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Several researchers at other institutions have provided assistance in the form of test instruments, unpublished papers and guidance over the course of this project.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

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

The role of the proximal variable. all four BIT components were associated with higher occurrence of both self-reported motor vehicle crashes and crash-related injury. BIT exerted a strong mediational influence over the effects of distal variables on crash outcomes. 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. locus of control moderated the BIT-aggression relationship. As hypothesised. in mediating the effects of the distal variables was analysed using a four-step regression procedure developed by Baron and Kenny (1986) and using structural equation modelling (SEM) with LISREL.Results indicated a complex series of interactions between the variables. 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. Implications for both theory and practice are discussed. BIT. viii . The advantages of multi-disciplinary approaches to the study of roadway crashes are discussed. significant direct effects on self-reported driving behaviour (BIT) were consistently observed with samples of automobile drivers and motorcyclists but not to the same degree among professional taxicab drivers. as well. consistent with the assumptions of the contextual mediated model. As reported in previous studies. Results indicated that. Among distal variables.

3 ix .2.4.3 1.1 An Applied Perspective 2.2.3.3.2 2.2 A Multidisciplinary Approach Theories of Driving Behaviour 2.2.2.4 Risk Theories 2.1 Human Factors in Roadway Crashes: A Vexing Research Challenge 2.1.3.1 Roadway Crashes in Malaysia and Public Perceptions of Causality 2.2.6 Background of the Study Road Safety in Malaysia The Problem Statement The Professional Significance of the Study Overview of the Methodology Delimitations ii iii iv vi vii ix xv xviii xx 1 1 2 4 5 7 9 12 12 12 17 19 19 21 21 22 24 24 25 26 28 30 31 31 CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 2.2 Traffic Psychology: Slow Progress in Theory-Building 2.2 Studies of Causal Factors in Malaysian Roadway Crashes The Professional Background 2.1 Risk Homeostasis Theory (RHT) 2.5 1.3.1 Accident Proneness 2. Theories and Models 2.2 Differential Accident Involvement 2.3.3.1 Concepts.3.4 1.2 1.1 Human Factors and the Motor Vehicle Safety Problem in Malaysia 2.3 The Individual Differences Approach 2.1 1.TABLE OF CONTENTS COPYRIGHT PAGE DECLARATION ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS DEDICATION ABSTRACT TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES PREFACE CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1.3.2 The Emergence of Traffic Psychology as a Scientific Discipline 2.3.2.

1 Locus of Control 2.4.1 Age 2.5.2.2.5.4.5.3.6.1 Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) 2.4.2 Locus of Control and Driving Behaviour 2.2 Demographic Variables: Age.3.2.2.5.1 Type A Behaviour Pattern and Motor Vehicle Crashes 2.5 Aggression 78 78 84 84 84 84 85 85 x .6 2.2 Hopelessness 2.3 Locus of Control and Ethnicity 2.6 Task Capability Interface (TCI) Theory 2.5.2 Conceptualization and the Research Framework Definition of the Variables 3.1 3.2 Driving Frequency and Traffic Exposure 2.3 Ethnicity 2.1.2 A Contextual Mediated Model of Personality and Behavioral Predictors of Motor Vehicle Crashes 2.4.1.2 Process Models 2.5 2.2 Driver Characteristics 2.2 Zero Risk Theory 2.5.4.1 Demographic Variables 2.3.1 The Haddon Matrix 2.3.3 Locus of Control 3.3.5.3.4.2.5.3 Aggression Proximal Variables in the Present Research 2.1.5.1 Experience 2.4 2.2.5 Use of the Contextual Mediated Model in Other Research Distal Variables in the Present Study 2.5.2.1.3.3.1.2 A Conceptual Shift from TAPB to Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) As A Variable 34 35 37 38 38 39 41 41 42 42 43 45 47 49 50 50 50 52 56 58 58 61 63 63 63 64 67 69 71 73 73 75 CHAPTER 3: METHOD OF INVESTIGATION 3.5 Hierarchical Theories of Driver Adaptation 2.2.7.1. Gender and Ethnicity 3.5.1 Driver Characteristics: Driver Experience and Driving Frequency 3.3 Psychological Variables 2.3 Core Concepts in the Contextual Mediated Model: Moderation and Mediation 2.6.3.2 Gender 2.5.1 Statistical Models 2.2.1 Unidimensional and Multidimensional Constructs 2.4 Hopelessness 3.3.4.7 Attitude-behaviour Theories 2.9.4.5.4 Studies of Driving Behaviour Using the Contextual Mediated Model 2.2.3.5.2.3.2 Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) Descriptive Models of Driver Behaviour 2.2.2.

7.2.7.7.7.7 3.7.3 Study 1C 3.5.1 Chi-Square (χ2).7.5 Hostile Automatic Thoughts (HAT) 3.2 Study 3 Analysis of the Data 3.7.1 The Sample 3.6 Logistic Regression Analysis 3.8 Kolmogorov-Smirnov One-Sample Test 3.6.5.5.7.6 Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index (AGFI) 3.5.2.4 Aggression Questionnaire (AQ) 3.5 Multiple Regression Analysis 3.1 Study 1A 3.4 3.7.7 Expected Cross-Validation Index (ECVI) 3.3.2 Research Instruments 3.7.5 Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) and Comparative Fit Index (CFI) 3.7.4 Study 2 3.6 3.1 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) Scale 3.6 Personal Information Form (PIF) Procedure 3.3 Beck Hopelessness Scale (BHS) 3.4 Linear Regression Analysis 3.2 Study 1B 3.7.8 Crash Occurrence 3.6 Hostile Automatic Thoughts 3.7.7.5.3.8 Parsimony Goodness-of-Fit Index (PGFI) 3.2.5.5.5 3.2 One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) 3.7.7.3 Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) and Root Mean Square Residual (RMR) 3.2. p-Value and χ2/df Ratio 3.3 The General Linear Model (GLM) Univariate Analysis 3.7.2 Levenson Locus of Control Scale 3.3.7.3.7 Structural Equation Modelling 3.2.3.2.7.2.7.9 Skewness and Kurtosis 86 87 88 88 88 88 89 89 90 90 91 93 93 94 94 96 97 97 98 98 99 99 100 100 103 103 104 104 104 105 105 107 107 107 108 108 108 109 109 110 110 xi .7.7 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) 3.7.5 Study 3 Formulation of Hypotheses Methods of Data Collection and Analysis 3.2.7.7.5.6.2.2.1 Studies 1 and 2 3.2 Degree of freedom (df) 3.1 Independent-sample t-tests 3.4 Normed Fit Index (NFI) 3.3 3.3.7.9 Injury Occurrence Research Design of the Studies 3.

12.12 Hypothesis 12: Locus of Control Moderates the Relationship Between Aggression and Behaviour in Traffic 4.6.5 Hypothesis 5: Demographic Variables Influence Hopelessness 4.1 Reliability Test Results: Cronbach’s Alpha 4.1 Description of the Sample 4.1 Hypothesis 1: Behaviour in Traffic Influences Motor Vehicle Crash Outcomes 4.6.5.11 Hypothesis 11: Aggression Influences Behaviour in Traffic 4.15 Hypothesis 15: Hostile Automatic Thoughts Moderate the 112 112 112 114 115 115 116 116 118 118 119 120 120 121 122 124 126 126 130 132 134 134 135 139 140 142 143 143 145 147 149 151 153 153 154 156 157 4.2 Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 1 4.3.6 Hypothesis 6: Locus of control Influences Hopelessness 4.2.2.4 Hypothesis 4: Demographic Variables Influence Locus of Control 4.3.6.1.6.2 Hypothesis 2: Driver Characteristics Influence Behaviour in Traffic 4.6.3 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the AQ Scale 4.6 xii .3 Hypothesis 3: Demographic Variables Influence Behaviour in Traffic 4.6.2 Results of Study 2 4.1 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the BIT Scale 4.10 Hypothesis 10: Demographic Factors Influence Aggression 4.3 Validity Test Results 4. Skewness and Kurtosis Crash and Injury Occurrence Data Distal and Proximal Variable Data 4.3 4.2.6.7 Hypothesis 7: Hopelessness Influences Behaviour in Traffic 4.1. Gender and Ethnicity 4.2.6.CHAPTER 4: ANALYSIS OF DATA 4.6.1 Internality as a Moderator 4.4 4.6.2.12.6.1.2.6.2 Externality-chance and Externality-powerful-others as Moderators 4.2 Parallel-Form Reliability 4.6.9 Hypothesis 9: Hopelessness Moderates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Behaviour in Traffic 4.2 4.2.5.14 Hypothesis 14: Hostile Automatic Thoughts Influence Behaviour In Traffic 4.6.1.13 Hypothesis 13: Demographic Factors Influence Hostile Automatic Thoughts 4.4 Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 3 Reliability and Validity 4.6.3.3 Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 2 4.1 Results of Study 1 4.3 Results of Study 3 Hypothesis Testing 4.4 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the HAT Scale Normality.5.8 Hypothesis 8: Locus of control Influences Behaviour in Traffic 4.6.5 4.2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Levenson Locus of Control Scale 4.3.6.1 Age.

4.4 Testing the Contextual Mediated Model 5.3 Locus of Control and Ethnicity: Malay and Chinese-Malaysian Drivers Aggression Testing the Contextual Mediated Model Using Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) 5.5.4.8 4.1 Study 1C 4.4 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Crash Outcomes Comparison of Automobile Drivers.2 Use of Self-Report Methods 5. Motorcycle Drivers and Taxicab Drivers 4.4.3 Best Fit or Best Model 5.2 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Aggression and Crash Outcomes 4.3.9.5 5.6.8.5.1 Generalisability of Findings 5.5.3 A Contextual Mediated Model for Understanding Factors Influencing Unsafe Driving Hopelessness Locus of Control 5.6.8.3.16 Summary of Hypothesis Tests Testing the Contextual Mediated Model Using Structural Equation Modelling (LISREL Analysis) 4.6.6 xiii .7.7 4.5 What Can be Learned from Testing Contextual Models with SEM? Limitations of the Study and Methodological Considerations 5.3 Study 3 Testing Mediational Relationships Using SPSS 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 5.9.1 5.7.5.4.1 Differences between Automobile Drivers and Motorcycle Drivers 4.2 Study 2: Motorcyclists 5.1 Internal and External Locus of Control as Determinants of Driving Behaviour 5.3 Differences between Motorcycle Drivers and Taxicab Drivers 158 159 163 163 169 170 173 173 173 174 174 176 176 177 177 179 CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION 5.9 Relationship Between Aggression and Behaviour in Traffic 4.2 Goodness of Fit 5.5.5.1 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hopelessness and Crash Outcomes 4.2 Locus of Control and Ethnicity: Indian-Malaysian Drivers 5.6.2 5.5.1 Advantages of Using SEM 5.7.3.4 5.1 Study 1C: Automobile Drivers 5.2 Differences between Automobile Drivers and Taxicab Drivers 4.9.8.2 Study 2 4.8.3 Study 3: Taxicab Drivers 5.3 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hostile Automatic Thought and Crash Outcome 4.5.

