Aggression have a positive influence on BIT H14. hopelessness. 103 .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. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) differed for drivers with different ethnic backgrounds. 3.Table 3.5 (continued) Data Analysis Methods The Direct Effect of HAT on BIT H14.2 One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) ANOVA is used to compare means for more than two groups. 2000). t-tests are used to compare the means of two groups.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 male and female drivers. hopelessness.2: Thoughts of Derogation-of-Others have a positive influence on BIT H14.1 Independent-sample t-tests Generally. locus of control.

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

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

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

1 Chi-Square (χ2).7. 1998).7. (2006) have highlighted that for sample size greater than 250 (with a number of observed variables less than 12). pp.7. Hair et al. 2006). RMSEA values can range from zero to 1.3 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. 1998. when the ratio of χ2 to df yields a value of less than 3. an insignificant p-value can result in good fit. Thus. For a sample size less than 250 (and with number of observed variables that is less than 12). 112).7. However. one incremental index.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.0. p-Value and χ2/df Ratio χ2 is the fundamental measure used in SEM to quantify the differences between the observed and estimated covariance matrices (Hair et al. 107 .validation index (ECVI). and a measure of parsimony fit. an insignificant p-value is expected.10 indicate poor fit. 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). 3. the parsimony goodness-of-fit index (PGFI). the ratio indicates a good fit.7. with unknown but optimally chosen parameter values.00 in which values greater than ..7. fit the population covariance matrix if it were available” (Byrne. the higher the probability associated with χ2. 2006). Carmines and McIver (1981) have noted that. 3. the closer the fit between the hypothesized model (established under the null hypothesis). 3.

4 Normed Fit Index (NFI) One of the original incremental measures of fit. it is known as one of the most widely used indices (Hair et al. The AGFI penalises more complex models and favours those with a minimum number of free paths. Bentler & Bonnet.5 Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) and Comparative Fit Index (CFI) The GFI can range from zero to 1.7. but AGFI values are typically lower than GFI values in proportion to model complexity. 2006). The index ranges between zero and 1.10 usually suggests a poor fit of the data for the model.00 with value closes to 1..6 Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index (AGFI) An adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI. 3.00.00 being indicative of good fit. Since the CFI is insensitive to model complexity. 108 . and a model with perfect fit would produce an NFI of 1. 3. an RMR greater than .7. Values range from zero to 1. CFI is an improved version of the normed fit index. 3. with higher values indicating better fit.00.00 with value more than . 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.7. The index can range from zero to 1.7.Root mean square residual (RMR) is another badness-of-fit measure.7.7. 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. the normed fit index (NFI. Thus. Tanaka & Huba.00.

it is most commonly used when comparing the performance of one model to another.7 Expected Cross-Validation Index (ECVI) The expected cross-validation index (ECVI. Values range between zero and 1. Mulaik & Brett.. p. 109 . “a PGFI taken alone is not a useful indicator of a single model’s fit.00.7. 3. 1994). 750). designed specifically to provide information about which model among a competing set of models is best. 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. 2006. based on the combination of fit and parsimony represented by the index. Browne & Cudeck.7. In such cases. considering its fit relative to its complexity..00.3.7. A parsimony fit measure is improved by a better fit and/or a simpler model which. means a model with fewer estimated parameter paths (Hair et al. it takes into account the actual sample size and the difference that could be expected in another sample. 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. The parsimony goodness-of-fit index (PGFI. the model with the higher ECVI value is generally regarded as presenting a better fit. It should be noted that. in this case. Although values range from zero to 1. 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. Like other parsimony fit indices. a PGFI value is meant only to be used in comparing it to another model’s PGFI value” (Hair et al. 2006).8 Parsimony Goodness-of-Fit Index (PGFI) A third class of measures is sometimes recognised as the parsimony indices. The ECVI also takes into account the number of estimated parameters for a given model.7.

2000). Kurtosis refers to the flatness or peakedness of one distribution in relation to another. When p-values for the Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic are greater than our α=. 3. it is said to be positively skewed. the distribution is said to be negatively skewed (Ferguson. the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to assess whether there was a significant departure from normality in the distribution of variable scores. then it is possible to conclude the the data do not violate the normality assumption (Carver & Nash.05. Many parametric statistics assume that variables are distributed approximately normally and SPSS calculates values for skewness and kurtosis to assist in determing 110 . p. In this case. 1976.8 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. If the opposite holds.7.7. 1976). which means that it falls between leptokurtic and platykurtic distributions” (Ferguson. 1956). the larger frequencies being concentrated toward the high end of the variable and the smaller frequencies toward the low end.9 Skewness and Kurtosis Skewness refers to the symmetry or asymmetry of a frequency distribution. and platykurtic if it is less peaked. The normal distribution is spoken of as mesokurtic. “It is conventional to speak of a distribution as leptokurtic if is more peaked than … the normal distribution. It determines whether the scores in the sample can reasonably thought to have come from a population having the theoretical distribution (Siegel.3. the distribution of test scores to the normal distribution. 37). in this case. 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.

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

13 years (SD = 1.6% 82 15. A contextual mediated model showing interrelationships between variables is introduced. descriptive statistics are presented and the results of hypothesis testing are reported.4% 269 27.4% 333 62.55).5% MalaysianIndian 64 14. 4.1).6% 12. It begins with a discussion of reliability and validity tests of the instruments.1 Description of the Samples Age.5% 27. 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: Gender and Ethnicity of the Sample for Studies 1 and 2 Malay Gender Male Count % within Gender % of Total Count % within Gender % of Total Count % within Gender % of Total 148 33.9% 977 100% 100% Female Total 112 .1% 562 57. Thus 977 participants were included in the analysis.5% 57.5% Ethnicity MalaysianChinese 229 51. Then. with results of these tests reported in this chapter.1.6% 15.9% 14. The contextual mediated model was tested using (1) regression analysis (SPPS) and (2) structural equation modelling (LISREL). Ages of participants ranged from 18 to 29 years. Gender and Ethnicity Participants were 992 undergraduate students at an English-language Malaysian university.1% 121 22.4% 146 14.3% 8.1% 34.5% 6.9% Total 441 100% 45.9% 23.1 4. with a mean age of 20. Thirteen of the participants did not complete all the questionnaires and two participants completing questionnaires reported that they did not have driving licences. Table 4.1% 536 100% 54.CHAPTER 4 ANALYSIS OF THE DATA This chapter presents the results of the research.

5 per cent). In Study 1A. Malaysian-Chinese represented the highest number of participants (57.01 years (SD = 1.89 years (SD = 1. A crosstabulation between gender and ethnicity (see Table 4.25 years (SD = 1. with a mean age of 20. 149 taxicab drivers participated.43 years (SD = 1. In Study 1B.1) showed that most of the drivers were female Malaysian-Chinese. range of 18 to 26).53.63. with a mean age of 20. range from 18 to 27). with a mean age of 20.5 per cent) and Malaysian-Indian (14.35.Female participants (approximately 55 per cent) slightly out-numbered males.68. followed by Malay (27. In Study 3. range from 18 to 25). range from 18 to 29). 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.9 per cent). 113 . 301 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode of transportation to be the automobile comprised the sample. 252 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode of transportation to be the automobile comprised the sample. 122 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode of transportation to be the motorcycle comprised the sample. In Study 1C. In Study 2. 302 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode of transportation to be the automobile comprised the sample. Thus. with a mean age of 19.

The mean age was 43. Gender and Ethnicity of Participants in Studies 1.3% of the sample.2 7.3). range from 23 to 73). Table 4.2 Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 1 Although participants in Studies 1A. 1. Kuala Lumpur. Table 4.68 1.3 11.5 8.43 19.65.19 S.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 .25 43.9 2.4% of the sample.63 11.7 4.2: Age.D.1 6.35 1.responses from 133 taxicab drivers were included in data analysis. they hailed from across the country (see table 4.3: States from Which Study 1 Participants Had Acquired Their Original Drivers’ Licenses Johor Kedah Kelantan Kuala Lumpur Melaka Negeri Sembilan Pahang N 109 42 20 98 70 61 56 % 12. 2 and 3 Gender STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 3 N 301 302 252 122 133 Mean Age 20.1.19 years (SD = 11. Johor or Perak made up 53.53 1.01 20. SD = standard deviation 4. Participants from East Malaysia comprised 5. Descriptive data for each sample are provided in Table 4.5 114 .89 20. 1B and 1C were all students at a single Malaysian university.2. Participants who had received their driving licenses in Selangor.

0 10.Penang Perak Perlis Sabah Sarawak Selangor Terengganu 67 102 6 27 19 147 31 855 7.8 11.7 100 4.7 3.8 5.5 1. Perak or Penang made up 50.4 0.4).2 3.1.5 14.2 2.1 9.9 0. Participants who had received their driving licenses in Selangor.3 Geographic Distribution of the Sample in Study 2 Participants in Study 2 were all students at a single Malaysian university. As the sample was 115 .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 % 13.6 1. Participants from East Malaysia comprised 4.9% of the sample.8 9.6 100 4. Table 4.7 11. but again they held licenses from various states (see table 4.6 2.4 4.2 17.9 7.1% of the sample.1.4 Geographic Distribution of the Sample in Study 3 Participants in Study 3 were all professional taxicab operators who had been licensed to drive their vehicles commercially within Kuala Lumpur.0 7.

The closer Cronbach’s Alpha is to 1. 116 .1 Reliability and Validity Reliability Test Results: Cronbach’s Alpha Cooper and Schindler (2000) claimed that reliability relates to the accuracy and precision of a measurement procedure. A Cronbach’s Alpha of . reliability was measured using Cronbach’s coefficient alpha.2. Neuman (2003) defined reliability is defined as “dependability or consistency” and further explained that reliability suggests that the same event is repeated or recurs under identical or very similar conditions. 1978). 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. no attempt was made to determine the geographic location in which drivers had originally received noncommercial drivers’ licenses. This statistic reflects the consistency of respondents’ answers compared to all the items in a measure (Sekaran.intended to be representative of Kuala Lumpur taxicab drivers.2 4.70 or greater is generally considered acceptable (Nunnally. In the present research. 4. 2000). Sekaran (2000) offered a similar definition in which the reliability of a measure indicates the stability and consistency with which the instrument measures a concept and helps to assess the “goodness” of the measure.5). the higher is the internal consistency of the measure.

730 .701 Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable 117 .740 .738 .726 Not Applicable Not Applicable α .714 .808 .810 .811 .727 . of Item α Study 2 (N=122) Motorcycle Drivers (student sample) Study 3 (N=133) Taxicab Drivers α .742 .881 α .788 .768 Not Applicable Not Applicable .782 .830 .711 .Table 4.808 .783 .827 .798 .890 .906 .781 .734 .784 .733 .904 .817 .707 .772 α .737 .715 .718 .703 .740 .783 .702 .747 .910 .749 .782 .824 .774 .735 .756 .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 .786 .754 .720 .739 .715 .741 .887 .727 .720 .701 .5: Summary of Internal Reliability Coefficient Results Study 1A (N=301) Study 1B (N=302) Automobile Drivers (student sample) Study 1C (N=252) Variables No.

Byrne.857 .10 indicate poor fit (MacCallum et al. ordering or other test construction factors” (p.916 . In Study 3.2. we may be fairly certain that the measures are reasonably reliable. The root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) index measures the error of approximation in the population and determines whether the model.876 .802 4.953 . confirmatory factor analyses using LISREL (Jöreskog & Sörbom. 205).08 to . with unknown but optimally chosen parameter values.2.806 .807 . 1998). 1985).958 . it was also possible to measure reliability as a coefficient of correlation between Form A and Form B (Synodinos &Papacostas. 1998).3 Validity Test Results In the present research.903 . with minimal error variance caused by wording.803 .929 . 1998). The Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) is a measure of the relative amount of variance and covariance in sample data that is jointly explained by sample data (Byrne.811 . RMSEA values less than . only Form A was used.4.804 .805 .6.80 or above).807 Study 1B . fits the population correlation matrix or covariance matrix.800 . Sekaran (2003) notes that “if two comparable forms are highly correlated (. depending on which is used (Byrne.804 .804 Study 1C . and those greater than .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 .2 Parallel-Form Reliability In the case of the BIT scale. 2002) was used to establish evidence of construct validity for various measures. The results of parallel-form reliability for the BIT instrument in different studies are shown in Table 4. more than . Table 4. Reliability coefficients in all studies where both forms were used are acceptable since Form A and Form B were highly correlated.808 Study 2 . values ranging from .05 indicate good fit.10 indicate a mediocre fit. 118 .801 . 1998.80.

00 1.00 .000 .000 . 4.000 .061 .00 (the closer to 1. it is possible to have negative GFI.96 1. CFI= Comparative Fit Index 119 .074 .048 .097 .96 .00.054 .97 1.98 .90.96 .00 .000 .99 .99 .097 .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 .96 . This reflects that the model fits worse than no model at all. freeway urgency.99 . A third statistic.00 1.2. As shown in Table 4.99 .00 1.99 . although the GFI index ranges from zero to 1.024 .98 1.00 1.91 . RMSEA values in each case were less than .91 .98 Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation.070 .7. indicating good fits.92 1.100. GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index.098 .047 . and both GFI and CFI were more than .00 .00 1. it is generally considered an acceptable fit to the data (Bentler.00 . parameter values for all four of these factors were within acceptable ranges. externally-focused frustration. Table 4.00 1.00 .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 .1 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the BIT Scale In the present research.97 1.97 .000 .000 .95 1.98 1. drivers’ behaviour in traffic was measured by the four component factors of the BIT scale: usurpation of right-of-way.93 . 1992).90. the higher the goodness-of-fit).00 1.3.000 . and destination-activity orientation.98 .000 . the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) is estimated to indicate whether complete covariation in the data is achieved.Jöreskog and Sörbom (1993) reported that.92 .00 1. If the value of CFI exceeds .00 .089 .077 .92 .00 1.

C and P scales were all within acceptable ranges.96 .2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Levenson Locus of Control Scale Locus of control was measured across three dimensions: internality (I).2. and both GFI and CFI were more than .081 .98 .085 .091 .93 .95 1. Five component factors of aggression were measured: physical aggression (PHY).98 Study 2 RMSEA Study 3 CFI RMSEA GFI GFI CFI Locus of Control  Internality  Externality (Chance)  Externality (Powerful-Other) .92 .97 . Table 4.059 .93 .98 .96 .100.96 . anger (ANG).058 .8.91 .95 .90.081 . verbal aggression (VER). CFI= Comparative Fit Index 4.91 .98 Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation.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) . CFA revealed that parameter values for I.085 .083 .93 . indicating good fits (See Table 4.3.096 .97 .95 .3.98 .92 .071 . under the assumption that locus of control is a multidimensional phenomenon.96 .073 . GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index.4.99 .030 . externality-chance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P).93 .99 .063 . Each component of the locus of control was measured separately.93 .93 .93 .92 . RMSEA values were less than .91 .00 .052 . hostility (HOS) and indirect aggression 120 .2.3 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).000 .

97 .93 .088 .098 .97 .97 .98 . CFA revealed that parameter values for all three measurement scales were within acceptable ranges.10: Summary of LISREL Results on Validity for HAT (Study 1C) RMSEA Hostile Automatic Thought (HAT)  Physical Aggression  Derogation of Others  Revenge GFI CFI .96 .088 . Table 4. CFI= Comparative Fit Index 4. CFA revealed that parameter values for all five aggression subscales were within acceptable ranges.98 .96 Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation.081 .98 .97 Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation.97 . GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index.94 .95 .96 .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 .098 . and both GFI and CFI were more than .100.98 .98 .073 .083 .2.98 . derogation of others and revenge.92 . indicating good fits (See Table 4.025 . and both GFI and CFI were more than . RMSEA values were less than .92 .095 .90.055 .98 . Three classes of hostile automatic thoughts were measured: physical aggression.98 .089 .92 .3. RMSEA values were less than .98 .97 .98 .081 .10).90. indicating good fit (see Table 4.98 .9).4 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the HAT Scale The HAT was only used in Study 1C (with automobile drivers sampled from a student population).97 . Table 4.100.096 .97 . CFI= Comparative Fit Index 121 .96 .047 .94 .(IND).99 .98 . GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index.070 .95 .090 .97 .070 .058 .97 .97 . A total aggression score was arrived at by summing the five subscale scores.