7.7.7.1 Generating and classifying crash prevention interventions 5.4.4 Preventive Measures: “The Three E’s” 5.7.4.7. Training and Rehabilitation 5.3 Education 5.1 Theory vs.7.7 5.7.5.2 Factors in Behavioural Adaptation (BA) 5.4.6.3 Driver Selection. Models in Traffic Psychology 5.2 Engineering Interventions 5.4 Measurement of Driving Frequency Implications and Areas for Further Study 5.4.7.4 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 .

10 4.LIST OF TABLES No.1 2.3 114 4.8 111 121 121 122 4.3 3.4 115 117 118 119 4.2 Malaysian Roadway Crashes and Casualties.9 4.4 3.6 4.2 4.1 4.5 4.11 xv . 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. Kurtosis and Skewness Statistics 13 14 57 91 95 97 98 101 112 114 2.5 4.2 3.3 3. Table Page 2. Gender and Ethnicity of Participants in Studies 1.7 4.1 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.

Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 2 (n=122) Means.26 138 139 144 145 4. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1B (n=302) Means.21 135 4.17 129 4. Gender and Ethnicity in Study 1 (N=855) 124 125 Crash Occurrence Frequency.16 128 4.23 136 4. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1A (n=301) Means.28 4.29 xvi .19 133 4.25 138 4.13 4.15 Crash and Injury Occurrence Crash Occurrence Frequency.20 134 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 4.27 4.18 131 4. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1C (n=252) Means. Gender and Ethnicity in Study 2 (N=122) 125 Means.24 137 4.14 4.22 136 4.4.12 4.

1 199 206 207 5.6 xvii .36 4.34 4.3 5.4 208 5.30 4.37 4.4.31 4.35 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 4.32 4.41 175 5.39 4.33 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 4.5 209 225 5.2 5.

2000) Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen.1 3.3 4.1 4.4 2.3 2.2 2. 2000) Contrast between Rotter’s Unidimensional and Levenson’s Multidimensional Conceptual of Locus of Control Research Model (Study 1A and Study 2) Research Model (Study 1B) Research Model (Study 1C) Research Model (Study 3) Interaction Effects between Ethnicity and Internality on BIT Interaction Effect between Ethnicity and Externality-Chance on Usurpation of Right-of Way Moderating Effect of BHS on the Internality-BIT Relationship Moderating Effect of BHS on the Externality (Chance)-BIT Relationship 2. 1996) Task-Capability Theory (after Fuller.8 Proposed Contextual Mediated Model for Safety Research in Agriculture (from Downe.6 2.4 148 xviii .2 3.1 2.10 64 80 81 82 83 146 3. 2003) Inter-variable Relationships in Mediation Models Inter-variable Relationships in Moderation Models Page 36 37 40 42 44 46 47 2. 1996.3 3. Hatakka.LIST OF FIGURES No. 2. 1989) The Haddon Matrix (Noy.5 Figure Task Cube (from Summala.4 4. 1997) Contextual Mediated Model of Personality. Behavioral Predictors and Motor Vehicle Crashes (from Sümer.7 2.2 147 148 4. 2007) 50 Hierarchical Levels of Driving Behavior (after Keskinen.9 59 2.

9 4.7 4.6 4.10 4.5 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 4.8 4.13 xix .12 4.4.

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. is a matter of debate … Obviously. I was confused by the results I was getting. I sure felt like it as I sat there beside her.PREFACE Accidents occur. How important these factors are. I’m pretty happy with it. but she’d nagged him. only a trimester or two earlier. And they crashed. I wanted to throw in the towel.Talib Rothengatter & Raphael Huguenin. I hope it makes a contribution. She started crying and couldn’t stop. I didn’t recognise her at first. I feel like it a bit right now. I’m a fairly big guy. Then one evening into my office came a student from my first-year Critical Thinking class. or wouldn’t. at least not with real tears. They were hurrying. He died instantly and she spent three weeks in the hospital. She told me about the motorcycle crash that had claimed the life of her cousin. they were frustrated and angry with each other. are factors that influence the likelihood of occurrence. . He was driving. They quarreled and then left on his motorbike.D. handle the latent variables I wanted to include in my structural equation model. programme. Her hands and voice quivered. He was very popular with other students. to the weary traveler. My research design needed a serious re-working. they are prone to other types of error as well. The behaviour of the traveller. I told her not to worry. and his mental state. he’d taken the same course as she. Her face and arms had been bruised and lacerated. xx . they were focused on the errand. He didn’t want to go. just every so often. 2004 Some three years or so into my Ph. But sometimes. I feel like it each time I think of that moment. I like to watch boxing. like encounters with fairies and werewolves. finally. I don’t cry much any more. She had needed to go on an errand. She was afraid she had missed too many lectures. I knew the fellow. she was riding pillion. they cut across a lane too quickly. and this thesis is the result. He’d sent me a nice card at Christmas. things were not going well. when humans are prone to imagine fairies or werewolves. but accidents or encounters with fairies or werewolves are random events. lane deviation and all the rest. externally-focused frustration. But. LISREL couldn’t. She had been badly injured. I got back to work on them.

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

roadway. McKenna. 2007). 1989). According to Dewar (2002b). The chapter 1. A total of 10. often labelled as “tragic” (Koh.332 drivers and 15. More challenging has been the attempt to link personality and psychosocial variables to driver behaviour and performance.351. This first chapter of this dissertation presents the background of the study. concludes by noting the delimitations of the research.732 motor vehicles were registered in 2006. 1983). 2003). 2004. there are conflicting findings and associated problems with this research” (p.2 Road Safety in Malaysia Malaysia is a nation of motor vehicle users. and as a “major public health problem” (Subramaniam. 2005). including the study of a large number of variables.252 accidents in 2006 and over 6. with the intent to determine the degree to which measures of aggression. locus of control. p. 1949) have since been replaced by more complex explanations that focus on the interaction between emotional. Malaysia is also a nation with a disproportionately high frequency of motor vehicle accidents. There was a total of 341. the vehicle and the new technologies that are increasingly being deployed by the road and fitted in vehicles” (Carsten. Very early initial attempts to identify an “accident proneness” personality trait (Tiliman & Hobbs. as a “social menace”(Abdul Kareem. hopelessness and other variables interacted to affect attitudes toward driving and the severity and frequency of participants’ self-reported involvement in motor vehicle crashes. The high rate of roadway accidents and deaths has been described in both scholarly and popular print or internet media in extreme terms. 21). However. behavioural and attitudinal characteristics of drivers and the environmental situations in which they find themselves (Haight.790. describes its significance and presents an overview of the methodology used. 2 .112). This dissertation is a report of research into relevant psychosocial variables and their effects on self-reported driving behaviour. The research comprised five separate studies of Malaysian drivers aged 18 to 73 years. 2002.000 fatalities were recorded (Ministry of Transport Malaysia. “the literature on personality has a long history.

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

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

the present research might be seen as making a contribution to our growing understanding of that very interface. (c) driver locus of control. with a view to assessing which preventive measures would be most effective. and (f) drivers’ hostile automatic thoughts would not only affect each other but also four self-reported measures of behaviour in traffic. By better understanding the manner in which psychosocial characteristics of individuals might predispose them to engage in unsafe driving behaviour. While there is no doubt that collective knowledge pertaining to the causality and prevention of roadway crashes is growing exponentially. in which distal psychosocial factors exert an influence on behavioural tendencies more proximally related to the crash event. (e) driver aggression.4 The Professional Significance of the Study With the frequency of roadway crashes. situated as proximal variables. Results of the resulting analyses are detailed in chapter 3. Fifteen hypotheses are formulated to predict that distal variables including: (a) driver age. 1. psychological and behavioural variables inherent in the dynamics leading motor vehicle crashes. 2005. 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. (d) driver hopelessness. By focusing on not only demographic.The aim of the present research is to determine those factors contributing to traffic accidents on Malaysia roadways. but also on their interactions. (b) driving experience. gender and ethnicity. this research is important to organisations and people concerned with driving safety. 9). injuries and deaths. “the basic question must be asked as to whether traffic psychologists can appropriately solve the tasks that are to be mastered at the interface between people and road traffic” (Huguenin. The specific purpose of this thesis is to further knowledge about drivers’ behaviour in traffic by applying Sümer’s (2003) construct of a conceptual mediated model. This is both a key goal and a persistent challenge within the emerging field of traffic psychology. p. it becomes possible to construct a broader awareness of how demographic and personality variables contribute to motor vehicle crashes. 5 .

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

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

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

representative of the characteristics of high-risk Malaysian drivers. These are discussed in detail in chapter 5 of the thesis but relevant issues are introduced here. over the course of 30.are most important in predicting. This issue is discussed at some length in chapter 5 of the thesis. Again. a third model was constructed. in fact.to 45-minute trips. leaving room for questions about the generalisability of findings to populations within and outside Malaysia. data were collected through classroom-based group administration of research instruments. After the initial model-building had been completed. 9 . behavioural inventories and personal profile questionnaires. 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. 1.6 Delimitations All research is confined by the boundaries of its scope and design. In Study 3. A team of researchers flagged down taxi drivers at random and. In Study 2. this time sampling professional taxicab drivers in the Kuala Lumpur area. Generalisability of the present study may be constrained by the single-setting of the subject pool and the limitations of the particular methods selected. where it is argued that the “convenience sample” used in the model-building phases was. a model was constructed using a sample of undergraduate participants for whom motorcycles were the primary mode of transport. with resulting variable relationships compared to the model that had been built from the responses of automobile users in Study 1. Such predictive capabilities were considered to be of importance in any examination of the dynamics leading to risks of roadway crashes and fatalities. Student participants sampled for two of the three studies were selected from an undergraduate population at a single university. verbally administered psychometric instruments.

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

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

but when asked to “describe what Malaysian drivers are like”. These are thought to have contributed. there were 341. “friendly”. “bullies” and “selfish”. inconsiderate and aggressive. the Minister of Health characterised Malaysian roads as “worse than a war zone”. 2006). Downe and Loke (2004) reported that. Malaysian drivers have been consistently characterized as “confrontational”. Over 6. a sample of 348 first-year university students indicated. The high rate of roadway accidents and deaths has been described in scholarly and popular print or internet media in extreme terms. 2005). pointing out that annual fatalities exceed the total deaths among American combat personnel over four years of fighting in Iraq (Zolkepli. “ugly motorists” (“Rude Drivers”. In newspaper reports.1 2.000 fatalities were recorded (Ministry of Transport Malaysia. as a social “menace”(Abdul Kareem.CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 2. “selfish” (“Our Roads are Filled”. 2007). economic expansion. Malaysia has experienced remarkable increases in population. “reckless”. “discourteous” (Davin Arul. A developing country in Southeast Asia. 2007). “patient”. they indicated “angry”. or as “negligent” (“Malaysia Records Highest Single-Day Death Toll”. “peaceful”. 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. 1989). 2003). 2007).1 Human Factors and the Motor Vehicle Safety Problem in Malaysia Roadway Crashes in Malaysia and Public Perceptions of Causality In 2006. “impatient”. when asked to provide five adjectives which would “describe what Malaysians are like”. 2005). 2007). A succession of online weblogs and internet sites authored by tourists and local writers alike have condemned Malaysian drivers as dangerous. “laid-back” and “considerate”. in order of frequency. Nation-wide statistics seem to underscore the popular concern over safety issues. and as a “major public health problem” (Subramaniam. often labelled as “tragic” (Koh. 2005).252 motor vehicle accidents in Malaysia. Recently. industrialisation and motorisation. to a rapid increase 12 . “obnoxious” and “cowardly” (“Cowardly Malaysian Drivers”. in aggregate.1.

2005).in the number of road traffic crashes (Abdul Kareem.20 deaths per 10. in Malaysia. Subramaniam & Law.252 Motor Vehicle Casualties 2002 Fatalities Severe Injuries Minor Injuries Total 35. but still lags behind frequencies in developed countries which generally fall below 3 deaths per 10. 2003.000 vehicles (Law.228 9.040 2004 6.552 37. Studies 13 .425 5.to 25-year-old age group (see table 2. 2002-2006 Motor Vehicle Crashes 2002 Total 279. The number of road fatalities has decreased slightly from 6.091 37.417 47. 2005). 2007).304 in 1994 to 6.000 vehicles in 1996 to 3. 2005). 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.253 source: Royal Malaysian Police (2007) The road accident death rate in Malaysia dropped from 8. Table 2.885 35.98 deaths per 10.012 19.1 summarises the five-year incidence of crashes and injuries. from 189.287 9. one- third of all crashes in Malaysia involve automobile users or motorcyclists within the 16.395 2006 6. This suggests that studies.252 in 2006 (Ministry of Transport Malaysia.109 in 1996 to a total of 341. 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. Mohd Zulkiflee. the number of crashes has increased 80% over the past ten years. Generally.1: Malaysian Roadway Crashes and Casualties.287 in 2006.645 54.236 49. In Malaysia. Radin Umar.264 2006 341.2). Abdul Rahman.653 2004 326.000 vehicles in 2006.815 2005 328.7111 2003 298.286 9. higher than any other age grouping or combination of consecutive age groupings.425 2003 6.415 52.218 2005 6.891 8. & Wong.741 38.200 9.

2006).593 11.820 13.329 100 source:Royal Malaysian Police (2000. 2001).08 541 2.921 100 20.76 22.06 608 3. 2002.953 17.65 121 0.26 463 2.29 708 3.64 135 0. has resulted in considerable economic loss for the country.709 8.67 206 0.67 billion.92 2. Some Ministry of Health estimates of medical costs alone have been as high as RM5.05 2.29 2.81 2.038 13.84 1. 14 .65 2.431 7. 2001.315 17.05 1.71 543 2.341 12.023 5.85 2.448 17. Palamara. with one road accident victim admitted to hospital every six minutes (Bernama.08 2.94 1. It has been reported that.21 3.418 100 19.27 458 2.48 323 1.7 billion. in 1999 alone.68 128 0.07 2.416 6.81 1.469 15.47 280 1.22 150 0. Morrison & Ryan.110 10.034 4.of university-aged drivers are critical to understanding behavioural and situational factors that predict the most commonly occurring class of crashes (Stevenson.50 979 4.025 9.61 99 0.90 159 0. Recent international analyses have placed the total economic burden at around RM7 billion yearly.178 15.620 7.803 9.205 11.15 3.77 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. or an average of RM4.68 3.086 9.180 10.85 147 0.45 30 0. 2003).49 450 2.97 1.216 10. general insurers paid RM1.92 1.997 14.16 90 0.81 3.6 million a day on motor claims (Abdul Kareem.99 164 0.80 203 0.10 3.947 10.049 15. and particularly among younger drivers. Table 2.15 43 0.82 1.72 554 2.08 585 2.40 1.07 2. 2005).54 708 3.389 6.56 3.41 302 1.37 337 1.4 billion to RM5.05 2.551 12.23 2.94 2.63 160 0.378 11.005 15.48 105 0.08 1.91 984 4.31 3. 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.967 100 19.4% of the Gross Domestic Product (Asian Development Bank.94 625 3. or about 2.11 2.15 572 2.309 10.

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

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

causal factors underlying crash and injury rates on Malaysian roadways have remained largely understudied. Chalmers & Langley. was personality or demographic factors of motorcyclist samples investigated. perhaps. 17 . they reported that the Asian-wide economic recession significantly contributed to a reduction in traffic fatalities. For instance. (2005) also examined the impact of a national motorcycle safety programme (MSP) on crashes and found that it had effected a 25% reduction in the number of motorcycle accidents. Conducting time-series regression analyses of police data. 1996). Ahmad Hariza. Bartle & Truman. The research that has been undertaken has tended to focus largely on the contribution of broader economic and social variables. rather than personality factors.2 Studies of Causal Factors in Malaysian Roadway Crashes Notwithstanding this public outcry. risky behaviour (Chang & Yeh. however. Law et al. a needed focus in the analysis of programme effects. 2007). This is. Zulkaurnain and Kulanthayan (2005) examined the impact of economic variables on motorcycle-related crashes. Ward. In the same study. since studies in other parts of the world have found that individual differences play a significant role in determining rider training outcomes. MSP interventions had been aimed at modifying motorcycle riders’ awareness and attitudes of safety issues related to helmet use.general understanding of the causes and potential prevention strategies related to the country’s traffic safety problem. respectively. Radin Umar and Kulanthayan (1999) found that the same MSP had significantly improved motorcycle riders’ perception and understanding of safety issues. Radin Umar. reasons and social contexts of motorcycle use (Reeder. 2. In a separate study. Musa. due to fewer trips and reduced traffic exposures as a result of slower economic activity. Mohd Nasir.1. injuries and fatalities. In none of the studies of the MSP. conspicuity and excessive speeding. Law. or else on the evaluation of specific safety interventions. with a 27% and 38% drop in the rate of motorcycle casualties and motorcycle fatalities. 2007) and crash Type And liability (Clarke.

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

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

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

1993). Preston & Harris.1 An Applied Perspective Ever since Tillman and Hobbs (1949) stated that “a man drives as he lives” (p.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. 21 . accuracy of witness recall of crash details (Crombag. the lack of replication of many studies. there has been an interest in driver personality. the picture that emerges is indeed grave. especially considering the salience of transportation in the routines of daily life. the use of inconsistent crash definitions. 2003). Underwood & Milton. 321). motivation and behavioural performance as potential underlying causal factors in driver behaviour (Jonah. It would seem that very few of the studies on accident predictors are actually possible to interpret in any straightforward way. and we are left with a very vague knowledge of what psychological variables can actually predict accidents (p. 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.2.2. information processing. 1997a). Other methodological factors that may cloud the relationship between psycho-social variables. 2002. the extent of exposure of drivers to the driving task (af Wahlberg. 1965) but did not really gain momentum until the 1980s (Risser. 1961. Novaco (2000) argued that: The field of transportation has always had a rich potential for psychology. and the influence of car and driver stereotypes on attributions of crash blameworthiness (Davies & Patel. 2003). Wagenaar & van Koppen. 482).2 The Emergence of Traffic Psychology as a Scientific Discipline 2.2. 2. driving behaviour and crash-related outcomes include: the use of self-reported crash data. 1996. 2005). psychologists have given scant attention to this topic. Nevertheless.

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

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

Stanton & Young. Noy. 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. predict and modify road user behaviour. particularly the notions of mental load. Walker. though. in which the goal is to manage automation and dynamic function allocations. 2001). Jannssen. 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. 1997. Theories and Models In attempting to understand. These applications are consistent with the paradigms Boff (2006) has described as “Generation Two” ergonomics. 2. This involves the coherent grouping of general propositions for use as principles in explaining various classes of driving phenomena. 26).tasks to human capabilities and limitations. 2006.1 Theories of Driving Behaviour Concepts. 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. Increasingly. and “Generation Three” ergonomics. which focuses on symbiotic technologies that amplify human physical and cognitive capabilities.3. traffic psychologists frequently engage in theory-building. error and cognitive modelling. Concepts are the building blocks for theory and may be defined as: 24 . 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. a paradigm that Boff (2006) described as “Generation One” ergonomics. According to Barjonet & Tortosa (2001). 2004).3 2. Neerincx & Schriebers. “This school of though.

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

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

found that a sample of young Canadian automobile drivers. but not occupational accidents. However. In a large number of studies of specific samples from various countries. Of the five factors examined – extraversion. thrill and adventure seeking and tended to avoid socially stimulating situations when compared with violators. 1995. Drawing from a large pool of data that included personality measures and both traffic and work-related statistics for 34 nations. the first of which was characterised by low levels of altruism and anxiety and high levels of sensation-seeking. In an attempt to identify subtypes of young Norwegian drivers. 1980) and other safety outcomes. the search for individual differences relevant to crash involvement continues to yield a large body of literature. or “Big Five” personality model (Costa & McRae. McRae &Costa. Clarke and Robertson (2005) conducted a meta-analysis of 47 studies reporting relationships between accident involvement and the dimensions of the Five Factor Model (FFM). agreeableness and openness – the authors found low conscientiousness and low agreeableness to be valid and generalisable predictors of accident involvement in both occupational and non-occupational settings. without driving violations had lower scores on measures of risk-taking behaviour. 1979). anxiety and driving anger. for instance. irresponsibility and driving related aggression. Ulleberg (2001) found two high-risk groups. while the second high-risk group reported high sensation-seking. conscientiousness. the extraversion variable has been associated with a higher frequency of traffic offences (Renner & Anderle. aggression. Lajunen (2001) reported that countries with high extraversion scores had more traffic fatalities than those with moderate or low extraversion scores. According to Rothengatter (2002). “these findings have yet to be embodied in a general theory of differential crash risk. There have been theories of crash causation that have focused on particular groups of 27 . neuroticism. Similar studies of driver risk-taking and other individual differences have been largely absent with Asian populations and non-existent in Malaysia. aged 16 to 29 years. crash frequency (Pestonjee & Singh. poorer perception of traffic signs (Loo. 1990). extraversion was found to predict traffic accidents. 2000).Trimpop and Kirkcaldy (1997).