091) 1.140) .140) .428) . Table 4.140) .05).140) -.140) -.453(.260) .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 .192(.195 (.057) 1.582(.280) -.085 (.140) . values for the Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic were non-significant (p>.805(.219 (.280) .107) 1.278(.037(.332 (.239 (.140) .099(.331(.010 (.511(.190) 1.297(.140) -.280) .140) -.120) 1. Skewness and Kurtosis Data were studied to determine whether they were normally distributed and therefore capable of satisfying parametric assumptions.719(.154(. 2005. 2006).280) .140) .064) 1. but with a non-signficant platykurtic tendency for the locus of control data.082 (.11: Normality Tests.403(.099) 1.280) .280) -..297(.280) -.034 (.3 Normality.280) .064(.140) -.280) -.356 (.140) -.280) . In all cases. 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 1.256 (.280) -.085) 1.280) -.183) 1.409(.140) -.280) .064(.323 (.102) 1.410(.126(.11 indicates that variable distribution fell within these limits.192) 1.280) -.183) 1.094 (.091(.140) .069) 1.241(. 1997).204(.140) -.280) .188(.280) -.379(. Marcoulides & Hershberger.105 (.4.560(..297 (.085 (.186) 1. Normality can also be assessed by examining sknewness and kurtosis values (Hair et al.020 (.280) -. Skewness and kurtosis values of ± 1 are acceptable (Leech et al. Table 4.140) -.278(.140) .280) . indicating that the distribution of scores did not depart from normality.140) .126(.106) 1.080(.962 (.091(.280) .560(.099(.280) .146(.203(.409(.140) -.022 (.280) .351 (.920(.052) 1.656(.107 (.875(.226 (.179(.191) 1.246(.085) 1.408(.179(.353(.140) -.099) 1.

219) .070 (.153) -.913 (.210) .186(.128) .807 (.210) .142(.435) -.435) -.048(.306) -.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 .501(.279 (.360) .113 (.106 (.099) 1.277(.153) .110 (.948(.214) 1.024 (.297 (.153) -.219) .098) 1.001 (.156(.306) -.417) -.153) .360) .915(.138(.219) .267) .Table 4.715(.266 (.084) 1.435) -.153) .120(.128 (.919 (.713(.375) 1.417) .972(.962 (.306) -.024 (.994(.306) .306) .324(.053(.210) .276 (.062(.478(.088 (.370(.417) .264) .435) -.537(.317) 1.159(.417) .417) .629(.469) 1.463(.147(.467(.417) -.153) .973(306) .223 (.435) -.911 (305) 1.131(.007(.210) .153) .719(.959 (.051) .160 (.187) 1.219) .153) .219) -.300(.417) -.979(.210) .852(.435) -.153) .003 (.102) .567(.064) 1.359 (.270) 1.978(.052) 1.338 (.952(.147(.986 (.198(.153) 983(.011 (.098) 1.497(.360) .962(.435) .130(.321) 1.360) -.451(.443(.104) 1.913(.157) .533) .051) 1.799(.101) 1.362(.195 (.247) 1.244(.106(.052) 1.681(.306) .210) -.271(.392(.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 1.417) -.640(.265) 1.306) .805 (.209(.135) 1.022 (.247) .153) .236(.154) -.153) .812(.417) -.366) 1.841(.822 (.053(.057) 1.354 (.138) 1.219) .306) -.417) -.100) .219) -.510) 1.219) -.327 (.153) .306) -.423(.153) .426) .295(.276(.940(.210) -.256(.414(.006(.503(.852(.884(.847 (.210) .306) -.435) -.540(.306) .210) .153) .293 (.106(.567(.210) -.359 (.417) -.210) .259) .417) -.030(.366(.022 (.

For motorcycle drivers.12. injury occurrence was much higher.4 Crash and Injury Occurrence Data Participants in all studies indicated whether they had experienced an accident within the preceding twelve months in which their vehicle had sustained more than RM100 damage and. column b). males were more than twice as likely to report involvement in two or three automobile crashes. (2) injuries severe enough to require out-patient treatment at a medical clinic (see Table 4. 1B and 1C selfreported that they had been involved in at least one motor vehicle crash over the preceding year (see Table 4.12. if so. 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.13). Male and female automobile drivers reported involvement in one crash with almost the same frequency. whether the accident had resulted in (1) no injuries or injuries insufficiently severe to seek medical attention (see Table 4. column a). column c). However.12. 124 .12: Crash and Injury Occurrence OUTCOME VARIABLES STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 3 N 301 302 252 122 133 Number of Participants’ Reported Crash 181 255 174 157 22 Vehicle Damage a 84 142 102 45 17 Out-patient Treatment b 68 75 47 58 3 Hospital Admission c 29 38 25 54 2 More than half of the automobile drivers sampled in Studies 1A. with 44. (3) injuries requiring hospitalisation (see Table 4.3 per cent being hospitalised. Table 4.4.

Gender and Ethnicity in Study 1 (N=855) Automobile Drivers Ethnicity No.14) Regardless of ethnic background. Table 4. involved in two crashes Total Ethnicity No. involved in two crash Total Ethnicity No. involved in three crashes Total Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Gender Male Female 20 8 25 13 16 1 61 22 17 4 15 4 11 0 43 8 10 1 6 1 3 0 19 2 Total 28 38 17 83 21 19 11 51 11 7 3 21 125 .Table 4. male motorcycle drivers reported higher crash occurrence than female motorcycle drivers.14: Crash Occurrence Frequency. involved in three crashes Total Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Gender Male Female 80 57 119 103 33 44 232 204 24 9 19 7 7 2 50 18 12 5 9 3 1 2 22 10 Total 137 222 77 436 33 26 9 68 17 12 3 32 More than half of the motorcycle drivers sampled in Study 2 reported that they had been involved in at least one motor vehicle crash over the preceding year (see Table 4. involved in one crash Total Ethnicity No. involved in one crash Total Ethnicity No. Gender and Ethnicity in Study 2 (N=122) Motorcycle drivers Ethnicity No.13: Crash Occurrence Frequency.

Table 4.4.5 4. I was significantly correlated with all variables except with VER and hostility. Table 4. All these correlations were significant (p<. externally-focused frustration. proximal and outcome variables within the sample of automobile drivers.15 shows means. Table 4. proximal and outcome variables within the sample of automobile drivers.05). VER was not correlated with the total score for behaviour in traffic (BIT) nor with any of the BIT subscales: usurpation of right-of-way.17 shows means. All distal and proximal variables were positively correlated except I which was negatively corrected with other variables. standard deviations and relationships between distal.5. Hopelessness (BHS) was the only independent variable that was not significantly correlated with crash occurrence and injury occurrence. crash occurrence and crash injury. Study 1B. Most of these correlations were significant (p<. freeway urgency. Study 1C. it was not correlated with injury occurrence. in Study 1B. Most of these correlations were significant (p<.05).1 Distal and Proximal Variable Data Results of Study 1 Study 1A. and destination-activity orientation. All distal and proximal variables were positively correlated except internality (I) which was negatively corrected with other variables. Although VER was significantly correlated with crash occurrence. proximal and outcome variables within the sample of automobile drivers. However. standard deviations and relationships between distal.16 shows means. Also. standard deviations and relationships between distal. BHS was not significantly correlated with verbal aggression (VER). 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). 126 . All distal and proximal variables were positively correlated except I which was negatively corrected with other variables.

342** -.15: Means.01 level (2-tailed) 127 .434** .218** .00 165.544** -.45 6.186** .340** .211** .Table 4.345** 1 -.96 19.44 4.97 43.69 24.553** -.D.23 2.2691 6.476 .280** .516** 1 -.749** .247** .804** .246** .5 5.76 3.435** .339** .147* . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 9.942** 1 .64 7.566** 1 -.391** -.04 26.818** 1 .533** .036 .129* .202** .442 1 -.562** -.58 .191** .513** .396** .3455 .716** .147* -.152** .57 4.88 7.901** .662** 1 .381** .416** 1 .231** .027 1 .376** .376** .371** .306** .08 2.316** .405** .209** 1 .482** .05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at . 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.239** .52 34.471** .331** 1 * Correlation is significant at .388** .22 3.625** .278** .201** .155** .78 .

515** .240** .516** .697** 1 .25 8 18.855** .341** .540** .271** .298** .310** .355** .153** .400** .440**.505** .278** 1 -.386** .366** .275** .331** .337** .91 15 27.56 2 4.16: Means.520** .363** .200** .213** .286* .669** 1 -.254** .176* .9 12 71.14 4.4624 1 -.268** .393** .372** .921** .272** .9 13 46.434** .48 5.85 9.60 10 16.013 1 .964** 1 .542** .378** .178** .555** .103 -.05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .531** .159 -.276** .463** .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 .4960 17 .355** .103 -.443** .028 -.347** 1 -.353** .376** .509** .66 3.762** .067 -.69 8.331** .496** .00 14 19.462** .41 3.586** .731** .150** .380** .45 5 87.602** 1 . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Distal Variables1 1 9.408** .491** .172** .312** 1 -.22 4.355** .Table 4.01 level (2-tailed) 128 .438** 1 .816** .167** .82 7 13.213** .430** .779** 1 -.584** -.342** .816** .213** .5 6 17.343** .55 9 21.53 19.319** .148* .461** .195** .06 3 2.051 .162** .587** 1 -.D.842** 1 .65 Proximal Variables1 11 170.514** .369** .48 3.407** 1 -.50 5.86 6.9 28.071 .343** .448** .97 Outcome Variables2 16 .84 5.411** .445** .3079 .334** .172** .140* .452** .43 12.358** .403** .335** .481** .97 4 4.521** .089 -.028 .236** .039 .444** .550** .254** .324** .294** 1 .380** .173* .254** .763** .157** . Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1B (n=302) Mean S.147** .847** .382** 1 -.489**.401** .518** .688**.279** .003 .5695 .225** .84 7.418** .099 .491** .338** .523** .414** .

229** .296** .275** .291** .423** .00 -.076 .17 -.370** .735** .130** .183** .422** 1 9 22.199**.320** .203** .31 -.158** .856** 1 17 43.228** .67 7.081 .241** .80 17.254** .278** .357** .804** .218** .119* 1 21 .241** .185** .501 .191** .81 -.293** .166** .189** .216** .277** 1 8 19.49 6.434** .038 .424** 1 12 18.451** .454** .183** .191** 1 3 .03 -.85 19.348** 1 6 16.259** .98 4.343** .221** .150* .082 .516 .277** .174** .86 -.70 1 2 4.202** .109 .422 -.305** .212** .296** .224**.9 -.428** .110 .364**.518** . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Distal Variables1 1 10.641** 1 4 4.261** .162**.264** .310** .89 5.288** .413** .302** .8 -.308** .196** .271** .395** 1 11 65.530** 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 .508** .263** .385** .235** .292** .235** .465** .368** .033 .281** .286** .210** .151* .531** 1 10 16.079 1 Outcome Variables2 20 .355** .192**.615** .103** .275** .230** .448** .189** .17 -.549** 1 Proximal Variables1 15 161.075 .224** .109 .404** .01 level (2-tailed) S 129 .70 8.278** .251** .246** .259** .383** .456** .354** 1 5 88.378** .91 -.502** .18 -.58 9.199** .137* .268**.349** 1 16 67.31 3.38 5.131* .230** .265** 1 19 25.252** .530** .016 .051 .05 -.749** .745** 1 7 13.277**.37 6.725** .D.296** .306** .181** .304** .166** .356** .323** .270** .402** .106 .526** .78 8.250** .298** .545** .483** .210**.148** .228** .313** .401** .304** .390** .592** .151* .366** .306** .057 .7 28.139** .338** .69 -.167** .484** .221** .258** .11 12.481** .254** .345** .183** .446** .367** . Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1C (n=252) Mean S.36 -.52 7.588** 1 14 20.292** .245** .342** .209** .476** .379** .101**.42 3.141* .64 -.70 3.281** .340** .506** .9 -.-181** .03 5.565** .069 .095 .862** .230 .307**.534** 1 18 19.05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .402** .192** .311** .193**.120 .377** .97 -.095 .Table 4.202** .186** .17: Means.364** .178** .324** .895** 1 13 26.747** .387** .227** .81 5.343** .219** .373** .412** .7 -.003 .838** .270** .226** .314** .294** .222** .392** .150* .

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

323 23.240** .232** .291** .043 .50 73.14 27.66 1.122 7.356** .4966 1 .269** .614** .150 -.48 5.334** .428** .06 20.081 8.233** .251** .413** 1 .139 .500** .30 .219** .6803 .111 -.55 175.562** 1 .758** 1 .028 1 .325** .192* -.183* 1 .941** 1 .314** .418** .226** .182* -. 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.349** .374** .66 5.750** .200* -.795** 1 * Correlation is significant at .18: Means.313** 1 .4683 .317** . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 3.165 .630** .179 7.212* .376** .621 3.880 .367** .535** 1 .025 -.264** .580** 1 .201* .383** .371** -.01 level (2-tailed) 131 .072 .290** .5738 8.D.167 .876** .409** .76 48.485 11.Table 4.415** .259** .05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .035 3.413** .917 3.

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

200* .01 level (2-tailed) 133 .268** .275** .048 .150** .263** .025 -.194* .040 .378** 1 .443** 1 .091 -.109 -.166 .128 .121 .147** .117 .039 .82 11.149 .10 1.092** .31 8.156 .235** .151 -.197* .091 .Table 4.401** -.193* -.65 75.13 3. 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 12.194* 1 .32 3.19: Means.222* .286* 1 .213** .05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .622** .15 32.071 .658** .020 .12 4.864** 1 .023 .74 15.229** .117 .0301 .030 .82 5.32 7.51 3.816** .338** 1 .156 .225** .561** 1 .182* -.4 5.213** .528** 1 .177 1 .588** 1 .173* .43 8.3 6.060 .872** .271** .178** . Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 3 (n=133) Mean S.257** .807** .204* .261** .254** -.618** 1 .013 .853** .218* .235** .17 20.255** .42 66.604** .246** .028 .172** .245** .152 .153** 1 .721** .646** .373** .072 -.236** .067 .240** .05 3.021 1 * Correlation is significant at .141 .018 -.289** 1 .749** .180** .521** .149 .161 -.276** .88 1 .418** .114 .095 .06 2.324** .121 .072 .454** .023 -.84 2.054 .45 19.070 -.292** .240** .643** .404 .103 .636** .D.576** .120 .2000 .54 11.032 1 .165 .234** .08 15.99 10.060 -.106 .167** .061 .116 .35 11.371** .07 8.117 .148* .112 -.11 15.171 .

01 B=. When the relationships between the four component factors of the BIT scale and the likelihood of a crash outcome were tested.01 B=.048. but not destination-activity orientation.01 B=. Study 1B: B=. p<.125.278.01 Study 3 B=. For the destination-activity factor.4 was not supported.6.04.01.01 134 . These results supported H1.01 B=.1.1 Hypothesis 1: Behaviour in Traffic Influences Motor Vehicle Crash Outcomes First. These results supported H1.01 B=. and externally-focused frustration.180. p<.229.095.20).120. p<.01 B=. p<. Table 4.1 through H1. were significantly related to crash occurrence (see Table 4.3 inclusive. While controlling driver experience and driving frequency.202. p<. p<.20: Results of Logistic Regression Analyses Showing the Effects of BIT Component Factors on Crash Occurrence Study 1A Usurpation of Right-of Way Freeway Urgency Externally-focused Frustration Destination-activity Orientation B=.063.01 Not Significant Study 2 B=. p<. p<.6 Hypothesis Testing This section reports the results of analyses to test the hypotheses formulated in chapter 3 (see Table 3. Study 2: B=. p<. H1. p<.1. p<.146.01).172.1.01.01 B=. freeway urgency.01 B=.1).01 Study 1B B=. p<. 4. p<.080.095.01 and Study 3: B=.01 B=. analyses were conducted to test whether BIT scores influenced crash occurrence.01 B=.088 p<. p<. Study 1C: B=.034.238. p<.01 B=.01 B=. p<.063.01 Study 1C B=. results from the logistic regression analyses in all studies indicated strong relationships between total BIT scores and the likelihood of a motor vehicle crash occurrence (Study 1A: B=. p<. that behaviour in traffic influences crash occurrence.01.1. p<. p<.01 B=.01 B=.102.117.135. p<. p<. p<. p<. results of logistic regression analyses indicated that usurpation of right-of way.315.041.4.090.