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

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

So. but the authors reported that the heterogeneous nature of sub-groups did not permit comparisons. This concept does not prejudge the issue of causation. screened for operational and prevalence rates related to accident proneness within work.2 Differential Accident Involvement McKenna (1983) suggested that the accident proneness concept should be replaced by the less historically loaded term “differential accident involvement”. Despite the low repute in which many have regarded the accident proneness concept. 1998). The concept itself is ill-defined. Ultimately. 562). pp.sports. because individuals can experience multiple accidents because of chance alone and also because of a higher exposure to risk independent of personal factors” (p. no stable personality characteristics that can be identified with accident-proneness have been discovered. Neeleman and Rosmalen (2007) have published a meta-review of 79 studies. 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. Only 15% of the studies included in their analysis had been conducted on road user crash experience. “it is still difficult to identify the accident prone individuals that compose this group. it is still generating research and controversy (Vavrik.3. Alternative explanations must be found for persons experiencing multiple accidents (Lindsey. roadway.. 8-9). it denotes an area of study rather than a theory.05.3. Pijl. therefore. sports and family settings. 1993). While their stated conclusion was that an accident prone group definitely existed. in no case did correlations between traffic crashes and other types of accidents exceed r =. Visser. and assumes that individuals may vary along a continuum with regard to factors that affect their risk of crash (Elander et al. 1980. It is seen as preferable to earlier formulations because it places more emphasis on contributing factors outside the person. moving away from the main conceptual criticism of traditional 30 . Stolk. the consensus position became that: Accident proneness as a concept has little use in practical accident prevention. 2.

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. However. 1988) proposed that a control mechanism operates to keep overall risk per unit time constant. people strive to maintain a target level of risk all the time and. For example. following their review of the literature. Elander et al. large earth-moving 31 . 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. 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.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.4. 2.3. 2000). in a study of driving on icy roads. suddenly confronted with uneven pavement. they adjust their behaviour to eliminate the discrepancy. crash barriers. Dewar (2002b) noted that the notion of differential liability allows for the observation that some individuals do. 2. Wilde (1982. That is. The introduction of divided highways.1 Risk Homeostasis Theory (RHT) In an attempt to explain these findings. early studies showed that the actual safety effects of engineering interventions often were much less than expected stimulated an interest in the way that drivers reacted to them.3..accident proneness (Chmiel. substantially. albeit not crash occurrence. but avoids the assumption of a stable phenomenon that accounts for more accidents in all situations. experience more accidents than others. A driver who enters a construction zone. in fact. concluded that differential crash risk is not readily accounted for by previous crash rates.

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

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

2004.4. p.(1986) concluded that “risk homeostasis theory should be rejected because there is no convincing evidence supporting it and much evidence refuting it” (p. Summala (1986) suggested that estimating time-to-collision. after a similar review. 1987. Rather. some degree of risk during the performance of this task. a necessary and highly controversial assumption in Wilde’s theory. At this point. Michon (1989) noted that most studies attempting to support the RHT deal with data only at the aggregate level. drivers avoid ‘feeling fear’ (hence. zero-risk theory still retains some of its conceptual shortcomings. Only when the subjective risk reaches a level that was not anticipated will the drivers change their behaviour. 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. drivers compare the distance from hazards or time-tocollision to a subjective safety margin threshold and take action only when the threshold is exceeded. 92). experience ‘zero-risk’) when they drive by anticipating. or expecting. 81). O’Neill and Williams (1998). Fuller (2005) has argued that the theory’s premise that safe margins are learned creates an implausible requirement to recognise. In addition. In other words. 26). and 34 . Rothengatter (2002) has questioned how drivers can determine that a threshold has been exceeded if they do not constantly assess risk. for example. 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.3. While overcoming many of the criticisms levied at RHT with regard to the concepts of target risk and the risk discrepancy comparative process. is a very basic human skill that can be carried out in the absence of extensive conscious processing. increasing safety margins” (Brown & Noy. Summala’s zero-risk model of driver behaviour (Summala & Näätänen. 2.2 Zero Risk Theory Another risk-based theory. they experience uncomfortable feelings of fear and abruptly change behaviour. Summala. 1988) proposed that drivers do not constantly assess risk while driving.

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

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. Automated) Navigation Speed and time control Guidance Vehicle control Lane keeping etc. Even though it is true that the performance on one task can bear consequences for the performance for the other. Rothengatter (2002) questioned the concept of a hierarchy. but that is not 36 . seemingly concurrently. criticised the model for being overly complicated and resembling “more a description or a list of important variables than a solid model” (p. 15). for example. 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.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. a property absent within the task cube concept. 1996) Keskinen et al. (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. at the same time. Headway control Obstacle avoidance Crossing management Passing and other maneuvers FUNCTIONAL TAXONOMY Figure 2.1: Task Cube (from Summala.

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

people’s behaviour is determined by their intention to perform the behaviour. largely due to the focus that has been provided by the theory of reasoned action (TRA. Two limitations have been noted. Intention is determined by the summed effects of: (a) attitudes toward the behaviour.3. subjective norms and behavioural intentions can be used to predict behaviour. Fishbein & Ajzen. 1985. and Keskinen et al. p.6. 1985. 2004. Intention is the cognitive representation of an individual’s readiness to engage in a given behaviour.7 Attitude-behaviour Theories 2. time pressure). 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. (2004) have argued that it is deserving of more attention than it has received to date. 1975) and the subsequent theory of planned behaviour (TPB: Ajzen. Rothengatter (2002) has stressed that the perception of capability is often influenced by external factors (impairment. traffic psychology has seen a resurgence of interest in the role played by attitudes. providing an account of the way in which attitudes. generally referring to a positive or negative 38 . 40). p. 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. Generally. however. Langdridge (2004) describes the theory of reasoned action as one of the most important theories in attitude-behaviour research. emotional state.Fuller’s theory has. been regarded as potentially more productive than earlier risk-based theories. the notion of matching competence with task demand promises to be very useful in understanding driver behaviour. and is considered to be the immediate antecedent of behaviour. such that it is not capability but perceived capability that interfaces with task demand. 126). neither of which was originally intended as a way of explaining driver behaviour. 2. for the most part. It generally refers to the thoughts and feelings that impel us to behave in one way and not in another” (Parker. institutions or issues (Chaplin. Since 1985. 1991).3.1 Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) An attitude is a relatively stable and enduring predisposition to behave or react in a certain way toward persons. According to the TRA. objects.

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

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

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

g. the vehicle (V). 1998. some researchers have argued that the Haddon Matrix is limited by the way it considers each element independently. R. Nguntra.2 Process Models 2.locations and settings (e.4.1 The Haddon Matrix Traditional studies of human factors in road safety have tended to view transportation as a system with four major component elements: the human (H). 2. however. 1997. PRE-CRASH CRASH POST-CRASH BASIC ELEMENTS OF A HIGHWAY EVENT Human (H) Vehicle (V) Road (R) Environment (E) Figure 2.4). Law. 1999). More recently. Mahasakpan.. E and especially H factors.2. Koonchote & Tantiratna. within specific situational contexts. Swaddiwudhipong.4: The Haddon Matrix (Noy. the road (R) and the environment (E).4. One way of accomplishing this may be through the creation of models that stress the mediational role played by certain V. concealing the interactions that underlie the behaviour of real traffic systems (Noy. and have proposed expanding the matrix to better provide for the analysis of inter-relationships between each of the four basic elements. Seow & Lim. 1997) 42 . 2000). Richardson & Downe. Haddon (1970) proposed a framework in which each of these elements could be examined as part of an analytical matrix (see Figure 2. This model has been instrumental in stimulating research designs and accident interventions for the last thirty yeasrs (Williams. 1994).

speeding. Sümer (2003) used this as a point of departure for the construction of a contextual mediated model for predicting the effects of personality and behavioural variables on roadway crashes. or crash risk may influence the behavioural measure (p.g. the proximal context is made up of driver behaviours and attitudes (e. it may happen to correlate with some other factor that influences crash risk but play no role itself. 283). gender. substance abuse) that. are affected by specific or collective factors from the distal context and. on one hand. 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. Factors within the distal context include not only road. there are four possible explanations: the behavioural measure may directly influence crash risk.2 A Contextual Mediated Model of Personality and Behavioural Predictors of Motor Vehicle Crashes Elander et al. as well. reckless lane transitions or overtaking.2. extraversion. relevant factors are grouped as occurring within either the distal context or the proximal context of the accident (see Figure 2. aggression). age. vehicle and environmental conditions related to accident causation but a range of driver demographic (e.g. when one observes a correlation between a behavioural measure and crash risk. sensation seeking. contribute directly to crash outcomes. driving experience) and psychological characteristics (e. Personality factors within the 43 . Therefore. (1993) discussed the problem of choosing predictor variables in studies of behavioural and personality influences on road-traffic crash risk..4. more proximal variable..5). arguing that: Correlational studies suffer from the inescapable problem that causality cannot be established.2. on the other hand. it may influence crash risk through some other.. Within the generic model. By contrast.g.

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

2004) and a distinction can be drawn between partial mediation and complete mediation (Wei. the variable X is called the initial or predictor variable and it causes the variable Y. 2006). moderating or mediating effects.2. then it can be concluded that complete mediation occurs. drivers’ safety skills were a mediator of the effects of personality or cultural background on crash frequency. 45 . Figure 2.4. process or transformation exists through which one variable influences another (Frazier. driver impairment and so on) were hypothesised to mediate the effect of distal variables on the frequency or likelihood of crash outcomes. then the significance level of path c would be reduced to insignificance or a less significant level (path c’). 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. while path a represents the effect of X on some mediator variable. In Sümer’s (2003) generic contextual mediated model. which in turn exerts an effect on Y through path b (Baron & Kenny. 2004). in which there are two causal paths feeding into the outcome variable: path c′ depicts the direct effect of X on Y. proximal variables (including safety skill levels. Mediation can be said to occur when some mechanism.6(i). such that path c′ is zero. Heppner & Mallinckrodt. mediators are variables that represent constructs proposed to explain the association between two variables (Hoyle & Robinson. Also termed intervening variables. Tix and Barron.3 Core Concepts in the Contextual Mediated Model: Moderation and Mediation Inter-variable relationships within the contextual mediated model can have direct. for instance. M. Regression analyses can be used to test these causal paths to the outcome variable. called the outcome. driver propensities to commit errors or violations. 1986).2.6(ii) illustrates the basic causal chain involved in mediation. If. 2003). In Figure 2. In the case where X no longer affects Y after M has been controlled.