069. Table 4. p<. When the relationships between the likelihood of injury occurrence and the four component factors of the BIT scale were tested. 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=. p<.165.23 and Table 4.05 Study 1B B=. that behaviour in traffic would influence injury occurrence.035.074.01.01.2 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=.01 B=. p<.087. p<.6. p<.01 Not Significant Study 2 B=.095.059. When driver experience and travel frequency were controlled.24. respectively).033 p<. freeway urgency.01 Study 1C B=.091.01 Study 3 Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant 4. logistic regression analyses indicated that usurpation of right-of way.118. Table 4. p<. p<.01 B=.01 B=.01 B=. Study 1B: B=.01 B=.075 p<. These results supported H1. p<.01 B=. 135 .158. p<. p<.054. 1B and 1C (see Table 4.2.21). p<. p<. p<. p<.01 B=.035.038. Study 1C: B=. p<.Behaviour in traffic also influenced injury occurrence in all studies except Study 3.01). externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation were significantly related to traffic crash injury in all studies except Study 3 (See Table 4.01 and Study 2: B=. p<.120.01 B=.140.21: 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=.019.22.01 B=.064. p<.01 B=.

15 161.22: 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<.64 27.60 185.Table 4.98 33.184** 136 .01 N M SD F 186 88 18 9 161.31 161.35 24.77 8.25 25.35 155.074* 110 81 37 45 29 181.25 5.23: 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<. N M SD F 221 60 19 2 168.600** Table 4.43 20.05.06 19.29 21.01.03 25.41 167.48 171.32 147.89 21.30 22.320** 64 110 41 17 69 173.52 25.32 28.64 26.88 28.16 3. * p<.68 26.82 33.44 178.92 157.35 33.73 170.35 4.56 175.98 171.82 168.50 28.77 165.

Table 4. 137 . about once every two weeks (p<. N M SD F 187 46 16 3 159. 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<. 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<.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<. * p<.14 15.25). motorcycle drivers’ experience was not significantly related to total BIT scores (see Table 4.88 167.06 160.06 8.53 17. In Study 1B.01).05.00 16.52 3.01).05) and about once every two weeks (p<.29 15.345* 67 69 33 45 38 170.01). On the other hand.060** In Study 1A.77 16.01.05). In Study 1C.73 24.73 157. In Study 2.61 165. and those who almost never travelled (p<.05).01). the effect of travel frequency on total BIT score was significant.01).05). Drivers who travelled every day had significantly higher total BIT scores when compared to those who travelled several times a week (p<.01 14. drivers who travelled everyday had significantly higher total BIT scores when compared to those who travelled several times a week (p<. Drivers who travelled everyday had significantly higher total BIT scores when compared to those who almost never travelled (p<.00 14.81 167.12 161.39 19. Drivers who travelled about once or twice a week had significantly higher total BIT when compared to those who almost never travelled (p<.12 154.

N.56 3.26 10.81 22. Table 4.26: 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<.64 24. It was found that the driver experience was statistically related to total BIT score (see Table 4. that drivers’ demographic characteristics would significantly influence total BIT scores was supported in studies of automobile drivers. 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.50 184.09 15.528** In Study 3. it is concluded that Hypothesis 2.01.753* 38 48 27 20 77. taxicab driver experience was not statistically related to total BIT score. However. both driver experience and taxicab experience were tested.316 1.82 162. In other words.81 175.26).58 188.68 20.01.S) Therefore.Table 4.63 1.89 20.47 5.05.920 (N.S.27 14.05.33 78.31 78.381 10.437 (N.81 161.60 72.S) 52 32 7 17 14 182.94 20.97 8.71 168.80 22.62 10.25: 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<.74 77.65 73. * p<.52 172. N.55 73.S.37 9.31 2.859 11. Not significant N M SD F 77 31 10 4 174.50 24. the direction of the difference was opposite to what had 138 . However. Not significant N M SD F 3 16 23 91 82. * p<.55 10.

In this case.2. the lower was the total BIT score. 1C and 2. Again. Contrary to the subhypothesis. though. only H2.1 and H2. Contrary to the two sub-hypotheses.been predicted by H2. 139 . in that driver experience significantly influenced total BIT score but taxicab experience had no statistically significant effect. the longer the taxicab operator had been driving.6. ANOVA results for age. For ethnicity. 1B. travel frequency actually increased total BIT scores. In Study 3. In Studies 1A.1 was confirmed. driver experience and travel frequency actually increased total BIT scores.2 was supported in that travel frequency significantly influenced total BIT score but driver experience had no statistically significant effect. Hypothesis 2 was partially supported in the study of motorcycle drivers. In Study 2.2. where male automobile and motorcycle drivers scored significantly higher than female drivers. indicated no significant differences in mean total BIT scores.27). the observed effect was opposite to what had been predicted by H2. 1C and 2 differed between different ethnic groups (see Table 4. 4. 1B. t-tests indicated that mean total BIT scores differed significantly between male and female participants.3 Hypothesis 3: Demographic Variables Influence Behaviour in Traffic The direct effects on total BIT scores of three demographic variables – gender. Hypothesis 2 was partially supported in the study of taxicab drivers. however. only H2. ANOVA indicated that mean total BIT scores in Studies 1A. the direction of the effect was consistent with the hypothesised relationship between driver experience and total BIT score. ethnicity and age – were investigated.

p<. Study 1C t=3.6. Study 1B t=2.05. however.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.S. Externality-Chance (C).68. In Study 1C.66.01 F=.01 F=1. p<.05 F=11. N. H3.44. in that ethnicity significantly influenced total BIT scores.01 F=1.3 was not supported. In Study 1B.S Study 3 Not Applicable F=3.81.05 F=4.562.99.05.98. Note: Not significant In Study 1A. p<.S.2 was confirmed. H3.9. Malaysian-Indian taxicab drivers had significantly lower total BIT scores than either Malaysian-Chinese taxicab drivers (p<. 1C and Study 2. t(250) = 2. Study 2 t=3.S.27: Effects of Demographic Factors on total BIT Scores Study 1A Gender Ethnicity Age t=2. For taxicab drivers studied in Study 3. N. p<.1 and H3. 4. In all studies.Table 4. age had no statistically significant direct effect on total BIT scores. N.56. In Study 3. and Externality-Powerful-Others (P). p<. Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers scored significantly higher total BIT scores than Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers (p<. so the null hypothesis could not be rejected and H3.12. p<. In Study 1A and Study 2.62. p<. In Study 1B.01 F=19.05). results showed that gender had no influence on the three dimensions of locus of control: Internality (I). it was found that female automobile drivers scored significantly higher levels on the I dimension when compared to male automobile drivers.00.2 were confirmed. 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).01). Therefore. male 140 . it is concluded that Hypothesis 3 was partially supported in studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers.01 F=9. p<.53. p<. p<.74.01 F=8. in that gender and ethnicity significantly influenced total BIT scores. N. N.S.01 F=2.

E and P scores. 1C.503. p<. p<. 298) = 3.041. p<. t(299) = 2.01 respectively).462.476.05 and p<. 299) = 3. Consistent with findings in Study 1A.566. 1B.941. Post hoc analyses showed that Malaysian-Indian motorcycle drivers scored significantly lower than all other ethnicity groups on the I dimension (p<. p<.05 and F(2. F(2. F(2. F(2.01. Post hoc analysis showed that MalaysianIndian automobile drivers scored significantly higher than did Malaysian-Chinese drivers (p<.490. ethnic group differences were significant only with respect to P subscale scores.01).05 and F(2.05. Post hoc analyses indicated that Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers had significantly lower I scores than did either Malaysian-Chinese or Malay drivers (p<.05 respectively. 298) = 6. F(2. t(120) = 2. In Study 1B. post hoc analyses showed that Malaysian-Indian drivers scored significantly higher on the C and P dimensions than did Malaysian-Chinese drivers (p<. 119) = 5. In Study 1C. p<.01).05 respectively.05. In Study 1A. 2 and 3 the age variable had no significant direct effects on any of the three dimensions of locus of control.05) and Malaysian-Indian drivers scored significantly higher on the P dimension than did drivers in all other ethnic groups (p<. Malaysian-Indian drivers had significantly higher scores on the C dimension than did Malay drivers (p<.527. 299) = 5. F(2.370. In Study 2. ethnic group differences were significant only with respect to I subscale scores.01 respectively. all ethnic groups had significantly different mean I. For Studies 1A. 141 . 249) = 3.05). ethnic group differences were significant only with respect to mean C and P subscale scores. p<. 298) = 3.automobile and motorcycle drivers scored significantly higher on the P dimension than did female automobile and motorcycle drivers.05). p<. p<.

H4. Female motorcycle drivers scored significantly lower than male motorcycle drivers.2. H4.1. Age was found to have no influence on BHS scores with the sample of motorcycle drivers in Study 2.Therefore.3 were not supported.2. 1B and 1C found no significant differences in mean scores of hopelessness (BHS) between male and female automobile drivers. it was observed that age had no significant effect on any of internality. However.2. that ethnicity significantly influenced internality.5 Hypothesis 5: Demographic Variables Influence Hopelessness The direct effects of gender.3. Malay motorcycle drivers had a significantly higher BHS score when compared to Malaysian-Chinese motorcycle drivers (p<. externality-chance and externality-powerfulothers. 4. was not supported in either Study 1 or Study 2.1 and H5. ANOVA results found no significant differences in mean BHS scores between ethnic groups or different age groups among automobile drivers in Studies 1A.079. Independent sample t-tests on data from Studies 1A. In Studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers.2 and H4.1. In addition.05. externality-chance and externality-powerful-others.3.2. in that gender was observed to significantly influence the externalitypowerful-others scores. ethnicity and age on hopelessness were investigated. t(120) = 2. Therefore. p<.2 and H4.01). Hypothesis 4 was partially supported in studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers. based on the results of t-tests and ANOVA.6. Hypothesis 5 was partially supported in Study 2 with the sample of motorcycle drivers. that age influences hopelessness. 1B or 1C. H4.1.3.3 was supported. Hypothesis 5 was not supported with respect to automobile drivers in Study 1. in Study 2. were supported. In Study 1. so H4.3 were supported. it was found that the gender and ethnicity of motorcycle drivers did have a significant direct effect on hopelessness.3. H5. H5. H4. 142 . that gender and ethnicity influence hopelessness.

01 respectively). 143 .7 Hypothesis 7: Hopelessness Influences Behaviour in Traffic In studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers.01 and B = .01) but C and P had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = . but C and P had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = .3.2 and H6.4.01 and B = . p<. were supported. 4.342. 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. internality (I) had a significant negative effect on hopelessness (BHS) (B = -. no significant effects were observed between I and BHS scores in the sample of motorcycle drivers. respectively). was not supported. I had a significant negative effect on BHS scores (B = -. p<.01 and (B = .354.28). p<. p<. p<.239.01) but externality-chance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P) had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = .186.3. p<.341. p<. Therefore. I was found to have a significant negative effect on BHS scores (B = -. that the three locus of control dimensions influence hopelessness.6.312. it is concluded that Hypothesis 6 was supported in studies of automobile drivers. p<.1.254. p<.01 and B = . In Study 2. In Study 1C. respectively). with the sample of motorcycle drivers.306. were supported.6.290.6 Hypothesis 6: Locus of Control Influences Hopelessness In Study 1A. respectively).01) but C and P had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = . H6.2 and H6. p<. H6. that externality-chance and externality-powerful-others would influence hopelessness. H6. H6. In Study 1B.01.01.1.371.254. p<. Hypothesis 6 was partially supported in Study 2.01. with higher levels of internality related to lower levels of hopelessness and higher levels of both externality dimensions associated with higher hopelessness. that internality would influence hopelessness.

275. p<. In Study 1B.2. the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = . externally-focused frustration (B = .01). p<. externally-focused frustration (B = . H7.01 B=. p<. N. p<.317. H7.287. p<. p<.01).01). the higher the hopelessness scores.151. it was observed that the higher the hopelessness (BHS) scores.191. p<. Therefore. that hopelessness would have a significant positive direct effect on usurpation of right-of-way.415.349.4.05 Study 1C B=.01). the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = . p<.288. externally-focused frustration (B = .157.05).191.317.05) but not for freeway urgency.151.01) and destination-activity orientation (B = . it is concluded that Hypothesis 7.099. 144 . p<.01).01 B=.01 B=.418. p<.280. 1C and 2.05 B=. p<. that hopelessness would have a significant positive effect on freeway urgency was not supported in Study 1B.01 B=.01 B=.275.28: 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=. that hopelessness would have a significant positive influence on total BIT scores.153.141.247. B=. H7. p<. freeway urgency (B = .01 B=.151. externallyfocused frustration and destination-activity were supported in both Studies 1 and 2.05) and destination-activity orientation (B = . p<.200.01).01) and destination-activity orientation (B = . the higher the hopelessness scores. p<.05 Study 2 B=.05) and destinationactivity orientation (B = .415. p<.01 B=.01). p<. p<.232.254.153.01 B=. p<. p<. meaning that H7 was only partially supported for that study. p<.01 B=. p<.01 B=.280.3 and H7.05). the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = .141.349. freeway urgency (B =.S.05). p<. it was observed that the higher the hopelessness scores. p<. p<.05 In Study 1A. p<.1.151. p<.01 Study 1B B=.232. was supported in Studies 1A. p<. the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = .157.Table 4. In Study 2.254.01 B=.247. with both automobile and motorcycle drivers.01 B=. In Study 1C. p<.01 B=. freeway urgency (B = . p<. p<. externally-focused frustration (B = . p<. p<.287. p<.278.05 B=. p<.

results indicated that the higher were subscale scores for P.625. p<. p<.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.3 that externality-powerful-others would influence total BIT scores.339.29).336.2.01 B=-.2.01 B=. p<.297.315. p<. Table 4. B=. Therefore. With regard to H8.006. where only H8.168. N.178. p<.01 B=-. p<. Hypothesis 8 was partially supported for motorcycle drivers in Study 2.1. H8.229. that the higher the subscale score for I.2 and H8.4. that locus of control would influence total BIT scores were supported in Study 1.077. it is concluded that Hypothesis 8 was supported for automobile drivers in Study 1. the lower were mean total BIT scores.1. with internality observed to exert a positive effect on BIT and the two externality dimensions to exert negative effects.239. that internality and externality-chance would influence total BIT scores were supported.01 B=. p<. p<.01 B=. provided support for hypothesis H8. motorcycle and taxicab drivers).01 B=.05 B=. N. p<. but not of the sample of taxicab drivers in Study 3. p<.S. B=. N. p<. H8.388. the higher were mean total BIT scores automobile drivers in Study 1. results indicated that the higher were subscale scores for C.01 B=. With regard to H8. the higher were mean total BIT scores of automobile and motorcycle drivers in Studies 1 and 2.044.01 B=.01 B=.29: Direct Effects of Locus of Control on Total BIT Scores Study 1A I C P Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 Study 3 B=-. that internality would negatively influence total BIT scores was supported. but not of the motorcycle and taxicab drivers in Studies 2 and 3 (See Table 4. Hypothesis 8 was partially supported for taxicab drivers in Study 3.3.01 B=-.3. H8.1.01 B=-. p<.S.1 and H8.753. Results of multiple regression analyses (in studies of car.208.6. but not H8.S. 145 .

Scores for the three locus of control dimensions – internality. results revealed that Malay automobile drivers with high internal control had significantly lower scores on BIT subscales measuring usurpation of right-of-way.909.581. p<.704. Mean Score on Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) 175 Ethnicty Malay MalaysianChinese 170 MalaysianIndian 165 160 155 150 low high Internality Figure 4. 146 . p<.05.1). =8. p<.01 and F=8. 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. In Study 1C. p<. it was found that Malay automobile drivers with high internal locus of control scored significantly lower in total BIT than did Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers with high internal control Malaysian-Indian student car drivers.272.01 (see Figure 4. p<. Further. freeway urgency and externally-focused frustration than did Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers with high internal control.1: Interaction Effects between Ethnicity and Internality on BIT In Study 1C. F=7.2).01 (see Figure 4. F=4.Additional analysis: Interaction of ethnicity and locus of control on BIT. 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.1).710. F=4.01 respectively (see Figure 4.

034.00 68.327.00 64.00 low high Externality (Chance) Figure 4. 147 .6. F=4.282.033.00 62. in Study 2.3). the results of hierarchical regression indicated that the R2 value changed after the internality x hopelessness interaction was added in the regression model (R2=.00 Malay MalaysianChinese 72.00 66. However. multiple regression showed mixed results. 1B and 1C.05. B = . Kurtosis=-.Mean Score on Usurpation of Right-of Way Ethnicty 74. p<. This means that motorcycle drivers with high internality scores and high hopelessness scores tended to have higher total BIT scores when compared to motorcycle drivers with high internality scores but low hopelessness scores (see Figure 4.00 MalaysianIndian 70.537) and the moderator (hopelessness) showed a significant result.05. First. Hopelessness moderated the relationship between internality and the total BIT score and between externality-chance and to total BIT score.444. p<.9 Hypothesis 9: Hopelessness Moderates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Behaviour in Traffic For Studies 1A.2: Interaction Effect between Ethnicity and Externality-Chance on Usurpation of Right-of Way 4. R2=. hopelessness did not moderate the relationship between locus of control and BIT. Residuals Normality: Skewness=.