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

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

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

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

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. Retting. 2002. in a study of safety training methods and personality factors in Malaysian rubber and palm oil plantations. 2003).. 2003.g.g.5 2. Not only are they the most likely age group to be involved in crashes. proposed the use of a contextual mediated model for further research on agricultural safety (see Figure 2. Odero et al. heterogeneity in group composition: Part of this may be due to 50 . Type A. Campbell & Williams. 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. they have been less well studied than other groups and the general understanding of age effects is not clear. but young drivers are more likely to sustain crash-related injuries and to die in vehicular crashes (Massie.1 Distal Variables in the Present Study Demographic Variables 2. Weinstein & Solomon.. Yet. uncertainty avoidance)  temperamental factors (e.1 Age Young drivers are significantly over-represented among those injured or killed in road traffic crashes (Ballesteros & Dischinger. 1997.5.Downe (2007). 1995). 2007) 2. Williams & Shabanova..8).8: Proposed Contextual Mediated Model for Safety Research in Agriculture (from Downe.1.5.

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

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

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

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

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

Lajunen. Summala and Hartley (1998). Levine. But. Marine. finding that the former group had higher fatality rates. that expanded the standards for collection of data on race and ethnicity in 1999 (Briggs. Hauswald (1999) studied the incidence of covert non-compliance with seat belt regulations among Malaysian taxi drivers.S. differences in fatalities persisted. Goldweig and Warren. Conducting curb-side inspections of taxicabs in Kuala Lumpur. Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS). Melinder concluded that the type of religion and wealth were important distal factors. Haliburton. Romano. In one of the few studies reported. traffic safety regulations and traffic fatalities. Garrett. he found that 60% of drivers had positioned belts or shoulder straps in a manner that appeared to 56 . for instance.1.2. more frequent histories of speeding offences and more extreme alcohol use. Very little cross-cultural research related to traffic safety has been carried out in Southeast Asia. On the other hand. Melinder (2007) compared 15 Western European countries with regard to the relation between different sociocultural factors.3 Ethnicity A growing number of studies have examined the effect of ethnic differences on driving behaviour and crash outcomes. Harper. To a large degree. White and Hispanic drivers regarding red light violations. reported few differences between Australians and Finns. Being a non-wealthy Catholic country was associated with higher fatality rates than being a wealthy Catholic country. Schlundt. Despite the fact that countries’ regulatory frameworks were becoming increasingly similar.5. 2005). being a wealthy Catholic country was associated with more traffic fatalities than were wealthy. Lezotte and Lowenstein (2000) compared Hispanic and non-Hispanic white motorists in the state of Colorado. Corry. A few studies have endeavoured to compare national driving cultures in terms of crash risk. Tippetts and Voas (2005) found no differences between African-American. this has been the result of a change in reporting protocols within the U. lower rates of safety belt use. nonCatholic countries.

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

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

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

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

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

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

1991. Originally conceptualised by Rotter (1966.1 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. Stanley & Burrows. Levenson constructed a scale has been used widely in studies of locus of control (e. 63 . she assumed that the three resulting dimensions were conceptually independent. Levenson (1975. she separated the externality dimension into two. 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. according to the strength of their tendencies toward making attributions of internal or external control.5. 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. 1975.3 Psychological Variables 2. She argued that “it is quite conceivable that a person who believes in control by powerful others may also perceive enough regularity in the actions of such people as to believe that he or she can obtain reinforcements through purposeful action” (p.10).2.5.1 Locus of Control 2. bipolar continuum along which individuals could be placed. such that it could be possible for an individual to score high on all three (see Figure 2. people who attribute behaviour to an internal locus of control. In contrast.1. or internals.5. view most events as dependent on chance or controlled by powers beyond human reach. one to reflect the influence of fate or chance (C) and the second to reflect the influence of powerful others (P).. 1990).g. or externals . and second. Based on this multidimensional conceptualisation. Hyman. Rotter’s (1966) original I-E conceptualisation of the locus of control construct viewed it as a unidimensional. people are thought to vary on a continuum between the two extremes of external and internal locus of control. 2006. 1981) extended this concept in two ways: first. believe that very few events are outside the realm of human influence and that even cataclysmic situations may be altered through human action. 15). Holder & Levi. 1999).3.3.

According to Phares (1976).3. a deity or higher power or other external circumstances Internalizers Individuals believe that what happens is the result of their own personal decisions and efforts.Luckner. Liverant and Scodel (1960) studied betting preferences using a simple dice-throwing task. They also tended to bet more on safe outcomes than did the more externally oriented subjects.Chance High Low Externality – Powerful Others High Figure 2. Sinha & Watson.2 Locus of Control and Driving Behaviour Very early studies examined a link between locus of control and risk taking. They found that subjects with high internal control seemed to prefer intermediate probability bets or extremely safe bets over so-called long shots.1. E Unidimensional Model I Externalizers Individuals believe that what happens is determined by fate. 64 . luck. Multidimensional Model Low Internality High Low Externality . 1989.5.10: Contrast between Rotter’s Unidimensional and Levenson’s Multidimensional Conceptualisations of Locus of Control 2. these results supported the idea that internals would be more cautious in their control efforts while externals would engage in riskier behaviour. 2007) and has given rise to a number of other instruments measuring multi-dimensional locus of control.

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

leading the authors to conclude that “if a relationship exists. driving skills were negatively correlated with externality scores. offences. rather than examining its interaction with other predictors. On the other hand. This study provided support for the view that the effects of personality traits on driving 66 . hostility was associated with worse DDB to a greater extent among drivers scoring low on internality than among drivers scoring high on internality. Verwey and Zaidel (2000) observed that people scoring high on measures of external locus of control made more road departure errors than those scoring high on measures of with an internal locus of control.Although externals reported more risk taking this trend was not significant. (1991) argued that these equivocal results were due to overly simple research designs which tended to investigate direct effects of locus of control. In an important study. it strongly moderated the relationship between hostility and DDB. it may not be of sufficient magnitude to be of value. Gidron. an internal locus of control was found to be associated with lower levels of crash involvement and with higher levels of cognitive ability. (p. when Lajunen and Summala (1995) gave Finnish university students a series of questionnaires that assessed driving abilities and personality. although scores on externality dimensions did not relate significantly to any of those dependent variables. That is. In a similar study investigating personality attributes and driving behaviour. Özkan and Lajunen (2005) found that internals reported a higher number of total crashes. cognitive. They found that. although internality was unrelated to DDB. 1260). personality and demographic/biographical predictors of vehicular involvement. The same driving skill scores were positively correlated with an internal locus of control. Arthur et al. aggressive and ordinary traffic violations and driving errors. In a much earlier study. Gal and Desevilya (2003) investigated the interaction between road-hostility and internal locus of control in predicting the occurrence of self-reported dangerous driving behaviour (DDB). Hoyt (1973) reported that internals reported wearing seat belts more often and experienced highway travel as more interesting and involving. In a meta-analysis of information-processing.

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

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

Sinha & Watson. 1973).Justification of hypotheses about locus of control. Gilbody. hopelessness has been consistently shown to be a predictor of suicidal intent (Beck. Träskman-Bendz & Alsén. while the two dimensions of externality would have positive associations. First. it was hypothesised that internality would have a negative association with unsafe behaviour in traffic. Personality traits closely aligned with given mood states might well be expected to have an impact on the performance on driving tasks. Fox & Klerman.2 Hopelessness Rothengatter (2002) and Groeger (1997) have both noted the paucity of research on affect and driver behaviour. Beresford & Neilly. Weissman. Finally. 1975). Hopelessness has not been previously studied as a predictor either of driving behaviour or of crash risk. Given the strong research evidence suggesting an association between internal locus of control and less risky driving behaviour (Lajunen & Summala. 2005). 1991.5. Ohberg. McMillan. In the present study. Kovacs and Weissman. 1997. Niméus. it was hypothesised that locus of control would moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic. but there are two conceptual arguments for doing so. 2. et al. anticipate a negative outcome to any attempts that may be made to attain the individual’s major objectives or goals (Beck. Based on the findings reported by Gidron et al. Pentilla and Lonnqvist (1997) studied all fatal car crashes in Finland from 1987 to 1991 and found that 5. (2003). Hopelessness is one such trait in which the behaviour of individuals is derived from specific cognitive distortions that systematically misconstrue experiences in a negative way and. it was hypothesised that Chinese participants would tend toward higher externality scores while Indian participants would tend toward higher internality. 1987. 1995. given the large number of studies indicating ethnic differences in locus of control (Crittendon.9% could be classified as having an intentional suicidal component. Montag & Comrey. indirectly. on crash and injury occurrence.3. 2007. locus of control was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. Cases usually 69 . 1975. 2007). Özkan & Lajunen. without objective basis.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Then.2. In the resulting measure of this variable. three demographic variables (driver age. 3. the influence of driving experience.9 Injury Occurrence Participants also indicated whether they had been forced to seek medical treatment for an injury incurred during the reported crash..8 Crash Occurrence Participants reported whether or not they had experienced a motor vehicle crash. to contemporaneous roadway and traffic 3. gender and ethnicity) and two psychological variables (locus of control and hopelessness) on BIT was tested. while driving. within the preceding twelve months and provided details about the nature of the crash.2. a “1” was scored if the participant reported that they had sought treatment at a medical clinic or had required hospitalisation as a result of physical injury sustained during the crash and a “0” was scored if the participant reported that the crash had resulted in no damage or only damage to the vehicle. travel frequency.them (e.3 3. (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.1 Research Design of the Study Study 1A Specifically.g. urging others to move faster or out of the way by sounding the horn). to the extent of inattention conditions. a “1” was scored if the participant reported a crash and a “0” was scored if the participant did not report a crash. and.3. 3. Then. 88 . the interrelationships between the demographic variables. 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. in Study 1A. In the resulting measure of this variable.

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

3. the psychological variables and BIT were examined. or the length of time they had been licensed to operate a taxicab. Two measures of experience were included: (a) driving experience. Finally. the mediating effect of the BIT on the relations between psychological variables and crash occurrence and injury occurrence was tested. First. using a sample that indicated motorcycles as their primary mode of transportation. or the length of time they had held a valid automobile operator’s licence. Finally. In Study 3. 3. Figure 3. 90 . the mediating effect of the BIT on the relations between psychological variables and crash occurrence and injury occurrence was tested. and (c) the moderating effect of hostile automatic thoughts on the relationship between aggression and BIT.4 Study 2 The research design for Study 1A was replicated.of control on the relationship between aggression and BIT. three demographic variables (driver age and ethnicity) and two psychological variables (locus of control and aggression) on BIT was tested. the moderating effect of locus of control on the relationship between aggression and BIT was assessed. Figure 3. Variables and analyses in Study 2 were the same as those carried out in Study 1A.4 illustrates the research design for Study 3. and (b) taxi experience.3. It should be noted that certain of the variables examined with the automobile drivers in Study 1 and with the motorcycle drivers in Study 2 were not included when taxicab drivers were sampled in Study 3. Then. This was justified for three reasons. In Study 3. the interrelationships between the demographic variables. the influence of experience. Then.1 illustrates the research design for Study 2.3. Figure 3. the effects of both measures of experience were controlled and the extent to which self-reported BIT predicted crash and injury occurrence in automobile drivers was assessed.5 Study 3 The final study used a sample of on-duty taxicab drivers.3 illustrates the research design for Study 1C.

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 H2.2.1. the following fifteen hypotheses and sixty sub-hypotheses were formulated: Table 3.4 Formulation of Hypotheses Based on the conceptualisation and research framework.1: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.2.2 :Freeway urgency will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.2: Freeway urgency will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1. limitations were imposed on administration time by driver willingness to participate and by research cost considerations.1: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.1.3:Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on crash occurrence 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. potentially raising questions of reliability and validity.1: Driver experience will have a negative influence on total BIT score H2.2.1.3: Taxicab experience will have a negative influence on total BIT score 91 .given that data were collected during in situ interview and testing sessions with drivers during a rolling trip from point to point through Kuala Lumpur streets.1: Research Hypotheses STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 H1: Behaviour in traffic will have a positive influence on motor vehicle crash outcomes H1. Gender was not included as a demographic variable in Study 3 because all taxicab drivers in the sample were male. a risk that would have been unethical to impose both on the drivers and on the research assistants who were collecting the data. 3.1: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.1. instruments employed to measure hopelessness and hostile automatic thoughts used language and response formats not conducive to verbal administration procedures.2.3: Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.2: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.4:Destination-Activity orientation will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1. Third. Second.2: Travel frequency will have a negative influence on total BIT score H2.

1: Age will influence Locus of Control: Internality H4.1: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Internality H4.3.2: Ethnicity will influence total BIT score H3.4: Aggression will have a positive influence on Destination-Activity Orientation 92 .3: Age will have a negative influence on total BIT score Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y H4: Demographic variables will influence locus of control H4.1: Internality will have a negative influence on Hopelessness H6.2: Gender will influences Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.1: Aggression will have a positive influence on Usurpation of Right-of Way H11.1.1.2: Ethnicity will influence Aggression H10.2: Externality-Chance will have a positive influence on Hopelessness H6.3: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Externally-focused Frustration H7.2: Ethnicity will influence Hopelessness H5.3.2: Age will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.3: Externality-Powerful-Others will have a positive influence on total BIT score H9: Hopelessness will moderate the locus of control-BIT Relationship H9.2.1: Gender 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: Ethnicity will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.1: Hopelessness will moderate the Internality-BIT relationship H9.2: Hopelessness will moderate the Externality(Chance)-BIT relationship H9.3: Age will have a negative influence on Hopelessness H6.1 (continued) STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 3 H3: Demographic variables will influence behaviour in traffic H3.2: Externality-Chance will have a positive influence on total BIT score H8.3: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H4.1.2.1: Gender will influence total BIT score H3.3: Aggression will have a positive influence on Externally-focused Frustration H11.1: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Usurpation of Right-of Way H7.Table 3.2.1: Ethnicity will influence Locus of Control: Internality H4.3.1: Internality will have a negative influence on total BIT score H8.2: Aggression will have a positive influence on Freeway Urgency H11.3: Hopelessness will moderate the Externality(Powerful-Other)-BIT relationship H10: Demographic variables will influence aggression H10.3: Age will have a negative influence Aggression Y Y Y Y Y Y H11: Aggression will have a positive influence on behaviour in traffic H11.3: Age will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others Y Y Y Y Y Y H5: Demographic variables will influence hopelessness H5.1: Gender will influence Hopelessness H5.2: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Freeway Urgency H7.3: Ethnicity will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H4.4: Hopelessness will have positive influence on Destination-Activity Orientation H8: Locus of Control will influence behaviour in traffic H8.

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

Participants in Studies 1 and 2 were not remunerated. I try to urge its driver to move 94 . For inclusion in the study. all of whom possessed a valid driving licence and a commercial permit for the operation of a taxicab. Participants were provided with an opportunity to receive a debriefing report about the results of the study by e-mail and/or. with one of the items in each pair written to measure a TABP response and the other a contradictory statement (e.5. Synodinos and Papacostas (1985) developed 26 pairs of two-alternative items. by postal mail. in the case of Study 3 participants. 1978). Participants were recruited during a curb-side introduction of the study by one of a group of four research assistants. during a point to point trip. Stokals & Campbell. In all cases. Novaco. High total scores on the scale are considered to be indicative of Type A behaviour while low total scores were considered to be indicative of a type B approach to driving. participation was voluntary and confidentiality was assured.2 Research Instruments 3.5. although results were used to demonstrate teaching points related to the syllabus at a point later in the trimester. while participants were driving.time when they travelled. Data collection took place within the taxicab. This sample was combined from all three rounds of classroom data collection. 3.g..1 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) Scale This 52-item measures time-urgent behaviour. Drawing from the earlier Driving Habits Questionnaire (DHQ. Participants in Study 3 were taxicab drivers in the Kuala Lumpur area. “ When a traffic light turns green and the car in front of me doesn’t get going immediately. consistent with of a Type A Behaviour Pattern (TAPB) when driving (see Appendix A). Stokols. participants had to have a minimum of six months’ experience as a taxicab drivers and no gaps in their taxi operator’s license longer than three months. Participants in Study 3 received the meter or negotiated fare for the trip.2.

2. I usually think about what I have to do when I get there. to school or to an appointment with someone. Freeway urgency 14 III.” II. Items in Form A and Form B are presented in random order. I usually drive a few kilometres above the speed limit.” “On a clear highway.” “I often blow my horn at someone as a way of expressing my frustration. then the item of the pair representing the opposite end of the continuum was placed in Form B and vice versa. Usurpation of right-ofway No. I try to move that lane as soon as possible. In a later study.” “I get extremely irritated when I am travelling behind a slow moving vehicle. On each form.” “When a motor vehicle cuts in front of me. Synodinos and Papacostas reported that Form A and Form B (which correlated . Items were presented in two alternate forms (Form A and Form B).” “I often find myself checking the time while driving to work.” “I usually get upset at drivers who do not signal their driving intentions. of items 24 Sample items “When I am in a traffic jam and the lane next to mine starts to move.91) were found to be internally consistent. I usually feel like pushing them off the road.2: Dimensions of the BIT scale Factor I. based on a principal components analysis of earlier-reported data. Destination-activity orientation 8 Total 52 95 . I just wait for a while until it moves”) for a total of 52 item stems.on” versus “When a traffic light turns green and the car in front of me doesn’t get going immediately. Table 3.80.” “While travelling to work (or to school). Papacostas and Synodinos (1988) provided additional psychometric parameters of the BIT scale. 20 items are answered on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from “most like me” to “least like me”. as indicated in table 3. 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”. with a coefficient alpha of . such that if the TABP alternative of an item pair was placed in Form A. Their analysis revealed four dimensions.

References to the “gas pedal” were replaced by “accelerator”. High scores on the externality-chance (C) scale indicate that respondents expect expect chance forces or luck to have control over their lives. References to the faster. Participants scored all 24 items on a 6-point scale. It contains three 8-item sub-scales that measure perceptions about the level of control exercised over the events and circumstances in their lives. A sample item is “Although I might have good ability. High scores on the externality-powerful-others (P) scale indicate that respondents expect that powerful others exert a high degree of control over their lives. References to “miles per hour” were changed to “kilometres per hour”. I will not be given leadership responsibility without appealing to those in positions of power”. High scores on the internality (I) scale indicate that respondents expect to have a high degree of control over their own lives.Certain items in the original American version were re-worded to make them relevant to the Malaysian context and driving jargon.2. The phrase “cross-junction” was added to items pertaining to behaviour at intersections. 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. A sample item is “When I get what I want. 96 . passing lane were changed from “left lane” to “right lane” and the word “pass” was replaced with “overtake”. it’s usually because I worked hard for it”. A sample item is “I have often found that what is going to happen will happen”. Luckner (1989) noted that this instrument has among the highest reliability and validity of all locus of control tests and is particularly applicable when gearing instruments to broad linguistic structures and varying academic levels.5. 3.

Participants indicate a response on a five-point Likert-type scale (1 = “not at all like me”.” “I get into fights more than most people. High internal consistency has been reported across a range of samples (Benzein & Berg. High scores are taken to indicate a generally pessimistic view of the future and a high degree of hopelessness. and five subscales measure physical aggression.3: The Five Subscales of the Aggression Questionnaire Subscale Physical Aggression (PHY) Verbal Aggression (VER) Anger (ANG) Hostility (HOS) Indirect Aggression (IND) Total No. Of the 20 true-false statements. if not. Each of the 20 statements is scored 1.” “I let my anger show when I do not get what I want. Table 3. 5 = “completely like me”) that best represent how well the item describe them.2. A total aggression score can be calculated from summed item responses. or 0. Item scores are summed to yield a total score ranging from 0 to 20. anger.” “When people annoy me.” “I often find myself disagreeing with people. Durham.” “If I’m angry enough. verbal aggression.” “When someone really irritates me.5. Eleven items are keyed true to indicate pessimism about the future. I may mess up someone’s work.” “At times I feel like a bomb ready to explode.3 Beck Hopelessness Scale (BHS) This 20-item scale contains true-false statements that assess the extent of negative expectancies about the immediate and long-range future (Beck & Steer. I might give him or her the silent treatment.3). I may tell them what I think of them. Tanaka et al. Beck et al. of items 8 5 7 8 6 34 Sample Items: “At times I can’t control the urge to hit someone. 2005. 1982. 9 are keyed false to indicate optimism about the future.5. 3. a sample item of which is “I look forward to the future with hope and enthusiasm”. 1974).” “I sometimes feel that people are laughing at me behind my back.3.4 Aggression Questionnaire (AQ) This questionnaire is a 34-item scale measuring constructs related to the expression of aggression. 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”.2. hostility and indirect aggression (see Table 3. 1996). 1993. if endorsed.” 97 .” “At times I feel I have gotten a raw deal out of life.