608. B = .371).4: Moderating Effect of BHS on the Externality (Chance) -BIT Relationship 148 . Kurtosis=-. 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<.01.BIT Level Effect for drivers with high hopelessness score Effect for drivers with low hopelessness score Internality Figure 4.463.01.070. p<.459.4).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=. R2=. Effect for drivers with high hopelessness score BIT Level Effect for drivers with low hopelessness score Externality (Chance) Figure 4. Residuals Normality: Skewness=.167. F=18. and the moderator (hopelessness) showed a significant result.

F(2. p<. However. mean total AQ scores differed significantly between ethnic groups.05 Study 1C t=2.01 t=-. Post hoc analysis showed that Malaysian-Chinese 149 . that hopelessness would moderate the relationship between externalitychance and total BIT scores. t(300) = 2. that hopelessness would moderate the relationship between internality and total BIT scores. 249) = 5.31).677.S t=1. the H9.S t=2. 4. p<.01 The relationship between ethnic background and aggression was tested for automobile drivers in Studies 1B. it is concluded that Hypothesis 9 was not supported in Study 1.690. ethnicity and age exerted direct effects on drivers’ Aggression Questionnaire (AQ) scores. and t(250) = 2.Therefore. p<.780.187. N.05 t=4. Hopelessness did not moderate the locus of control-BIT relation for automobile drivers. p<. 1C and 3. In Study 1C.032. p<.210. p<. N.01 (see table 4.01.690. p<.05 t=. N. With motorcycle drivers.01 t=2.S.6. Mean total AQ scores differed significantly between male and female participants in Studies 1B and 1C. ANOVA revealed no significant differences between ethnic groups in mean total AQ scores.05 respectively.480.820.1.01 t=4. N. Hypothesis 9 was partially supported in Study 2.164. Table 4.S t=2. results indicated that male automobile drivers scored significantly higher than female drivers on measures of physical aggression.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=2.10 Hypothesis 10: Demographic Factors Influence Aggression Analyses tested whether gender.603. p<. verbal aggression and indirect aggression (see Table 4. and H9.603. When mean subscale scores for the five AQ component factors were tested. however. p<.30).521.01 t=2. In Study 1B and Study 3.2. p<. In both studies.467. male automobile drivers had significantly higher total AQ scores than did female automobile drivers. were supported. t= .298. p<.

804. F=1.S.01 F=2.01).041. F=.077. N.561. the mean verbal aggression (VER) scores of Malay. Table 4.01 Study 3 F=1. N. Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers had significantly lower IND scores than drivers from other ethnic groups (p<.432. Malaysian-Chinese and Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers were also significantly different.S.05.521.S.S. N.S. N. 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. p<. N. F=1.05 Study 1C F=5. N. mixed results were found.182. p<. Similar to the findings in Study 1B. N.904.S F=10. In Study 1C. N. In Study 1B. N. Malay automobile drivers scored significantly higher VER scores than drivers from other ethnic groups (p<. Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers had significantly lower IND scores than drivers from other ethnic groups (p<. ANOVA revealed no significant differences between ethnic groups in mean scores in any of the AQ subscale scores. F(2. N.567.automobile drivers in Study 1C had significantly lower total AQ scores than did Malay or Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers (p<. Malaysian-Chinese and Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers were significantly different.564. F(2.432. 299) = 4. F=2. mean IND scores of Malay.01.021. p<.041. F(2.57.S. N.S. 299) = 5. 249) = 10. p<. F=1. F=4.629.31: 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. p<.155.01).S.S. F=2.526. N.S. F=2. F=1. N. p<.422. p<.01). F=5. When AQ subscale scores were tested for Study 1B and Study 1C.01 F=. F=1. N.01).S. Malaysian-Chinese and Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers were significantly different. F=2.763. The mean indirect aggression (IND) scores of Malay.632. In Study 3.01. 150 .398.S.S.

1.3 and H11. freeway urgency.2 (that ethnicity would influence aggression level) was supported only in Study 1C and only with respect to total AQ. with regard to the taxicab drivers sampled in Study 3. 4. This means that when taxicab drivers’ aggression scores were higher.11 Hypothesis 11: Aggression Influences Behaviour in Traffic In Study 1B and Study 1C.2. Therefore. VER and IND subscale scores. externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation. In Studies 1B and 1C. respectively. that aggression would have a direct positive effect on externally-focused frustration and on destination-activity orientation. H11. VER and IND) of five component factors among automobile drivers sampled in both Studies 1B and 1C.Therefore. were all supported. H10.3 and H11. linear regression analyses indicated that total AQ scores predicted total BIT scores and also scores measuring the four BIT component factors: usurpation of right-of-way. that aggression would have a direct positive effect on the usurpation of right-of way. However. and destination-activity orientation (see Table 4. only H11. freeway urgency. H10. was supported. H11.4. linear regression analyses indicated that total AQ scores predicted the total BIT score and the scores measuring only two of the four BIT component factors: externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation (See Table 4. were supported. H10. it is concluded that Hypothesis 10 was partially supported. H11.1 (that gender would influence aggression) was supported with respect to measures of total aggression and to the same three (PHY.32).6. externally-focused frustration. the higher were automobile drivers’ total BIT scores and scores on the four components. in studies of both automobile drivers and taxicab drivers. The higher the total aggression scores.4. that aggression would have a positive influence on total BIT scores. In Study 3.3 (that age would negatively influence aggression) was not supported.29). total BIT scores and scores on usurpation of right-of way and freeway urgency subscales were higher. however. it is concluded that Hypothesis 11. 151 .

216.881. Malay automobile drivers with high VER scores tended to score 152 .01 B=. B=. p<. p<. the higher were total BIT scores. no interaction effects were found in all studies – Study 1A.324. p<.01 and B = .438.428.263. 1B. p<. B = . p<.01.01 B=.01.483.01.461.385.370. N. and B = .235. p<. Additional analysis: Interaction effects of ethnicity and aggression on BIT. N. p<.121. p<. but that this does not apply to taxi drivers. p<. However. but not in Study 3. B = . indirect aggression (IND) was also found to have significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1B and Study 1C.01 Study 1C B=.05 B=.520.01 B=.01 respectively. p<. Also. but not in Study 3.S. B = .387. Study 1C and Study 3. Similarly.01 B=.380. This implies that when automobile drivers have higher levels of ANG and IND. Study 2 and Study 3. respectively. p<. their total BIT scores tend to be higher.01 B=. p<.545. p<. hostility (HOS) was found to have a significant positive influence on BIT in Study 1B. When the interaction effect of ethnicity and hopelessness was tested on the BIT and its four component factors. 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. respectively.491. Verbal aggression (VER) was found to have no significant influence on total BIT scores.204. p<. F=3. p<.5).229.048. it was found that there was an interaction effect between ethnicity and verbal aggression (VER) on freeway urgency. Study 1C and Study 3.01 B=.05 (see Figure 4. and B = .565.01 B=.01 B=. the higher the levels of PHY and HOS. 1C. B = .01. Linear regression analyses indicated that physical aggression (PHY) had a significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1B.01 Study 3 B=.263.183. p<.Table 4.01. p<.S. p<. p<.370. p<.01. 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. With both automobile and taxicab drivers.505.01 respectively.05 B=. p<. p<.540.32: Effect of Aggression on Total BIT Scores and on BIT Component Factors Study 1B B=.01 B=.01 and B = . B = . p<. p<.

961. p<. respectively) This means that the relationship between aggression and BIT would be stronger among drivers with low scores on the I subscale than it would be among drivers with high scores on the I subscale. F=81.131.6. Kurtosis=-.12 Hypothesis 12: Locus of Control Moderates the Relationship between Aggression and Behaviour in Traffic 4.01. Kurtosis=-.1 Internality as a Moderator Hierarchical regression analyses revealed that internality (I) moderated the relationship between aggression and total BIT score. R2=.6. p<.12. for Study 1B.01.297.05.271. p<.316.645. R2=. B=-. R2=.00 Malay ChineseMalaysian 50. F=100.929. In other words. and B=-. Residuals Normality: Skewness=. respectively. The moderating effect of I was significant.172.00 42. p<.076.003. aggressive drivers with low internal locus of control would 153 .00 46.01. p<.00 Low High Verbal Aggression Figure 4.5: Interaction of Ethnicity and Verbal Aggression on Freeway Urgency 4. Mean Score on Freeway Urgency Ethnicty 52. and R2 values changed after the I x AQ interaction was added in the regression models (R2=. Study 1C and Study 3.100.362.00 44. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-.516.00 IndianMalaysian 48. B=-.significantly higher on freeway urgency than did Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers with high VER scores.01.

Kurtosis=-.088.507. Kurtosis=. p<. respectively). the hierarchical regression revealed that externalitychance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P) moderated the relationship between aggression and total BIT score. In Study 1B. p<. Effect for aggressive drivers with low internality score BIT Level Effect for aggressive drivers with high internality score Aggression Level Figure 4. p<. p<.606.360.6.757.704. p<. p<.369.01.271. R2=.015. R2=. respectively).297.387.897.271.694. F=71.2 Externality-chance and Externality-powerful-others as Moderators In Study 1B and Study 1C. B = .109.069.117. F=94.297. R2=. F=78. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-. Kurtosis=.6: Moderating Effect of Internality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship 4. R2=. Residuals Normality: Skewness= -.01 and B = .431.12. Kurtosis=-. R2=.6). and the moderating effects of C and P were 154 . and the moderating effects of C and P were significant. R2 values changed after both the C x AQ and P x AQ interactions were added in the respective regression models (R2=. R2=. This applied to both automobile drivers and taxicab drivers. Consistent with the findings from Study 1B.015.01 respectively.01. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-463. 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=. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-.01.01. F=91.have higher BIT scores compared to drivers with high internal locus of control (see figure 4.794.

that the internality. 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 4.01 and B = . Therefore.1. p<. B = . it is concluded that the Hypothesis 12 was supported in Studies 1B and 1C.3.332. and the moderation effect was not significant. hierarchical regression results showed that neither C nor P moderated the relationship between aggression and total BIT scores for taxicab drivers in Study 3. externality-chance and externality-powerful-others 155 .302. and H12. with the samples of automobile drivers study for student car drivers. R2 values did not change after either the C x AQ or P x AQ interactions were added in the regression models. p<. Effect for aggressive drivers with high externality scores BIT Level Effect for aggressive drivers with low externality scores Aggression Level Figure 4. H12. 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.2.significant.7). H12.01 respectively.7: Moderating Effects of Externality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship However.

01 and revenge: t(249) = 3. that internality moderates the relationship between aggression and total BIT scores was supported.01 but not on about the derogation of others.05).263. 248) = 3. Hypothesis 12 was only partially supported in Study 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. 249) = 4.314.05.1.3. On the subscale measuring statements about revenge.01). 4. There were no significant differences between ethnic groups with respect to hostile statements about the derogation of others. Post hoc analysis indicated that Chinese-Malaysian automobile drivers had significantly lower total HAT scores than either Malay or Indian-Malaysian automobile drivers (p<.05) or Indian-Malaysian automobile drivers (p<.279. No significant differences were observed between age groups with respect to total HAT scores or to scores on any of the three HAT subscales.885. Only H12. p<. p<.05).737. 249) = 5. F(2. ANOVA results showed that ethnic groups differed significantly with respect to mean total HAT scores. with the sample of taxicab drivers. male automobile drivers scored significantly higher on HAT subscales measuring statements about physical aggression. H122 and H12. p<. t(249)=2.dimensions of locus of control moderate the relationship between aggression and total BIT scores were supported.343. There were also significant differences between ethnic groups on subscale scores measuring statements about physical aggression F(2. Chinese-Malaysian automobile drivers had significantly lower scores than IndianMalaysian automobile drivers (p<.01. Also. that externality-chance and externality-powerful-others moderates the relationship between aggression and BIT scores were not supported. 156 . p<. t(250) = 3.05.6. p<. p<. Post hoc analysis indicated that Chinese-Malaysian automobile drivers had significantly lower scores on the subscale measuring statements about physical aggression than did either Malay automobile drivers (p<. and about revenge F(2.01. However.

p<. H14. that age would influence hostile automatic thoughts.3.2. were supported. p<.1.14 Hypothesis 14: Hostile Automatic Thoughts Influence Behaviour in Traffic In Study 1C.1 and H13.413.01 and B = . derogation of others and revenge had a significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1C B =. The effects of HAT subscales measuring the three classes of hostile automatic thoughts. freeway urgency.01. were supported. it is concluded that the Hypothesis 13. that hostile automatic thoughts would influence behaviour in traffic.364. p<. that demographic variables would influence hostile automatic thoughts. linear regression analyses indicated that total HAT scores predicted total BIT scores. respectively. with the sample of automobile drivers studied. was supported. B = . B = . B = . and also scores measuring the four BIT component factors: usurpation of right-of-way.6. H13. B = .01 and destination-activity orientation. the higher the scores on the three classes of hostile automatic thought. Therefore.01.01. was not supported. the higher were total BIT scores.277.01. (that thoughts about physical aggression. p<. p<. that gender and ethnicity respectively would have significant direct effects on hostile automatic thoughts. This means that.2 and H14.307. B = . was partially supported.01. H13. H14. externally-focused frustration. p<. p<. B = . the higher the total HAT scores.192.3. it is concluded that the Hypothesis 14. p<.394. Linear regression analyses indicated that subscales measuring thoughts about physical aggression.Therefore. This means that.379. 4.224. the higher were automobile drivers’ total BIT scores and scores on the four components.01. 157 . on total BIT score were also tested. derogation of others and revenge) positively influence total BIT scores.

01.809.6.297.911. Kurtosis=.8). In other words. also moderated the relationship between aggression and BIT.565. aggressive drivers who frequently entertained hostile automatic thoughts about others would have higher total BIT scores compared to drivers who seldom entertained hostile automatic thoughts about others (see Figure 4. p<. F=57.-554. Kurtosis=.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. and the moderating effect of HAT-Physical 158 . p<. R2 values changed after the HAT x AQ interaction was added in the regression model (R2=.05.8: Moderating Effect of Externality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship It was observed that two of the HAT subscales. R2=.002. Physical Aggression and Revenge. p<. B = . and the moderating effect of HAT was significant.085).4. Effect for aggressive drivers with high HAT score BIT Level Effect for aggressive drivers with low HAT score Aggression Level Figure 4. 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. Normality Residuals: Skewness=.188.297. The R2 value changed after the HAT-Physical Aggression x AQ interaction was added in the regression model (R2=. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-. R2=.01.072). F=55.013.

The R2 value also changed after the HATRevenge x AQ interaction was added in the regression model (R2=. p<. 159 . The HAT subscale measuring thoughts about the derogation of others did not moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic.3.092).33). that total HAT score would moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic.475.294. p<.246. that hostile statements about physical aggression and revenge respectively moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic.1 and H15. H15.2. B = .16 Summary of Hypothesis Testing The following table provides summarised results for the hypotheses and subhypotheses in this study (see Table 4. H15. was supported. p<.207. However.297. F=59. Normality Residuals: Skewness=. Therefore. and the moderating effect of HAT-Revenge was significant. that hostile statements about the derogation of others moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic.01. Kurtosis=. 4.01. R2=.026.01.6. was not supported. it is concluded that Hypothesis 15. B = .Aggression was significant. were supported.

2: Ethnicity will influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.S N.S N.2: Freeway urgency will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.S S S N.1: Driver experience will have a negative influence on total BIT score H2.S P.S P.1: Gender will influence total BIT score H3.S S S N.S S S N.2.2: Taxicab experience will have a negative influence on total BIT score H3: Demographic variables will influence behaviour in traffic H3.S N.4: Destination-activity orientation will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H2: Driver characteristics will influence behaviour in traffic H2.S S N.S S S S P.1: Age will influence the Locus of Control: Internality S S S S S S S S S S S S S S P.3: Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.S 2 S S S S S S S S S S S P. S N.S 1B S S S S S S S S S S S S S S P.3:Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.1: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Internality H4.2.Table 4.S S S S S N.S N.1.S N.S N.2.S N.S N.S N.S N.S S N.3: Gender will influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H4.1: Ethnicity will influence the Locus of Control: Internality H4.2.S 1C P.4:Destination-activity orientation will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.1.1: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.S N.S N.S S N.S S S S S S N.S N.2.3: Age will have a negative influence on total BIT score H4: Demographic variables will influence the Locus of Control H4.S S S S S N.S N.3.1: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.2: Traveling frequency will have a negative influence on total BIT score H2.1: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.1.S S S N.2: Ethnicity will influence total BIT score H3.S S S N.S S P.S N.S S S N.S N.S N.1.S P.S 160 .S 3 P.S P.3: Ethnicity influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H4.S.2.S N.S N.S N.2.S N.33: Summarised Results of the Hypotheses and Sub-hypotheses STUDY 1A H1: BIT will have a positive influence on motor vehicle crash outcomes H1.2 :Freeway urgency will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.S P.S S S S S N.2: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.1.2: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.S P.1.S S N.1.

S 1B N.S N.S N.S S S N.S N.S P.S N.1: Gender will influence Hopelessness H5.S N.S N.S S S N.3: Age will influence Hopelessness H6: Locus of Control will influence Hopelessness H6.S S N.S N.S P.1: Internality will have a negative influence on Hopelessness H6.S N.1: Internality will have a negative influence on total BIT score H8. P.S N.2: Externality-Chance will have a positive influence on total BIT H8.3: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Externally-focused frustration H7.2: Ethnic background will influence of Hopelessness H5.33 (Continued) 1A H4.S P.S STUDY 1C N.S N.2: Ethnic background will influence Aggression H10.3: Externality-Powerful-Others will have a positive influence on total BIT score H9: Hopelessness will moderate the Locus of Control-BIT relationship H9.S N.S S S S S S S S S S S S S S N.S S S S S S S S P.S 161 . blank=Not Applicable N.S N.S N.S N.S P.S N.S N.S N.S N.S S S S S S S S S S S S S S N.3.3: Externality-Powerful-Others will have a positive influence on Hopelessness H7: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on behaviour in traffic H7.S N.S S N.S P.1: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Usurpation of right-of way H7.4: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Destination-activity Orientation H8: Locus of Control will influence behaviour in traffic H8.S N.S N.2: Externality-Chance will have a positive influence on Hopelessness H6.1: Gender will influence Aggression H10.S S S N.S N.S= Partially Supported.S N.S N.S N.S 2 N.S S N.3: Age will have a negative influence on Aggression S=Supported.S N.S P.3.S N.S S S N.3: Age will influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H5: Demographic variables will influence Hopelessness H5.2: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Freeway urgency H7.S S S S S S S N.1: Hopelessness will moderate the Internality-BIT relation H9.S= Not Supported.2: Hopelessness will moderate the Externality-Chance--BIT relationship H9.S N.2: Age will influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.S N.S N.S 3 N.S S S S S P. N.3: Hopelessness will moderate the Externality-Powerful-Others--BIT relationship H10: Demographic variables will influence aggression H10.S N.Table 4.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.S N.S S S N.1: Internality will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12.S N.33 (Continued) 1A H11: Aggression will have a positive influence on behaviour in traffic H11.4: Aggression will have a positive influence on Destination-activity orientation H12: Locus of Control will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12.S 162 .2: Thoughts about the Derogation-of-Others will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H15.3: Age will have a negative influence on hostile automatic thoughts H14: Hostile Automatic Thoughts will have a positive influence on behaviour in traffic H14. N.3: Thoughts about Revenge will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship S=Supported.S= Partially Supported.S S S N.S S 2 3 P.S P.1: Aggression will have a positive influence on usurpation of right-of way H11.S S N. 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. P.2: Thoughts about the Derogation of Others will have a positive influence on total BIT score H14.2: Aggression will have a positive influence on Freeway urgency H11.2: Ethnic background will influence hostile automatic thoughts H13.3: Aggression will have a positive influence on Externally-focused frustration H11.S= Not Supported.1: Gender will have a positive influence on hostile automatic thoughts H13.1: Thoughts about Physical Aggression will have a positive influence on total BIT score H14.S S N.Table 4.S S S S S P.3: Externality-Powerful-Others will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H13: Demographic variables will influence Hostile Automatic Thought s H13.1: Thoughts about Physical Aggression will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H15.2: Externality-Chance will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12.

1 Study 1C The contextual mediated model in this study was tested with four distal factors – Locus of Control. C. 4. externality (Chance) and externality (Powerful-Other) as distal context factors.05522 .38 100.068 . F2.7. F2. F3.93 .90 110. Externality Chance (C). Aggression (AQ). e. F4 F1. Hopelessness. F2.97 . BHS. F3.f.00126 . Three studies (Study 1C: automobile driver. BHS I. Study 2: motorcycle driver. Table 4. 2002).93 .97 63. F2.52 (Jöreskog and Sörbom.g. C.96 RMSEA . freeway urgency. AQ. AQ and Hostile Automatic Thought (HAT). Hopelessness (BHS). Model 1C5 had better fit but necessitated dropping one of the component factors. BHS. C. F4 F1.34: SEM Comparison (Study 1C) Distal Factors 1C1 1C2 1C3 1C4 1C5 1C6 I. C.102 . AQ I. F3. two were worthy of further examination. P. HAT I.093 .087 . C. externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation as proximal context factors. AQ. F4 χ2 49. F4 F1.02 d. Hostile Automatic Thought (HAT). Externality Powerful-Other (P). HAT I. F3. F3 F1. and (3) crash occurrence and injury occurrence as outcome.93 .00000 .00111 .00000 . freeway urgency (F2).060 Note: Internality (I). P I. P. HAT Proximal Factors F1. (2) usurpation of right-of-way.80 104. F3. AQ. F2.4. P. All proposed models measured: (1) internality. Usurpation of right-of-way (F1).7 Testing the Contextual Mediated Model Using Structural Equation Modelling (LISREL Analysis) The contextual mediated model was tested using Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) – path analysis through LISREL 8. F4 F1. hopelessness or subtracting the latent variables in order to obtain the optimal goodness-of-fit index. This contextual mediated model was tested six times and the goodness-of-fit indices for these models are indicated in Table 4. P. 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. F2.045 .96 . 23 28 33 38 24 33 p-value GFI .58 35. externally-focused frustration (F3) and destination-activity orientation (F4) Of the six models tested. P. C. These models were re-specified by adding different proximal context factors. 163 .34.00000 .

RMR=.92) on accident involvement.=33. Externality (Chance).043. .35.96. For Model C6. The five distal variables accounted for 67% of the variance in BIT scores. The five distal variables accounted for 70% of the variance in BIT scores.97. RMSEA=. The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=.26. values for these additional indices were: NFI=. Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thought had effects on BIT.29 and . ECVI=. For Model C5. An alternate model. goodness-of-fit was characterised as very good (χ2=63. The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that all possible paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant: Internality. values were: NFI=.97. but not as good as for C5.14.96. For Model C6. GFI=. AGFI=. Making a decision to select one of these models over the other raised a number of interesting points.97.48. GFI=. of the BIT score.destination-activity orientation (F4).99) and constituted the best fit of all six of the tested models.98). goodness-of-fit was characterised as excellent (χ2=35. 164 . which are detailed in sect.02. .94. and PGFI=.26. with path coefficients = -. For Model C5.043.51 and PGFI=.28 and .32. d.060. Externality (Powerful-Other).3. d. To aid this discussion.045. with path coefficients = -. ECVI=. RMSEA=. . retained all four of the BIT component factors and fit indices were acceptable. .13. CFI=. Externality (Powerful-Other).23 respectively (see Figure 4. AGFI=.5.=24. The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=. C6. Externality (Chance).42. subsequent additional analysis was carried out to calculate a range of comparative fit indices.f. CFI=.42.10).10). . RMR=. .91. 5. Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thought had effects on BIT. The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that all possible paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant: Internality.92) on accident involvement.22 respectively (see Figure 4.f.

97 d. BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration.51* .99 P-value = .29* Aggression (AQ) . BITF4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4.63* .79* .32* Externality (Chance) .22* Hostile Automatic Thought Model Statistics χ2=35.f =24 CFI=.05 BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way.Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome Internality -. *p<.13* Externality (Powerful Other) BIT1 BIT2 BIT3 .045 RMR=.043 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.58* .005522 N=252 RMSEA=.92* Accident Involvement .26* Crash Occurrence Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) .9: Contextual Mediated Model 1C5 (Three BIT Factors) 165 .97 GFI=. BITF2=Freeway Urgency.57* Injury Occurrence .

39* .05 BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way.f =33 CFI=.043 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.29* Aggression (AQ) .02 GFI=.10: Contextual Mediated Model 1C6 (Four BIT Factors) 166 .Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome Internality -.31* Externality (Chance) . BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration.96 d. BITF2=Freeway Urgency. *p<.50* .63* .26* Crash Occurrence Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) .56* .92* Accident Involvement .060 RMR=.77* .58* Injury Occurrence .13* Externality (Powerful Other) BIT1 BIT2 BIT3 BIT4 .00126 N=252 RMSEA=. BITF4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4.22* Hostile Automatic Thought Model Statistics χ2=63.98 P-value = .

F4 F1. VER. F4 χ2 108. HAT-P.078. ANG. Hostile Automatic Thought was found to have a direct effect on the AQ (path coefficient=.66). ANG.080 . HAT-P. using automobile drivers sampled in Study 1C.081 . F3. path coefficients = .35).084 . Angry (ANG). F2. 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).73 169.00000 GFI RMSEA .10. HOS. Usurpation of right-of-way (F1). IND. The proposed contextual mediated model was tested five times (see Table 4.91 .00000 . ANG. VER. The results for the goodness-offit indexes are shown as follows: Table 4. F2. Indirect aggression (IND).80) on the accident involvement. HOS. Hostile Automatic Thought-Derogation of others (HAT-D).41 d. VER. d. HOS. 42 61 50 61 61 p-value . IND.92 . HAT-D. F4 F1. ANG. The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=. F2.66 131. Aggression (AQ).00111 . HAT-D. F2. IND PHY. HAT-R PHY.In addition.91. Hostile Automatic Thought-Revenge(HAT-R).95).35: Different Contextual Models (Study 1C) Distal Factors PHY. externally-focused frustration (F3) and destination-activity orientation (F4) As depicted in Figure 4.00000 .94 169. the final model has provided a reasonable fit to the data (χ2=153. RMSEA=. HAT-R Proximal Factors F1.=61. HAT-D. HAT-R PHY.65 and .f. Verbal aggression (VER).f. HOS.078 Note: Physical aggression (PHY). the contextual mediated model was tested using Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thoughts and their latent variables (component factors) as distal context factors. HAT-P.93 .91 . HAT-D. HAT-R PHY. CFI=.41.66 153. F3 F1. Hostile Automatic Thought-Physical aggression (HAT-P). IND. HAT-P. F2. Hostility (HOS).91 . 167 . F3 F1.13 respectively. freeway urgency (F2). F3.084 . HOS. F3. GFI=. IND.00000 .

61* . *p<.80* Accident Involvement .82* Revenge BIT1=Usurpation of Right-of way.91 d.11: Contextual Mediated Model Study 1C (Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thoughts) 168 .62* . BIT4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4.41 GFI=.29* Hostility .68* Aggression (AQ) BIT1 BIT2 BIT3 BIT4 .90* Derogation of Other Hostile Automatic Thought .078 RMR=.63* Indirect Aggression .58* .05 .72* .058 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.66* .f =61 CFI=.Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome Physical Aggression .65* Crash Occurrence Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) .69* Anger .60* Injury Occurrence Physical Aggression .65* . BIT3=Externally-Focused Frustration.95 P-value = .83* .13* Model Statistics χ2=153. BIT2=Freeway Urgency.000 N=252 RMSEA=.

The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that three paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant. The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=.17631 . Externality Chance (C).36: Different Contextual Models (Study 2) Distal Factors Proximal Factors χ2 29. BHS F1.95 . freeway urgency (F2). F3.94 . The four distal variables accounted for 49% of the variance in BIT. Compared to the Study 1 for student car drivers.94 . F4 39. F3 F1.=28.65 and . 169 .07580 . C.7. P. the participants were motorcycle drivers. F2. Usurpation of right-of-way (F1).36). F3.f. The goodness-of-fit indexes for these models are shown as follow: Table 4.94.33 33.f. Hopelessness (BHS). Externality Powerful-Other (P).047 .12). C. GFI=. path coefficients = -. P I. F2.12 d. Internality and Externality (Chance) the Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) but not Externality (PowerfulOther).80 respectively (see Figure 4.062 Note: Internality (I).2 Study 2 In Study 2. P.86 23 28 23 . externally-focused frustration (F3) and destination-activity orientation (F4) The model including Locus of Control has provided the best goodness-of-fit to the data (χ2=29. F2.66) on the accident involvement. The contextual mediated model was tested using locus of control and hopelessness as distal context factors. RMSEA=. F4 F1. CFI=.4.047. p-value GFI RMSEA I. BHS I.12.058 .98). the final model for the student motorcycle drivers did not include hopelessness. d. C. The proposed contextual mediated model was tested three times (see Table 4.06722 .

95 d.70* BIT4 .05 Injury Occurrence Model Statistics χ2=29.78* .65* Externality (Chance) .57* Internality -.Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome BIT1 BIT2 .88* Crash Occurrence .046 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.83* BIT3 . BIT4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4.66* Accident Involvement Externality (Powerful Other) .17631 N=122 RMSEA=.05 BIT1=Usurpation of Right-of way. BIT3=Externally-Focused Frustration. *p<.f =23 CFI=.047 RMR=.12: Contextual Mediated Model Study 2 170 .89* . BIT2=Freeway Urgency.80* Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) .99 P-value = .12 GFI=.

Usurpation of right-of-way (F1). P.94 . p-value GFI RMSEA Crash Occurrence.40) on the accident involvement. 37. F3.061. Externality Powerful-Other (ExPo). F4 50.37). Internality and AQ. The four distal variables accounted for 12% of the variance in BIT. C.37: Different Contextual Models (Study 3) Distal Factors I.00524 .3 Study 3 In Study 3. F3. d.06743 .97 .39 21 .95 .39.f.35265 . F3. The contextual mediated model was tested using locus of control and hopelessness as distal context factors.93 . Hopelessness (H).20 and . Externality Chance (ExC).=21. freeway urgency (F2). The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that two out of four possible paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant.4.20 respectively (see Figure 4. AQ F1.7.f. GFI=. F2. F4 Crash Occurrence 18.068 Injury Occurrence Crash Occurrence. F2. CFI=.027 I. F4 Crash Occurrence 31.95. F3.22 23 . I. 171 . AQ and only crash occurrence as outcome has provided the best goodness-of-fit to the data (χ2=31. The goodness-of-fit indexes for these models are shown as follow: Table 4. F2. the participants were taxi drivers. AQ F1. RMSEA=. but not Externality. P.82 28 . C.061 Note: Internality (I). F2. AQ F1.03084 . C. path coefficients = -. F4 Outcomes χ2 d. externally-focused frustration (F3) and destination-activity orientation (F4) Model included locus of control. P Proximal Factors F1.95). C. The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=.13).59 17 . This contextual mediated model was tested four times (see Table 4. have effects on the Behaviour in Traffic (BIT).079 Injury Occurrence I.

20* Externality (Chance) .Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome BIT1 BIT2 . *p<.05 BIT1=Usurpation of Right-of way.053 Note: Values showed are path coefficients. BIT4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4.61* BIT4 .39* Internality -. BIT3=Externally-Focused Frustration.95 P-value = .03 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) .061 RMR=.74* -.20* Aggression (AQ) Model Statistics χ2=31.40* Crash Occurrence Externality (Powerful Other) .06743 N=133 RMSEA=.63* BIT3 . BIT2=Freeway Urgency.f =21 CFI=.13 .13: Contextual Mediated Model Study 3 172 .95 d.39 GFI=.

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. the mediating effect of BIT on hopelessness and crash outcomes relationship could not be estimated.39). BIT was a complete mediator for the relationship between AQ total score and crash occurrence. Step 3=mediator has a significant effect on the dependent variable. (4) the relationship between hostile automatic thoughts and accident involvement were tested using the four-step procedure proposed by Baron and Kenny (1986). 2 and 3 are satisfied. 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. Table 4. (3) the relationship between aggression and accident involvement. Therefore. (2) the relationship between locus of control and accident involvement.38). consistent with path analysis results.8. 4. Step2=independent variable has a significant effect on the dependent variable. and.4.1 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hopelessness and Crash Outcomes In all studies. Not applicable = mediating effect could only be tested when conditions in Step1. 173 .8 Testing Mediational Relationships Using SPSS The mediating effects of BIT on: (1) the relationship between hopelessness 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. 4.8. hopelessness did not significantly influence the crash outcomes (see Table 4.