2000) and discriminant validity (Archer & Haigh.6 Personal Information Form (PIF) Participants also completed a 4-page questionnaire recording personal information. Williams. derogation of others and revenge – were identified and are included as subscales (see table 3. 98 . ethnicity and history of motor vehicle crashes and injuries. gender.” “I want to get back at this person. Table 3. Cascardi & Pythress. 5 = “all the time”). Previous studies have established high levels of concurrent validity (Harris.” “I just want to hurt this person as bad as s/he hurt me. derogation of others and revenge respectively. 2000). Three factors – physical aggression. with coefficient alpha values of .5.88 and . of Items 11 10 9 30 Sample Items “If I could get away with it. Snyder et al. 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. Questions included details about the participant’s licensing and driving background.5.88 for the five subscales (Buss & Warren. Boyd.4).4: The Three Subscales of the Hostile Automatic Thoughts (HAT) Scale Factor Physical aggression Derogation of others Revenge Total No.” Participants responded on a 5point Likert-type scale (1 = “not at all”. I’d kill this person!” “I’d like to knock his/her teeth out” “What an idiot!” “This person is a loser.94 for the total aggression scores and ranging from . age.71 to . 1996). 1997.2.2. Shapiro.91 for physical aggression.92. (1997) reported high internal consistency for all three sub-scales. 1997. High scores on a sub-scale indicated that type of hostile thinking had occurred to the participant frequently.5 Hostile Automatic Thoughts (HAT) This 30-item self-report index measures the frequency of recurring hostile thoughts.High internal consistency has been reported with a coefficient alpha of .” 3. 3. .

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

The PIF was always administered first. 3. Data collection took place in taxicabs. Confirmatory Factor Analyses (CFA) were performed on the BIT. research assistants verbally administered the PIF.7 Analysis of the Data Data collected were entered and processed using Statistical Package for the Social Science (SPSS for Windows. All four research assistants spoke fluent English and Bahasa Malaysia. as well. BIT.6. as well as at least two additional Malaysian languages. approached at a taxi stand or booked over the telephone. with the team of research assistants meeting regularly three times each week to calibrate administration procedures.3. 100 . rel. 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. AQ and Levenson scales. This section provides a brief example of each one and details its use in the present research. Two to four times daily.0. 8. rel.5. At initial contact. Taxis were flagged down at roadside. 2002). Reliability coefficients of all instruments were calculated using SPSS. linear and multiple regression analyses and logistic regression analyses were used to test the hypotheses. four female final-year undergraduate students. each research assistant hired a taxicab to drive to some location elsewhere in the Kuala Lumpur area. For safety reasons. the research assistant informed the taxicab driver about the study. Over the course of the trip. with prior research experience were retained to assist in the study. with the remaining instruments administered in random order.5. Structural equation models and path analyses were estimated using the same version of LISREL. Independent-sample t-tests. provided assurance of confidentiality and secured participation. analyses of variance (ANOVA). 2004). AQ and HAT to determine validity using LInear Structural RElations software (LISREL.2 Study 3 For study 3. Levenson Locus of Control scale. data collection was confined to times between 8:00 am and 9:00 pm. aged 22 to 24 years. 13.

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

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 H13.2: Externality(Chance) moderates the Aggression-BIT relation H12.1: The higher the Internality.4: Aggression influence the level of Destination-activity Orientation Additional Analysis: Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression The Interaction Effect of Ethnicity and Aggression on BIT GLM Univariate Analysis of Variance The Moderating Effect of Locus of Control on AggressionBIT Relation H12.3: Age influences the level of Aggression Independent Sample t-Test Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance The Direct Effect of Aggression on BIT H11. the higher the BIT level H8.3: Hopelessness moderates the Externality (Powerful-Other)-BIT relation Multiple Linear Regression The Direct Effect of Demographic Factors on Aggression H10.1: Internality moderates the Aggression-BIT relation H12.2: Ethnicity influences hostile automatic thoughts H13.2: Hopelessness moderates the Externality(Chance)-BIT relation H9.5 (continued) Data Analysis Methods The Direct Effect of Locus of Control on BIT H8.3: Age has a negative influence on hostile automatic thoughts Independent Sample t-Test Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance 102 .2: Aggression influence the level of Freeway Urgency H11.1: Aggression influence the level of Usurpation of Right-of Way H11.3: The higher Externality (Powerful-Other).1: Hopelessness moderates the Internality-BIT relation Multiple Linear Regression H9. the lower the BIT level H8.3: 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.Table 3.2: Ethnicity background influences the level of Aggression H10.2: The higher Externality (Chance).1: Gender influences the level of Aggression H10.3: Aggression influence the level of Externally-focused Frustration H11.

t-tests are used to compare the means of two groups. post hoc analyses were carried out using the Scheffé method (Klockars & Hancock. 103 .Table 3. 3. hopelessness.2: Thoughts of Derogation-of-Others have a positive influence on BIT H14. ANOVA was used to determine whether participants’ scores on psychological variables (BIT. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) differed for drivers with different ethnic backgrounds.1 Independent-sample t-tests Generally.5 (continued) Data Analysis Methods The Direct Effect of HAT on BIT H14.3: 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. t-tests were used to determine whether participants’ scores on psychological variables (BIT.2 One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) ANOVA is used to compare means for more than two groups.1: Thoughts of Physical Aggression have a positive influence on BIT H14. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) differed for male and female drivers. In the present research.7.7. In the present study. hopelessness. locus of control. 2000). locus of control.2: Thoughts of Derogation-of-Others will moderate the AggressionBIT relation H1353: Thoughts of Revenge will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation Multiple Linear Regression Multiple Linear Regression Multiple Linear Regression 3. When significant differences were observed.1: Thoughts of Physical Aggression will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation H15.

In the present research. second. Also. 3. 104 .3 The General Linear Model (GLM) Univariate Analysis This procedure allows a factorial analysis of variance by comparing means of a dependent variable for groups defined by factor variables. In the present research. to test whether hopelessness moderated the P-BIT relationship. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) on behaviour in traffic (BIT). hopelessness. the products of P x hopelessness scores were added into the regression equation.5 Multiple Regression Analysis This analysis aims to examine if there is a relationship between the dependent variable and independent variables. For instance. multiple regression analysis was used to test whether internality (I). GLM univariate analysis of variance was used to determine whether there was an interaction effect between ethnic background and psychological factors (locus of control. externality-chance (C) and externalitypowerful-others (P) have an effect on hopelessness. the direction of the relationship (positive or negative). if so. hopelessness.7. In the present research. linear regression was applied to examine the relationship between psychological variables (locus of control. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) and behaviour in traffic (BIT). It is useful for analysis of variance models with one or more factor variables or covariates and a single dependent variable.3.7. first P scores were entered into the regression equation.7. the moderating effects of the variables were tested using hierarchical regression methods. R-square and coefficient values were then estimated to determine the significance of the moderating effect of hopelessness. Application of multiple regression analysis involves more than one single independent variable.4 Linear Regression Analysis This analysis is used to determine if a relationship exists between a dependent variable and an independent variable and. 3.

logistic regression. 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. In the present research. Path coefficients were calculated to demonstrate correlates of unsafe driving according to their contextual proximity to crash and injury occurrence. That is. The validity of this measurement model was dependent on its goodness-of-fit and on the construct validity of its component variables. In the present research. Goodness-of-fit indicates how 105 . seeks to determine the odds that an event will or will not occur. Linear or multiple regression seek to measure the degree of influence that variables will have on a dependent variable.3. and (b) examine the interrelationships among variables included in the research design.7. 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). The result was a measurement model described as a contextual-mediated model. 3. to (a) assess the validity of the instruments. each of the two outcome variables (crash occurrence and injury occurrence) was framed as a binary variable. “1” was scored if a crash injury had occurred and “0” if no crash injury had occurred. 710). Since driver experience and travel frequency were expected to have an influence on the outcome variables. using LISREL. 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 had occurred and “0” if no crash had occurred.7 Structural Equation Modelling. as well as between several latent constructs” (p. SEM was carried out.6 Logistic Regression Analysis Logistic regression is similar to linear regression but differs with respect to the nature of data that can be treated and in the manner in which coefficients are interpreted.7. on the other hand.

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

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

Root mean square residual (RMR) is another badness-of-fit measure. 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.7.7.90 is usually associated with a model that fits well. but AGFI values are typically lower than GFI values in proportion to model complexity. The index ranges between zero and 1.6 Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index (AGFI) An adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI. 2006).5 Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) and Comparative Fit Index (CFI) The GFI can range from zero to 1.7. the normed fit index (NFI. 3. an RMR greater than . The AGFI penalises more complex models and favours those with a minimum number of free paths. CFI is an improved version of the normed fit index. Since the CFI is insensitive to model complexity. 3.00..7. Tanaka & Huba. 1980) represents a ratio of the difference in the χ2 value for the fitted model and a null model divided by the χ2 value for the null model. Thus. and a model with perfect fit would produce an NFI of 1.7. Bentler & Bonnet.00 with value more than .00 being indicative of good fit.00. 108 .10 usually suggests a poor fit of the data for the model. Values range from zero to 1.7.00 with value closes to 1.00. The index can range from zero to 1. with higher values indicating better fit. it is known as one of the most widely used indices (Hair et al.4 Normed Fit Index (NFI) One of the original incremental measures of fit. 3.

In such cases.7. 1994). 109 . designed specifically to provide information about which model among a competing set of models is best.8 Parsimony Goodness-of-Fit Index (PGFI) A third class of measures is sometimes recognised as the parsimony indices.7. A parsimony fit measure is improved by a better fit and/or a simpler model which. The parsimony goodness-of-fit index (PGFI. it takes into account the actual sample size and the difference that could be expected in another sample.7. 1982) uses the parsimony ratio to adjust the GFI in order to compare two models. “a PGFI taken alone is not a useful indicator of a single model’s fit.7. 3. and the model with the higher PGFI is considered preferable. James. means a model with fewer estimated parameter paths (Hair et al. 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. 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. Mulaik & Brett. the model with the higher ECVI value is generally regarded as presenting a better fit. 750).. based on the combination of fit and parsimony represented by the index. 2006). 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.3.7 Expected Cross-Validation Index (ECVI) The expected cross-validation index (ECVI.00. it is most commonly used when comparing the performance of one model to another. It should be noted that. Although values range from zero to 1.. The ECVI also takes into account the number of estimated parameters for a given model. Browne & Cudeck. Values range between zero and 1.00. p. in this case. 2006. considering its fit relative to its complexity.