Externality-Chance (C) and Externality-PowerfulOthers – and crash outcomes (See Table 4. 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.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.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 4.41). 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. behaviour in traffic (BIT) had complete or partial mediating effects on the relationship between the three locus of control dimensions – Internality (I).8. in Studies 1A.8. 1B and 1C. Table 4.40).4 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Crash Outcomes For automobile drivers.

Table 4. For motorcycle drivers in Study 2. With respect to the relationship between I and the crash outcomes and the relationship between P and the crash outcomes. BIT had a complete mediating effect on the relationship between C and both crash outcomes. C or P and the two crash outcomes. For taxicab drivers in Study 3.41: 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 . BIT had no mediating effects on the relationship between I.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.

p <. Study 1B vs. Study 2: t(421)= -3. Study 2: t(372)= -3. Study 2: t(422)= -2. p <.663.426.9 Comparison of Automobile Drivers. p <. Study 2: t(372)= 8.442.993. Study 2: t(421)= -4.01.01. 1B and 1C scored significantly lower on hopelessness than did motorcycle drivers. scores for distal variables (locus of control and hopelessness). Study 2: t(422)= 8. Automobile drivers also scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers on C. Study 1C vs. Automobile drivers in Studies 1A.9.41: 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. There was no significant difference in scores on the P dimension between automobile drivers and motorcycle drivers. 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 2.01. automobile drivers scored higher than motorcycle drivers on I. Study 1A vs. p <. 176 .05. p <.837. With respect to the three dimensions of locus of control.01. Study 1B vs. p <. Study 2: t(421)= 7. Study 1C vs. Motorcycle Drivers and Taxicab Drivers 4.Table 4. It was found that there were significant differences in scores for hopelessness. Study 1A vs. p <. Study 1A vs.665.162.01.1 Differences between Automobile Drivers and Motorcycle Drivers In a subsequent analysis.01.

and on all four BIT subscales: “usurpation of right-of way”.01. respectively.9.861.01. p <. p <.9.200. Study 1A vs. p <. Study 1C vs. Study 2: t(422)= -4. Study 1A vs.211. Study 1C vs. p <. p <. Study 2: t(422)= -6. taxicab drivers scored higher than automobile drivers on the I dimension.01. Study 1A vs. Study 2: t(372)= -6. 4. p <. “freeway urgency”.484.01. t(986)= 7. t(253) = 2. p <. Study 1C vs. p <. Study 2: t(421)= -3. t(986)= 30.704.01.01. Study 2: t(421)= -8.775.01.01. and to injury occurrence. Study 2: t(372)= -5.687. p <. p <.01.01.01. Study 1B vs. t(253)= 8. p <. Motorcycle drivers scored higher than taxicab drivers on C. Also. Study 2: t(421)= -7.01. There were no significant differences scores on either C or P between the automobile drivers and taxicab drivers. t(986)= 37.577.977. p <. 177 . t(986)= 5. 4.747. There were no differences between motorcycle drivers and taxicab drivers on the P dimension. p <. “externally-focused frustration” and “destination-activity orientation”. t(986)= 3.186.01. Automobile drivers scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers in injury occurrence.402. t(986)= 6. p <.Automobile drivers scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers with respect to the total BIT score. Study 2: t(372)= -7. p <.837.2 Differences between Automobile Drivers and Taxicab Drivers With respect to locus of control.01. t(986)= 34. and t(986)= 35.01. Automobile drivers scored higher that taxicab drivers on total BIT scores.433.614.01. p <.926. Study 1B vs. p <. p <.3 Differences between Motorcycle Drivers and Taxicab Drivers Taxicab drivers scored higher than motorcycle drivers on the I locus of control dimension.01.801. automobile drivers scored higher than taxicab drivers with respect to crash occurrence.01.261. Automobile drivers scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers in crash occurrence.

982. t(253)= 11.946. p <. t(253)= 35. t(253)= 8. drivers scored higher with respect to crash occurrence.737.01and to injury occurrence. p <. 178 .977. t(253)= 31. respectively.01. t(253)= 8. p <.01.01. “freeway urgency”. “externally-focused frustration” and “destination-activity orientation”.881. p <. and t(253)= 37. p <.016. t(253)= 39.01. p <.Motorcycle drivers had higher total BIT scores than taxicab drivers. and all four BIT subscales: “usurpation of right-of way”.01.01.567. Also. p <.

1991). 1993. not directly on driving behaviour and crash outcomes but rather on some intervening variable located more proximally to the event (see sect. Elander et.2. including gender. human factors that conceptually might be expected to have a strong influence over driving behaviour and crash occurrence end up. researchers have been frequently frustrated when attempting to quantify the effects of psycho-social variables on either driving behaviour or crash outcomes. in which a set of personality and demographic factors are thought to exert effects. In an earlier study..4. multi-factorial perspective. 2. externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation. Often. freeway urgency. upon examination. (1993). 2002b). age and personality may be the most important factors in crash causation (Bridger. Evans. Composite BIT scores were comprised of measures of usurpation of right-ofway. While it has been generally assumed and frequently stated that driver characteristics. exerting weaker influence or more equivocal results than anticipated (Dewar. They found gender. Elander et al.CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION 5. 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. 1995.1). Parker (2004) and others have stressed the importance of examining crash causation from a broader. ethnic and driver experience differences with respect to 179 . al.1 A Contextual Mediated Model for Understanding Factors Influencing Unsafe Driving Traffic psychologists. Papacostas and Synodinos (1988) investigated four dimensions of driving behaviour conceptually related to the Type A behaviour pattern (TABP). The present research applied Sümer’s concept of a contextual mediated model. in which the roles played by variables in mediating and moderating effects of personality factors are more closely examined than in the past.

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

… the word cause has largely disappeared from the technical literature on safety, and for good reasons. Suppose that on a dark rainy morning a young man argues with his wife about the purchase of a sofa, leaves the house late for work in a rage, drives his poorly-maintained car too fast on a badly-designed, poorly-lit curve. Suppose further that he skids, and is killed in a crash with a truck driven by an older driver. It is of little value to say that the death was caused by the car driver’s youth or maleness, the truck driver’s old age, the car’s bald tires, the high cost of sofas, emotional stress, the non-use of a safety belt, inadequate police enforcement, rain or any other of the many factors which, if different on this particular occasion, would have prevented the death (Evans, 1991; p. 60)

Causative factors, then, are difficult to partial out and, it might be argued, cannot really be studied in isolation. For this reason, the use of a model based on interactive relationships between personality or demographic characteristics of drivers and the components making up a particular pattern of driving behaviour, in this case a Type A behaviour pattern, makes good sense. The model proved useful in describing and

explaining the relationship between distal and proximal variables involved in crash and injury occurrence. Personality and demographic variables had significant effects on a measure of behaviour in traffic which, in turn, had a robust association with selfreported crash and injury occurrence. What may have resulted here is less an identification of causes and their prevention and more a framework in which to consider the complex interactions of several factors that contribute to motor vehicle crashes.

Within the contextual mediated model used here, a significant relationship was observed between the BIT construct and outcome measures, suggesting that the contention of Papacostas and Synodinos (1988), that it may be preferable to existing measures of TABP, is supported. As has been already noted, a range of personality and

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

traffic exposure and other variables on the effects that internality and externality exert on driving behaviour. 5. it might be assumed that taxicab drivers could well have a broader social network. SD=11. it might also be assumed that their traffic exposure was greater than that of the students. Hijar and Tovar (2005) have noted that social capital. For taxicab drivers.25 years. Malaysian-Indian automobile 187 .7 months.6 months as licensed drivers. taxicab drivers were considerably older (43. as it did with the less experienced university students in the other groups. 20.2 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. Inclán. This would be an error more likely to be made by younger novice or less experienced drivers.2 years. SD=22. Because of occupational demands. SD=1.1 months. respectively). By virtue of their age and occupation. Of course. respectively). SD=131. internals reported that they engaged in safer behaviour in traffic.16. the continued operation of their vehicle is fundamental to their livelihood so motivational factors may take precedence over attributions of external control. Further research is needed to examine the influence of driving experience.53. In the present study.3.5. although driving frequency was not measured for taxicab drivers.10) than the automobile drivers and motorcyclists (28. affected driving behaviour and decisions about the use of public roads. For taxicab drivers. there are other possible influences. SD=1. 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. the extent to which an individual is connected to others through interpersonal networks.63. SD=. and 36. social trust and norms that promote coordination and cooperation. They were also more experienced (266.hierarchy.01years.66) than the automobile drivers and motorcyclists (20. as well.1.

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

have been largely limited from participation in social and political processes that would necessitate that sort of social skill development and. 1999). an internal locus of control. 1999. 1999. as a group. Armstrong (1987) argued that urbanisation has affected 189 .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. than between Singaporean-Chinese and Chinese participants from China.5 million in 1991 to 11. the reasons for this commonality in outlook are probably multi-factorial. 1999) where one’s skills at manipulating the system may have fostered a need for greater internal control. Willford (2003) concluded that Indian-Malaysians. 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. 2002. the proportion of the population residing in urban areas increased from 51% in 1991 to 55. Sendut. Salih &Young. The size of the urban population in Malaysia increased by 4. and. where Cheung et al. 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. Closer proximity of cultural groups can be assumed to increase contact and transmission of knowledge and awareness of value systems (Hofstede. Gomez. Indeed. Again. 5. as a result.8 million in 1996. 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. This is consistent with recent findings among Malay and Chinese ethnic groups in Singapore. 1981).5% annually from 9. but two possible influences stand out. Nandy. by extension. In reference to Carment’s explanation of the earlier results. (2006) found greater commonalities in personality traits. 1998.3.7 in 1996. 1966. including locus of control.Malaysian participants scored lower in internality was contrary to Carment’s earlier conclusions with individuals from India. although they were consistent with more recent research by Sinha & Watson (2007).

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

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

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

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

they may well reach a “red line” at which more mental effort is required than is available.1 Advantages of Using SEM Harlow (2005.5.5 Testing the Contextual Mediated Model Using Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) 5. Hinojosa. and at the same time processing feelings of responsibility arising from one’s internal locus of control requires the investment of mental effort. 162). Performance (e. Carretie. This can happen both in conditions of very high task demand and in conditions where the driver’s state is affected (p. The present research has demonstrated linkages between hostile automatic thoughts. as well as other task demands of driving in traffic.Robbins. hostile automatic thoughts. Tavris (1989) referred to anger as the “misunderstood emotion”. 2005). 2002. MartinLoeches. so too does the mental effort required (de Waard & Brookhuis. subject to ambiguous interpretation (Chan. Taylor & Fragopanagos.. Making sense of. Stein. As drivers contend with heightened feelings of aggression and increased internal chatter. 2000. Lambie & Marcel. p. Martin. 2004. 2002. Watson & Wan. Tomkins. Trabasso & Liwag. internal locus of control and tendencies toward more dangerous behaviour in traffic.1) defined multivariate thinking as “a body of thought processes that illuminate interrelatedness between and within sets of variables” and proposed that 194 . In fact. and attempting to exercise control over. 1979) and disruptive to attentional processing of external stimuli (Adolphs. 2000. lane control in driving) will drop if effort investment is insufficient or ceases. 1993). As de Waard (2002) has argued: There are limits to the investment of effort. 1999. an overburdening of cognitive workload capacity or both. 5. Mercado & Tapia. As the costs of achieving or maintaining a certain target level of performance increase.g. Dien. 1997). Additional studies are needed to investigate whether this relationship is best explained through an internal stimulus-response process. 1996. aggressive emotionality.

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

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

1998). At the same time. 2009) that have tended to select the model that has the best fit indices. Fit index values (e. it may be advisable to select one that offers the most useful information even if indices are slightly lower than its alternative. 2000).00 have been recommended to indicate good model fit (Hair et al. RMSEA lower than . 1998.90. provided competing models both present a pre-determined standard for goodness-of-fit. it should not be used as the sole indicator of SEM fit because it is affected by sample size (Hair et al. we would argue. the model with the best goodness-of-fit indices is selected over alternate models. Md-Sidin. 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. GFI. Hair et al.5. 2006). RMSEA and the χ2 /degrees of freedom ratio. This has become such a widely accepted principle that decisions over model selection have become almost automatic (Klem. so that stronger evidence supporting the correct specification of a model can be adduced (Thompson. It is argued here that. As a general rule. 2001. it has been stressed repeatedly by several authors no definitive set of rules has been established for model selection (Byrne. 2006. 2006) such that for analyses of sample sizes more than 250.. both dealing with traffic psychology (Sümer. 2003) and other disciplines (Elangovan.08 and a χ2 /degrees of freedom ratio less than 3.. CFI. Structural equation modelling should. 2001. Sambasivan & Ismail. Maruyama.In the present research. It is widely agreed that selection of the model should be a very good or an excellent fit. CFI and CFI) greater than . Although chi-square is the most fundamental absolute fit index.g. Sümer (2003) reported that some researchers have used critical χ2 /degrees of freedom ratios from 2 to 5 to indicate an acceptable fit. 5.. significant p-values can be expected. the fit indices for assessing the model included χ2 value and the associated df. 2000) and there are many examples of research studies. be a process that balances utility with statistical 197 .3 Best Fit or Best Model It is important to test multiple plausible rival models.

Index coefficients from the original and subsequent analysis are shown in Table 5.10) excluded the fourth factor.soundness.3). while Model 1C6 (see Figure 4. two structural equation models. If selection criteria were to be based solely on goodness-of-fit parameters.9) included all four components of the BIT scale.1. In some cases. 4. In the case at hand. of intervariable relationships for high-risk undergraduate automobile drivers were compared using an initial set of goodness-of-fit indices (see sect. as suggested by Byrne (2001).7. and practical considerations (p. when taking into consideration “practical considerations”. it makes sense to choose a model with a slightly poorer fit but more useful information over the best-fitting model. they can in no way reflect the extent to which the model is plausible. this judgment rests squarely on the shoulders of the research. stating that. Both models were judged to have an excellent or very good fit. Model 1C5 (see Figure 4. destination-activity orientation. assessment of model adequacy must be based on multiple criteria that take into account theoretical. 158). There is some support for this position in the literature. it is concluded that the selection of Model 1C5 would be preferable 198 . provided the chosen one meets pre-determined standards for goodness-of-fit. statistical. Thus. Byrne (2001) argued that: Fit indexes yield information bearing only on the model’s lack of fit. Sobel and Bohrnstedt (1985) pointed out that exclusive reliance on goodness-of-fit indices is unacceptable. the choice between the two would be Model 1C6 given its superior index coefficients. More importantly. a finding that was further supported by additional subsequent analyses using a further series of goodness-of-fit indices. 88). 1C5 and 1C6. However. “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.

97 0.97 0. AQ.045 0. F3 BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way. BITF2=Freeway Urgency. 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.42 11.02 0.97 0.96 1. C.96 0.02 0. F3 & F4 BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way.97 1. HAT Proximal Context: BITF1. HAT Proximal Context: BITF1.97 0.1: Goodness of Fit Statistics for Model 1C5 and 1C6 (Initial and Subsequent Analyses) Model 1C5 Distal Context: I. AQ. P. 199 .91 0.043 129.99 0.48 30. Injury Occurrence 35.060 0.02 0.Table 5. P. BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration.909 0.034 97.39 Best because it includes important information about destination-activity orientation behaviour that would be lost if Model 1C6 were chosen. F2. Injury Occurrence Degrees of Freedom RMSEA GFI Chi-sq/Df RMR AIC NFI CFI AGFI PGFI NCP ECVI Overall model fit 63. F2. BITF2=Freeway Urgency. Given that multivariate analysis revealed a significant association between this BIT component and crash outcomes. BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration.94 0. BITF4=DestinationActivity Orientation Outcomes: Crash Occurrence. Fit Statistics (Threshold values) Outcomes: Crash Occurrence.98 0.51 Very Good Model 1C6 Distal Context: I. C.499 0.

When dealing with systems that are safetycritical. Further discussion in this section refers only to Model 1C5.42. the PGFI coefficient for Model 1C5 is 0..1). Nahn & Shapiro. when drivers do let their attention wander from current road and traffic conditions they are at increased risk of experiencing a crash outome (Moller. but still acceptable. Hair et al. Based on the practical advantages of including the destination-activity orientation variable within the contextual mediated model and findings of the subsequent comparative results of PGFI coefficients. when variables do not improve the AGFI and PGFI. provide the key to reducing injuries and saving lives (Reason. 2006. Results of this and other research have demonstrated that. (2006) have noted that models with a higher PGFI are preferable over competing models because they have a better fit relative to their complexity. Storey. Sambasivan (2008) stated that. while for Model 1C6. Manstead & Stradling. 200 . Some justification for the selection of Model 1C5 over 1C6 is also found in the analysis of the parsimony fit (PGFI) statistic (see Table 5. Reason. a central psychological feature of the TABP in driving is not overlooked and the BIT framework is kept intact. goodness-of-fit. they should be dropped. 1990. et al. one that favours the maximum use of information in the cause of saving lives. in this analysis. Kayumov. the standard should be to include as much relevant information as possible. it is 0. For practical reasons. based on the notion that each variable included may. this is an important component to retain in a contextual mediated model of behaviour in traffic even if it does render a lower.It can be argued here that safety research demands a somewhat different standard in terms of model construction and selection. the decision was made to select Model 1C5 over Model 1C6. 1996). 2006). Parker. in particular. However. farther along. Schwebel. 1995. By selecting Model 1C5.48.

Sümer. externality-powerful other. .4. They appeared to be the strongest predictors among the five distal factors (path coefficients = -.14. via BIT. externalitychance. 2001. 1991.28 and .1). .66). Examination of the predictive relationship between distal and proximal variables yielded support for the contextual model and were consistent with previous findings (e.4 Testing the Contextual Mediated Models Using SEM 5.5.34) and injury occurrence (r = .23 respectively) and the BIT displayed a significant effect on crash outcomes (path coefficient = . internality and aggression had direct effects on BIT and indirect effects. freeway urgency. This suggested that automobile drivers with high levels of 201 . indicating that driving behaviour is closely related to involvement in motor vehicle crashes. for automobile drivers sampled.6. In Study 1C.29).5. . externally-focused frustration. Findings in this study underscored the strong role of BIT in predicting accidents. indicating the importance of this factor in crash outcomes. with five distal factors (internality.21). As observed from the investigation of structural paths. Total scores of BIT were significantly correlated with crash occurrence (r = . the base model (with only locus of control variables) was compared against five alternative models (see section 4. Distal factors (locus of control: internality. 2003). externality-chance. externality-powerful other.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. crash occurrence (r = -. and hostile automatic thoughts).45).g.5.26. The results suggested that the alternative model.35 and .35. Rothengatter. aggression.18) and injury occurrence (r = -. Internality was significantly but negatively correlated with BIT (r = -. on crash outcomes. Evans. four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way.28 respectively). aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) had significant effects on BIT scores (path coefficients = . and destination-activity orientation) for the proximal factor-BIT and two latent construct (crash and injury occurrence) for outcomes ws preferable to alternative models that included the hopelessness variable.

externality-chance. as well as low probability of crash and injury occurrence. The first alternative model had four distal factors (locus of control: internality.internality were more likely to have low total BIT scores. One of the most compelling findings in Study 2 was that externalitychance scores had the highest correlations with BIT (r = . freeway urgency and externally-focused frustration) for the proximal factor.25). had a better fit than other alternative models. Results indicated that the first alternative model. on the other hand.4. Aggressive automobile drivers tended to have high level of BIT scores.80) indirectly and the proximal factor-BIT (path coefficient = . the base model (with only the locus of control variable) was compared against two alternative models.2 Study 2: Motorcyclists In Study 2. externally-focused frustration.66) directly predicted crash outcomes.55). and four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way. internality and externality-chance (path coefficients = -. 202 .23) and injury occurrence (r = .24). The second alternative model also had four distal factors but only three latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way.65 and . was significantly and positively correlated with BIT (r = . and destination-activity orientation) as proximal factors.20) and injury occurrence (r = . and destination-activity orientation) comprising the proximal factor and two latent constructs (crash and injury occurrence) comprising the crash outcome variable. externally-focused frustration. crash occurrence (r = . freeway urgency. 5.41).5. Aggression. which sampled motorcyclists. 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. and high probabilities of crash and injury occurrence. with hopelessness removed as a distal factor but four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way. crash occurrence (r = . freeway urgency. Investigation of the path parameters revealed that only two of the distal factors. externality-powerful other and hopelessness).

5. the bestfitting model used only a single latent construct. Finally. For motorcyclists.5. the base model (with only the locus of control variable) was compared against three alternative models (see sect. such as internality. externally-focused frustration. the results of measurement model analysis showed that one of the distal factors. 4.6. and destination-activity orientation) as proximal factors. The second and third alternative models only had one latent construct. Distal factors. for the sample of taxicab drivers. Investigation of the path parameters revealed that there were only two of the four distal factors.3). via BIT. and destination-activity orientation) comprising the proximal factor and one latent construct (crash occurrence) comprising the outcome variable.5 What Can be Learned from Testing Contextual Models with SEM? The use of SEM provided support for the contextual mediated model. externality-chance. externally-focused frustration. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts.5. The first alternative included four distal factors (internality. as a result. This suggested that internality and aggression play important roles in affecting the behaviour in traffic of taxicab drivers and. freeway urgency. internality and aggression (path coefficients = -. with the sample of taxicab drivers. for crash outcomes. in turn and indirectly.3 Study 3: Taxicab Drivers In Study 3. hopelessness. aggression). externality-chance. had significant direct effects on the four latent constructs that comprised the proximal variable (BIT) and. crash occurrence. four latent constructs (usurpation of right-ofway. their crash occurrence. had a better fit than alternative models. on the two latent variables comprising crash outcomes. freeway urgency. externality-powerful other. to measure outcome.24 respectively) that had direct effects on the proximal factor and a simultaneous indirect effect on crash occurrence. the result was slightly different as a belief in chance as an outcome determinant had a significant effect on BIT scores.4. Both dimensions of external locus of control had insignificant results. However.5. with four distal factors (internality. externality-powerful other and aggression). crash occurrence.20 and . Results indicated that the third alternative model. 203 . All models included four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way. had no significant effect on BIT scores.

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. an argument used by Montag & Comrey (1978) and others who have studied young drivers. 2004). that convenience sampling is indeed the least reliable of all sampling designs in terms of generalisability. by virtue of their age and driving experience within the highest risk group. An important question then becomes: Were the participants in Studies 1 and 2 representative of a high-risk population of young Malaysian drivers? This can be answered in terms of age and the geographic location from where participants received their driving licenses. the fact remains that participants constituting the four student samples were. In the present research. Further. 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. Some authors have commented on the lack of generalisability of findings in traffic psychology research (Dunbar. however. 2005. To a large extent. both and particularly the student samples constituted a convenience sample that may have curtailed the generalisability of findings.6 5. four of which were comprised of students from a single university.6.5. 2005). 204 . Sekaran (2003) points out. Huguenin. “but sometimes it may be the only viable alternative when quick and timely information is needed” (pp. 278279). a total of five samples were taken. The fifth sample was comprised of professional taxicab drivers. chosen at random from taxi stands. With very few studies having been completed on Malaysian drivers to date.

6% (Study 1A: 99.2%). Since.to 25-year old high-risk group was 99. Based alone on the number of residents living in each state.In Malaysia. while Malacca and Negeri Sembilan were overrepresented. Study 1B: 100%. Sarawak and Kelantan were under-represented in the sample. involved drivers aged 16 to 25 years. The Spearman rank correlation coefficient for these two sets of scores is rs=. 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. Ages of participants in this research ranged from 18 to 29 years.2). Study 1C: 99. With regard to whether the sample was representative of peoples of the various states and regions of Malaysia.55). the sample does not appear to be very repreresentative of the Malaysian population. it is helpful to examine the distribution by state in which research participants obtained their driving licenses. 205 .13 years (SD = 1.2% and Study 2: 99. The most populous state.6%. individuals usually obtain their license in the state in which they are registered as resident. young drivers are among the most likely to experience a motor vehicle crash. as elsewhere. Approximately one-third of all automobile crashes. Sabah. Table 5.2 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.31. in Malaysia. with a mean age of 20. during the interval from 2000 to 2003. The proportion of the total sample for Studies 1 and 2 falling within the 16. Selangor. making it the single highest risk age group (see Table 2.

188 1.2 (11) 12.150. In both cases.0 4.19 Per cent (rank) of participants sampled 17.4 5.576 2.2 3.000 215. 206 .2 (13) 11.7 (14) But.000 2.387.1 (7) 8. For that reason.396.807 733.9 (3) 2.503.4 provides similar comparisons for the state of origin of the sample of motorcyclists.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) 7.3 (12) 11.6 6.818.6 (10) 7.0 12.200.300. Not all states have the same number of drivers.000 1.2 7.260. in this case.5 (8) 3.8 (6) 6.6 2. and there are different crash frequencies in each one. the state of origin is defined as the state in which the participants’ driving licenses were issued.2 11.0 8.004.000 3. Table 5.Table 5. Table 5. It is important to remember that the purpose of this research was to study the population of young.9 9.500. a better assessment of sample representativeness by state would be to compare the proporation of participants with numbers of registered private vehicles and with the numbers of crashes in each state of origin.000 2.880 3.2 (5) 0.7 (2) 2.100.9 (9) 7.500 1.000 Per cent of national population 26.000 1.2 (1) 3.8 6. attempting to determine sample representativeness based on only state population would be flawed.674 1.286 1.5 (4) 4.6 0.6 5.887. high-risk drivers in Malaysia.3 compares the state of origin of participants in Study 1 with the more relevant measures of vehicle registrations and crash occurrence.

55 7.63 207 .104 6.467 25.70 12.496 Private Automobile Registrations (until 2003) 703.606 24.4 4.064 9.163 10.97 12.428.Table 5.093 5.725 70.98 0.041 92.96 3.19 7.026 10.735 165.88 3.137 698.144 12.16 2.45 9.05 2.37 3.490 525.170 13.76 3.635 1.774 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 12.230 266.22 17.75 4.70 3.27 14.92 25.36 8.212 39.24 0.91 2.89 3.34 3.43 2.28 3.003 10.19 3.85 1.88 2.496 187.19 4.251 324.561 1.600 135.588.20 12.50 29.198 156.13 6.24 2.46 8.93 0.84 11.029 273.3: State of Origin Compared with Crash Frequency and Vehicle Registrations (Study 1) Average Motor Vehicle Crash Frequency (2000-2003) 34.68 7.768 6.35 4.34 11.920 181.90 5.785 393.93 9.617 10.

38 4.46 14.221 36.606 24.467 25.64 1.170 13.49 0.212 39.49 12.026 10.98 0.92 25.02 10.48 1.958 % 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 12.725 70.561 1.722 255.64 2.617 10.679 90.75 5.029 273.288 444.4 4.4: State of Origin Compared with Crash Frequency and Vehicle Registrations (Study 2) Average Motor Vehicle Crash Frequency (2000-2003) 34.305 276.28 3.93 9.995 233.727 161.104 6.36 8.856 310.38 0.003 10.66 11.82 9.10 9.768 6.112 347.27 14.22 3.43 2.37 3.59 12.20 15.35 4.46 5.76 3.74 208 .02 7.283 770.03 4.Table 5.93 7.79 13.656 821.144 12.15 5.88 3.992 776.989 6.59 1.14 7.064 9.615.33 4.63 11.133 705.63 13.88 2.496 % Private Vehicle Registrations (until 2003) 933.45 2.

5 shows the The Spearman rank correlation coefficient (rs) for the variables in Tables 5.814** 1 . At least on these dimensions.Table 5. it can be argued that they were. it is possible to say that sampling. Even though data collection was carried out at a single university location. Of course. Future studies of Malaysian driving behaviour will need to expand the range participant 209 .3 and 5. 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.796** 1 Were the participants studied in this research representative of high-risk Malaysian drivers? In terms of their age and their regional origin.4.908** 1 3 Participants’ state of origin . were licensed as drivers in – the states with the most registered vehicles and the highest numbers of crashes. both for the studies of automobile drivers and for the study of motorcyclists. at least. participants came from – or.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) . was representative of a high risk driver population.903** . This sample was comprised of individuals within the age group that has the most motor vehicle crashes. There is a high correlation between ranks of the states from which participants in Studies 1 and 2 received their licenses and the ranks of states with regard to crash occurrence and to private vehicle registrations.701** 1 Study 2: Motorcyclists Motorcycle crash frequency (by state) Vehicle registrations (by state) Participants’ state of origin 1 2 3 1 . Table 5.824** .

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

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

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

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

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

In the present research. 1991). 2002. Rothengatter (2001) has argued that better measures of risk exposure are needed in traffic psychology. that associated methodological disadvantages were fewer than those of the competing approaches. have high information content. but this was done with an awareness of the shortcomings of this measure. collected logbook data would have been largely qualitative in nature. during the study design process. are testable and contain no contradictions. Ranney. but that considerable effort has gone into the development of descriptive models. 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. Good theories are simple.studies undertaken. 2004). The function of useful scientific theory is to provide an explanatory summary of facts pertaining to related phenomena and to predict events that are associated with them (Huguenin. 1985. over-arching theory (Rothengatter. 2005). While some authors have considered the terms “theory” and “model” as synonymous (e..1 Implications and Areas for Further Study Theory vs. 2005). the decision was made to use participants’ subjective. categorical perceptions of driving frequency. It was felt. are of nomological character and can be applied irrespective of time and space (Langdridge. To summarise. Michon. In addition. there is little disagreement on the importance of travelling frequency as a variable in driving safety but little consensus on the best way to deal with methodological problems associated with its measurement (Evans. 2004). drawn from empirical studies and demonstrating inter-variable relationships (Chaloupka-Risser. selfreported measure used here. the difference is that models are generally seen as “more modest affairs that aim to illustrate 215 .7 5. creating new difficulties in their quantification (King. Summala. 1994). Models in Traffic Psychology It has been noted earlier that the emerging field of traffic psychology has yet to arrive at a unified. Further research is required. 1997). 5.7.g.

1997. Huguenin (1997) has similarly argued that theories are necessary to treat a subject scientifically. at times. Throughout the development of traffic psychology. Attempts to develop ‘traffic- specific’ theories have proved far less fruitful than has the importation of established theories from other areas of psychology. The answer to this question is possibly yes. 32). The first question is whether we need traffic psychology theories. Wilde (1982) has expressed concern that the study of traffic safety “is characterised by a sparsity of comprehensive and articulate conceptions” (p. often in graphical form (Grayson. on the other hand. 294). The second question is whether we need traffic psychology models. if they are modest in ambition. Although one might agree with the statement (ascribed at different times to Helmholtz and to Lewin) that “there is nothing so practical as a good theory”. Hauer (1987). 94). Grayson (1997) agreed. check facts. in particular to structure data. the fact remains that we have enough guidance already from mainstream psychology. stating that.patterns of relationships. if they aim to illuminate and encourage research on specific topics rather than the 216 . create links to other fields of knowledge or to explain or predict circumstances. there has beeen an ongoing discussion and. debate as to whether the greater need exists for more theory or for more data. and while any data collection procedure must have some element of theory if it is to have real purpose. or represent processes. 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. The answer is probably not. p.

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

and has relied heavily on post-hoc explanations.other studies. it has been conducted without the benefit of a process model of driving. sensation seeking (Sümer. With several exceptions. not on everyday driving. 2.7. 2003).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). openness. for instance. together with methodological difficulties associated with the use of accident measures. lead to the conclusion that we should abandon the differential accident paradigm and define alternative measures of safe driving. the process through which drivers make adjustments based on their perceptions of risk. Kerlinger (2000) and others. The general lack of success in identifying predictors of safe driving. … has used performance-based measures to predict individual accident histories. extraversion. 2005) were included as distal variables.4). The contextual mediated framework. crash-free driving. it may be even more fruitful to focus the model on the interaction of variables that contribute to safe. While the present research 218 . depression. competence or hierarchical level of information processing (see sect. conscientiousness. much current research. as defined by Grayson (1997). has focused primarily on accident-causing behaviour.3. while still very much a model and not a theory. agreeableness and neuroticism (Sümer et al. 5. provides breadth of focus and a more holistic perspective than many other attempts at modelling driving behaviour.. Rather than describing and predicting the interaction of factors involved in causing crashes. Future research should attempt to expand the contextual mediated approach beyond studies of crash histories. psychoticism. According to Ranney (1994). anxiety.

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

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

At the same time. 5. Cooke and Durso (2008) have noted that: Most industrial tasks require human operators to interact with various technologies. educational programming (including public awareness and driver training). This framework can be integrated with the “Three E’s” to identify specific crash prevention measures arising from the findings of the present research. or legal intervention. Specific measures aimed at reducing accident occurrence or injury can be classed according to whether they are predominantly based on engineering principles. recognised that the cardinal bases of accident prevention fall into three categories: engineering.4.7. 1961.7. the Haddon Matrix (Haddon. 1957. and machines are highly intricate (p.7. 1957).5.4 Preventive Measures: “The Three E’s” 5. 1).4). 1970) provides another system for classifying highway events for the purposes of research or accident prevention (see Figure 2. the tasks we ask operators to perform today are highly cognitie.1 Generating and classifying crash prevention interventions Ergonomists and safety scientists have. World Health Organisation. Matthews and Guest (1999) have argued that traffic engineering has also undergone a transition in emphasis over the last decade. teams of humans. 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. Unlike 100 years ago. From this has emerged the growing 221 . for the last fifty years.4.2 Engineering Interventions Engineering applications in transportation have become increasingly cogniscent of human thinking processes. Slinn. These have been euphemistically termed the “three E’s”. and the effective enforcement of regulatory legislation (Wheatley. education. the technologies sophisticated and the interactions among humans.