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

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

9% Total 441 100% 45. Gender and Ethnicity Participants were 992 undergraduate students at an English-language Malaysian university.1% 536 100% 54.6% 82 15.6% 12.5% 57.4% 333 62.1 Description of the Samples Age.1. The contextual mediated model was tested using (1) regression analysis (SPPS) and (2) structural equation modelling (LISREL). with results of these tests reported in this chapter. It begins with a discussion of reliability and validity tests of the instruments.1% 34.9% 14.9% 23.4% 146 14. 4.9% 977 100% 100% Female Total 112 . A contextual mediated model showing interrelationships between variables is introduced.13 years (SD = 1. Thirteen of the participants did not complete all the questionnaires and two participants completing questionnaires reported that they did not have driving licences.5% 27.1% 121 22.55).CHAPTER 4 ANALYSIS OF THE DATA This chapter presents the results of the research. Then.5% Ethnicity MalaysianChinese 229 51. with a mean age of 20.6% 15.4% 269 27.1: 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. Table 4.5% 6.5% MalaysianIndian 64 14.3% 8. Thus 977 participants were included in the analysis. descriptive statistics are presented and the results of hypothesis testing are reported. Ages of participants ranged from 18 to 29 years.1).1 4. 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% 562 57.

In Study 1B.25 years (SD = 1.89 years (SD = 1. 122 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode of transportation to be the motorcycle comprised the sample. In Study 1A.5 per cent) and Malaysian-Indian (14. A crosstabulation between gender and ethnicity (see Table 4. 149 taxicab drivers participated.1) showed that most of the drivers were female Malaysian-Chinese. with a mean age of 20.43 years (SD = 1. In Study 1C. In Study 3. range from 18 to 25). 252 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode of transportation to be the automobile comprised the sample.53.Female participants (approximately 55 per cent) slightly out-numbered males.68. 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. with a mean age of 19. range from 18 to 27). Thus.9 per cent). followed by Malay (27. 113 . with a mean age of 20.5 per cent). 302 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode of transportation to be the automobile comprised the sample. range from 18 to 29). with a mean age of 20.63. range of 18 to 26). 301 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode of transportation to be the automobile comprised the sample.35. In Study 2. Malaysian-Chinese represented the highest number of participants (57.01 years (SD = 1.

Descriptive data for each sample are provided in Table 4.2 Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 1 Although participants in Studies 1A. Kuala Lumpur.7 4. SD = standard deviation 4.3% of the sample. 1B and 1C were all students at a single Malaysian university.63 11.1 6.4% of the sample. Table 4.19 S.2: Age.2. Participants from East Malaysia comprised 5.9 2.35 1.65 Male Female Malay Ethnicity MalaysianChinese MalaysianIndian 105 175 88 73 133 196 127 164 49 0 68 87 81 33 55 202 166 128 66 52 31 49 43 23 26 Note: N=sample size . Gender and Ethnicity of Participants in Studies 1.3 11.D.53 1. The mean age was 43. 2 and 3 Gender STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 3 N 301 302 252 122 133 Mean Age 20.19 years (SD = 11. Johor or Perak made up 53. Participants who had received their driving licenses in Selangor.2 7.3: 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. Table 4. they hailed from across the country (see table 4.1.43 19.65.3).5 114 .01 20.89 20.68 1.25 43.5 8. 1.responses from 133 taxicab drivers were included in data analysis. range from 23 to 73).

4 0.9 0.9 7.5 14.7 11. As the sample was 115 .1.2 3.9% of the sample.4 4.2 17.0 7.1% of the sample. Table 4. but again they held licenses from various states (see table 4.1. Participants from East Malaysia comprised 4.7 100 4.7 3.4 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.6 1.6 2.4: States from Which Study 2 Participants Had Acquired Their Original Motorcyclists’ Licenses N Johor Kedah Kelantan Kuala Lumpur Melaka Negeri Sembilan Pahang Penang Perak Perlis Sabah Sarawak Selangor Terengganu 17 9 1 11 9 5 11 13 14 2 2 3 18 7 122 % 13.8 11. Perak or Penang made up 50.2 2.8 5.Penang Perak Perlis Sabah Sarawak Selangor Terengganu 67 102 6 27 19 147 31 855 7.5 1.6 100 4. Participants who had received their driving licenses in Selangor.1 9.0 10.8 9.3 Geographic Distribution of the Sample in Study 2 Participants in Study 2 were all students at a single Malaysian university.4).

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

781 .784 .754 .890 .Table 4.738 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 .738 .727 .808 .726 Not Applicable Not Applicable α .727 .749 .881 α .772 α .747 .824 .910 .741 .739 .783 .711 .887 .733 .786 . of Item α Study 2 (N=122) Motorcycle Drivers (student sample) Study 3 (N=133) Taxicab Drivers α .715 .702 .707 .742 .715 .720 .827 .734 .817 .720 .756 .740 .703 .810 .701 Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable 117 .906 .768 Not Applicable Not Applicable .904 .783 .737 .830 .782 .782 .714 .788 .730 .735 .740 .5: Summary of Internal Reliability Coefficient Results Study 1A (N=301) Study 1B (N=302) Automobile Drivers (student sample) Study 1C (N=252) Variables No.798 .701 .718 .774 .808 .811 .

it was also possible to measure reliability as a coefficient of correlation between Form A and Form B (Synodinos &Papacostas. 118 . fits the population correlation matrix or covariance matrix. 205). more than . confirmatory factor analyses using LISREL (Jöreskog & Sörbom. 1998).807 .803 .804 . we may be fairly certain that the measures are reasonably reliable.958 .805 .2.929 . with minimal error variance caused by wording. 1998.800 .08 to .953 .801 .2.876 .4. Reliability coefficients in all studies where both forms were used are acceptable since Form A and Form B were highly correlated. depending on which is used (Byrne. Sekaran (2003) notes that “if two comparable forms are highly correlated (.2 Parallel-Form Reliability In the case of the BIT scale.10 indicate a mediocre fit.806 . 1998). 1998).6.857 . Table 4.3 Validity Test Results In the present research. The Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) is a measure of the relative amount of variance and covariance in sample data that is jointly explained by sample data (Byrne.80 or above).804 Study 1C .903 .802 4.811 . only Form A was used. The root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) index measures the error of approximation in the population and determines whether the model.808 Study 2 . 1985). The results of parallel-form reliability for the BIT instrument in different studies are shown in Table 4. In Study 3. Byrne.10 indicate poor fit (MacCallum et al.807 Study 1B . with unknown but optimally chosen parameter values.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 .804 . 2002) was used to establish evidence of construct validity for various measures. and those greater than . RMSEA values less than . ordering or other test construction factors” (p.05 indicate good fit.80. values ranging from .916 .

00 .Jöreskog and Sörbom (1993) reported that.000 .000 . it is generally considered an acceptable fit to the data (Bentler.95 1.90.98 1.000 .7.7: 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 . and destination-activity orientation.97 .097 .92 1.070 . A third statistic. externally-focused frustration. drivers’ behaviour in traffic was measured by the four component factors of the BIT scale: usurpation of right-of-way.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 .048 . 1992).96 .91 .98 .000 .047 .99 .00 .99 .00.93 .00 .000 . although the GFI index ranges from zero to 1.061 . GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index.000 . parameter values for all four of these factors were within acceptable ranges.99 .1 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the BIT Scale In the present research.00 1. This reflects that the model fits worse than no model at all.00 1.92 . the higher the goodness-of-fit).96 .2.98 Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation.054 .000 . CFI= Comparative Fit Index 119 .074 .97 1.077 . freeway urgency.00 .90.91 .99 .089 .98 .00 1.00 1. and both GFI and CFI were more than .00 1.99 . Table 4.98 1.92 . As shown in Table 4.00 . indicating good fits.00 1.024 .00 (the closer to 1.00 1.00 . the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) is estimated to indicate whether complete covariation in the data is achieved. RMSEA values in each case were less than .097 .96 .000 .00 1. If the value of CFI exceeds .100.97 1.3.098 . 4.96 1. it is possible to have negative GFI.00 1.

96 .92 .92 .00 .93 . Five component factors of aggression were measured: physical aggression (PHY).95 .071 .91 .3.3.92 .99 .052 .93 .93 .8.91 .4. externality-chance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P).059 . Each component of the locus of control was measured separately.98 .100. anger (ANG).93 .98 Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation. Table 4.3 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the AQ Scale The AQ was used to measure driver aggression in Study 1B and 1C (with automobile drivers sampled from a student population) and in Study 3 (with taxicab drivers).93 .91 .96 .091 .98 Study 2 RMSEA Study 3 CFI RMSEA GFI GFI CFI Locus of Control  Internality  Externality (Chance)  Externality (Powerful-Other) . CFA revealed that parameter values for I.90.98 .083 .93 .085 .8: Validity of the Levenson Locus of Control Scale – Summary of Confirmatory Factor Analysis Study 1A RMSEA Study 1B CFI RMSEA Study 1C RMSEA GFI GFI CFI GFI CFI Locus of Control  Internality  Externality (Chance)  Externality (Powerful-Other) .95 1.081 .063 .096 .2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Levenson Locus of Control Scale Locus of control was measured across three dimensions: internality (I). GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index.96 . CFI= Comparative Fit Index 4.97 .98 .000 .99 .95 . and both GFI and CFI were more than .96 . verbal aggression (VER).073 .93 .97 . RMSEA values were less than .2.2. C and P scales were all within acceptable ranges.058 . under the assumption that locus of control is a multidimensional phenomenon.030 .085 . hostility (HOS) and indirect aggression 120 . indicating good fits (See Table 4.081 .

GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index.073 . RMSEA values were less than .95 .2.92 .96 .97 .96 .98 . A total aggression score was arrived at by summing the five subscale scores.100. GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index.97 .081 . indicating good fits (See Table 4.90.10).98 . and both GFI and CFI were more than .98 .98 .94 .98 .070 .088 .058 .081 .92 .098 .090 .025 .95 .92 .098 . indicating good fit (see Table 4.055 .99 . CFA revealed that parameter values for all three measurement scales were within acceptable ranges.089 .98 .97 .97 . derogation of others and revenge. Table 4. RMSEA values were less than . CFI= Comparative Fit Index 121 .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 .(IND).97 .088 . CFA revealed that parameter values for all five aggression subscales were within acceptable ranges.070 .4 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the HAT Scale The HAT was only used in Study 1C (with automobile drivers sampled from a student population).98 .97 .97 .083 . CFI= Comparative Fit Index 4.096 . Table 4.047 .96 Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation. Three classes of hostile automatic thoughts were measured: physical aggression.97 .9: Validity of the AQ scales – Summary of Confirmatory Factor Analysis Study 1B RMSEA Study 1C CFI RMSEA Study 3 CFI RMSEA GFI GFI GFI CFI Aggression (AQ)  Physical Aggression  Verbal Aggression  Anger  Hostility  Indirect Aggression .94 .98 .93 .095 .97 .98 .3.98 .98 .97 Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation.97 .98 . and both GFI and CFI were more than .90.9).100.

331(.241(.246(.064) 1.069) 1.875(