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

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

Gregersen and Falkmer (2003). and whether this information varies according to the situation. have pointed out that many problems still exist in the implementation of such technological solutions and that some of these – including the creation of higher mental workloads and overestimation tendencies in the use of information – may be particularly salient for young. Lippold and Mayser (2003) have noted that new driver assistance systems offer some promise for safety improvements by providing additional information to drivers. 1996. however. journey purpose or other human factors. ostensibly satisfying wandering attentional needs and allowing vehicle operators to concentrate on tasks at hand. and substantial lifestyle changes aimed at achieving an environmentally sustainable future (Ogden. and now encompass the principle of “traffic calming” (Brindle. 309). Dietze.efficiency (capacity) or access objectives (Ogden. but extends into city-wide suppression of traffic. Current discussions of speed management go even beyond traditional traffic management approaches. p. however. Maakip (2003) has also added that there is little understanding of exactly what specific pieces of information drivers require or prefer to have. engineering solutions have the least to offer in terms of behaviour in traffic that involves risky levels of destination activity orientation. This view embraces a philosophy and a set of goals that go far beyone mere physical control and management of traffic. 1991). 1996. Engineering interventions capable of assisting in the focusing of attention to the driving task have been largely understudied and considerable research will need to be carried out before practical applications can be implemented effectively and dependably. inexperienced drivers. Probably. 1992). 224 . questions of alternative urban structure. Proctor. This refers to driving while thinking about things unrelated to the driving task.

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

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

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

 dedicated broadcast of safety messages – radio or broadband messages with reminder to focus attention on driving tasks at hand. notification of construction ahead. safety messages. 228 .  driver assistance systems – capable of providing information about destination conditions or journey progress. H 1. prepare for stress-provoking conditions and external frustration. This information allows drivers to avoid or. weather-related road conditions.4  in-vehicle biofeedback devices – systems that measure driver arousal and eye focal points and cue the driver when measures do not calibrate with attention to road conditions. Destination-activity orientation is associated with a higher risk of crash outcomes. notice of future road construction and notice of public events.(continued)  electronic variable message signs (VMSs) – roadside signboards which change messages to provide updated information about traffic congestion. to reduce wandering thoughts and focus attention on driving tasks at hand.1. at least.

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

and penalties for infringement to ensure that the rules are obeyed. Second. that “Of these three approaches. The results of the present research would suggest that messages about the link between personal responsibility for one’s action. and (3) legal measures providing rules governing the interaction of pedestrians and traffic. road safety campaigns and media coverage” (Cheah. Yergil (2005) has discussed a number of cognitive biases that tend to enhance a false sense of safety among drivers. (2) exhortatory and educational measures to encourage the development of appropriate skills and attitudes. 265).5.4 Enforcement Howarth and Gunn (1982) noted that attempts to improve road safety are generally of three types: (1) ergonomic and engineering measures to improve the physical environment. and driving within safe legal limits could be included within future public information campaigns. 1978. Jacobs and Baguley (2004) have stressed that changes in road laws and police operations need to be well advertised in order to be effective. or an internal locus of control. from the findings of the present research. was studied in a 230 . such as visibility of enforcement. one practical and the other touching on the development of theory.4. 1030). First. or the tendency to attribute one’s own attitudes and behaviour to others. p. 2007. This twinning of psychological and legal perspectives derives two implications. The bias of false consensus. N6). 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. evoke the least expectation and are least often evaluated in terms of their effect on accidents” (p. They also stated. Success of the yearly Ops Sitak safety campaign by the Royal Malaysian Police and other regulatory bodies has been attributed to several “cumulative factors. legal measures change least often. Siegrist and Roskova (2001) have called for an integration of social science views arising from traffic psychology with legislation and enforcement pertaining to traffic. p. however.

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

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

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

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

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

educational and enforcement spheres. significant impacts can be made in reducing motor vehicle crashes. Continued sharing between professional associations and between design. regulatory and social science specialists should be encouraged. but it also opens the door for a wider range of preventive measures.form a complex traffic-safety reality in which systems form a web of interdependent fields (p. Through a multi-disciplinary approach. 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). Indeed. In the present research. findings with regard to four components of behaviour in traffic gave rise to a number of interventions in the engineering. 236 . 313). injuries and death. 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. Additional studies should aim toward a conceptual common ground and further examination of models and theories from which broader understanding can be derived. management.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[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

37. A. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychiatry.L. 41. 38. D. 262 . R.. New York: E. Dutton. G. W..J.V. [272] Lerner. and Nutter. Neerincx and Schreibers (2006). The locus of control as a moderator variable: stress. Barrett. 479-490. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. pp. (1974). (2002). 3. and Stiller. Locus of Control: Current Trends in Theory and Research. [275] Levenson. Jehle. (1976). E.[266] Lawton. and Morgan.A.) Research with the Locus of Control Construct. New York: Academic.. 253-269).K. [276] Levenson. N. Applied Ergonomics.M. H. G. R. (1989). Multidimensional locus of control in psychiatric patients. H. (1973).M. D. 303-304. H. SPSS for Intermediate Statistics: Use and Implementation. [269] Lefcourt. 97. Malay dominance and opposition politics. 93. H. Volume 2: Developments and Social Problems (pp. [271] Lenior. A.P. Mahwah. Janssen. A comparison of reported levels and expression of anger in everyday and driving situations. (2001). H. Journal of Social Psychology. [274] Levenson. Conner. (1975). (1983). 177-196. Additional dimensions of internal-external control. In Lefcourt. IV. Human-factors engineering for smart transport: decision support for car drivers and train traffic controllers. In Southeast Asian Affairs 2002: An Annual Review. Billittier. [267] Lee.M. Activism and powerful others: distinctions within the concept of internalexternal control. Moscati. (2002). Accident Analysis and Prevention. [268] Leech. H. H. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 397-401.M. L.C. Journal of Personality Assessment. [273] LeShan. C. [270] Lefcourt.M. 2nd Edition. British journal of Psychology.G.. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.B. 659-662.407-423. 377-383. Cancer as a turning point. (Ed. K.. The influence of demographic factors on seatbelt use by adults injured in motor vehicle crashes. (2005).

36. M-R. (2002) Driver skill: performance and behaviour.limkitsiang. 125-127.asp?file=/2007/3/26/nation/17254652&sec=nation&focus=1. D. The effect of crash experience on changes in risk taking among urban and rural young people.. 213-222. [278] Levy. and Scodel.com.S. R.[277] Levenson. New York: Academic. (Ed. The Star Online. Differentiating among internality. (1979). (2007). [283] Lonczak. In Rothe. 2007 from http://thestar. C. Role of primary personality factors in the perception of traffic signs and driver violations and accidents. (1997). Accident Analysis and Prevention. [280] Lin. (2007. Accident-proneness: does it exist? Occupational Safety and Health.) Driving Lessons: Exploring Systems that Make Traffic Safer. L. (1980). Retrieved May 14. I. Psychological Reports. 59-67. H. F.M. L-L. 11. (1981).P. H. (Ed. 10. (2004). (1999. Internal and external control as determinants of decision making under conditions of risk. Tools of Critical Thinking: Metathoughts for Psychology. [285] Loo. Media Statement released by the Office of the Malaysian Parliamentary Opposition Leader and Democratic Action Party Secretary-General. K. 7. A. powerful others and chance. Retrieved April 5. Liong Sik should convene an emergency meeting of the Cabinet Committee on Road Safety to develop an urgent strategy to ensure that the number of road deaths during this year’s Hari Raya Aidilfitri and Chinese New Year would not exceed the toll of last year.P.S.htm. E. [281] Lindsey. March 26).) Research with the Locus of Control Construct. [279] Lim. W. S. J. [286] Looi. and Donovan. H-D. Edmonton AB: University of Alberta Press. [284] Lonero. Predicting risky and angry driving as a function of gender. 8-9 [282] Liverant. Volume 1: Assessment Methods (pp. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Accident Analysis and Prevention. and Yen.com/archive/1999/feb99/sg1541. H-F. H. D. Defensive driving a must under new curriculum.A.. February 2). Wu.. Neighbors. (1960).my/news/story. 536-545.. 2007 from http://www. 15-63). In Lefcourt. 39(3). Hwang. 263 . Accident Analysis and Prevention.M.. Huang.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

these tyres are manufactured with small metal studs – much like football cleats – inserted in the treads.research results and some heated controversy within the field of traffic psychology. bridges. Within the context of this research. tunnels. archways and footpaths. behavioural adaptation. Road traffic system: Road traffic may be considered as a system in which three components (the human. draining system. 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. signage.” (Ogden. 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. Road traffic injuries: fatal or non-fatal injuries incurred as a result of a motor vehicle crash. It refers to the constant stream of chatter that goes on in one’s mind. 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. target risk. Cognitive self-statements may be either negative or positive. They enable better traction and shorter braking distances than non-studded counterparts.and snow-covered roads during the winter months. based on analysis of road and traffic related accident information. Opportunities for road safety engineering in general apply at four levels: (a) safety conscious planning of new road networks. parking spaces. zero risk theory) Road infrastructure: road facilities and equipment. 35). 1996. (c) improvement of safety aspects of existing roads to avoid future problems. but only 291 . overpasses. Road safety engineering: “a process. A motor vehicle crash may be considered as a failure in the system. most frequently attributed to Donald Meichenbaum at Canada’s University of Waterloo. including the network. p. stopping places. the vehicle and the road) interact with each other. and (d) improvement of known hazardous locations on the road network. at both conscious and unconscious levels. as the result of injury sustained in the crash. Also referred to as private speech or inner speech. Road traffic fatality: a death occurring within 30 days of a motor vehicle crash. (b) incorporation of safety features in the design of new roads. Studded tyres: used primarily in countries that experience ice. (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. 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. and Icek Ajzen at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst. (b) subjective norms (opinions about what significant others would think of the behaviour). remains constant at the target level. theory of reasoned action. it is a level of risk that each individual is willing to accept. which in turn are a function of attitudes and subjective norms. and (c) perceived behavioural control (PBC) over the performance of the behaviour (which jointly influences both the intention and behavioural performance). The TPB has been applied to a wide range of research problems in traffic psychology. Each cell of the matrix represents a combination of the three dimensions which form the basis of the theory. behaviour control) (see also. (see also. (see also. theory of planned behavriour) 292 . hierarchical adaptation theory) Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB): as proposed by Icek Ajzen of the University of MassachusettsAmherst. where i represents the number of factors defining the functional taxonomy dimension. Intentions are influenced by: (a) attitudes (the positive or negative evaluation of the behaviour). According to Wilde (1994). (see also. risk homeostasis theory) Task cube. Supplementary restraint system (SRS): Also referred to as “airbags”. A complex 3 X 5 X i matrix. which are the best predictors of behaviour. and (4) the costs expected from risky behaviour alternatives. According to RHT proponents. Target risk: a core concept in Wilde’s risk homeostasis theory. studded tyres actually increase braking distances and decrease lateral control of the vehicle. perceived Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA): was proposed by Martin Fishbein at the time with the University of Illinois at Urbana and presently of the Annenberg School for Communication at University of Pennsylvania. On dry roads. (2) the costs expected from cautious behaviour alternatives. the TPB posits that a given behaviour is determined by individuals’ intentions. Individuals will undertake behaviour to ensure that the level of risk in which they are engaged. 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.when manoeuvring on icy or hard-packed snowy surfaces. (3) the benefits expected from cautious behaviour alternatives. instrument panel and windshield of a motorcar. The theory of reasoned action (TRA) proposes that behaviour is a function of intentions.

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

Appendix A: List of Published and Research Scales 294 .

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

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

Appendix B: Personal Information Form (PIF) 297 .

_________. so please answer all questions as truthfully as you can. what kind of transportation do you use? (please check only one) ___ bus ___ motorcycle (driver) ___ car (driver) ___motorcycle (pillion. In what city/town did you learn to drive? _______________.g.g. How often do you travel in a car: as a driver (please check only one): ___ every day ___ several times a week ___ about once or twice a week ___ about once every two weeks ___ almost never ___ never as a passenger (please check only one) ___ every day ___ several times a week ___ about once or twice a week ___ about once every two weeks ___ almost never ___ never 298 . We are not asking for your name. _________. Most of the time when you travel. __________ (city/town) (state) (country) 5. Proton Wira) _______________ ___ motorcycle – what engine size (e. For how long have you had your driver’s licence? __________ years and ___________months (number) (number) 3.. Do you presently have a driver’s licence? (circle one) yes no If yes.. please answer the following questions: 2. sitting behind driver) ___ car (passenger) ___ bicycle (non-motorized) ___ walk ___ other (please specify: _______________) 6. 250 cc) ______________ ___ other (please specify: _________________) 7.CONFIDENTIAL Personal Information Form Please answer the following questions about Please answer the following questions about YOURSELF. In what city/town have you lived most of your life? _______________. 1. __________ (city/town) (state) (country) 4.what manufacturer & model (e. What type of motor vehicle do you most often drive? (please check only one) ___ car -.

all the time ___ yes. what phrase best describes what happened? (please check only one): ___ my vehicle was changing lanes and hit (or was hit by) another vehicle ___ my vehicle hit (or was hit by) another vehicle that was changing lanes ___ my vehicle went out of control and went off the side of the road ___ my vehicle went through a red light (or sign) at an intersection (junction) ___ the other vehicle went through a red light (or sign) at an intersection ___ my vehicle hit another vehicle from behind ___ my vehicle was hit from behind by another vehicle ___ other (please specify:__________________________________________ ) 299 . When you want to use a motorcycle. 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. Within the last twelve (12) months. some of the time ___ yes. most of the time ___ no 11. all the time ___ yes.8. in what kind of vehicle were you travelling when the accident occurred? ___ bus ___ motorcycle (driver) ___ car (driver) ___motorcycle (pillion. most of the time ___ no 10. sitting behind driver) ___ car (passenger) ___ bicycle (non-motorized) ___ I was walking ___ other (please specify: _______________) If yes. do you have ready ACCESS to a car? (please check only one) ___ yes. 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. do you have ready ACCESS to a motorcycle? (please check only one) ___ yes. When you want to use a car.

What is your gender? 16. What is your age? ___ male _____ years ___ female 17. sitting behind driver) ___ car (passenger) ___ bicycle (non-motorized) ___ I was walking ___ other (please specify: _______________) If yes. in what kind of vehicle were you travelling when the accident occurred? ___ bus ___ motorcycle (driver) ___ car (driver) ___motorcycle (pillion. 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 . sitting behind driver) ___ car (passenger) ___ bicycle (non-motorized) ___ I was walking ___ other (please specify: _______________) If yes. Within the last twelve months. in what kind of vehicle were you travelling when the accident occurred? ___ bus ___ motorcycle (driver) ___ car (driver) ___motorcycle (pillion. what phrase best describes what happened? (please check only one): ___ my vehicle was changing lanes and hit (or was hit by) another vehicle ___ my vehicle hit (or was hit by) another vehicle that was changing lanes ___ my vehicle went out of control and went off the side of the road ___ my vehicle went through a red light (or sign) at an intersection (junction) ___ the other vehicle went through a red light (or sign) at an intersection ___ my vehicle hit another vehicle from behind ___ my vehicle was hit from behind by another vehicle ___ other (please specify:__________________________________________ ) 15. have you been in a motor vehicle accident that resulted in damage over RM100 to your vehicle. have you been in a motor vehicle accident that required you to go to a medical clinic for minor injuries? yes no If yes. but no injuries? If yes. what phrase best describes what happened? (please check only one): ___ my vehicle was changing lanes and hit (or was hit by) another vehicle ___ my vehicle hit (or was hit by) another vehicle that was changing lanes ___ my vehicle went out of control and went off the side of the road ___ my vehicle went through a red light (or sign) at an intersection (junction) ___ the other vehicle went through a red light (or sign) at an intersection ___ my vehicle hit another vehicle from behind ___ my vehicle was hit from behind by another vehicle ___ other (please specify:__________________________________________ ) 13. Within the last twelve months.12.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful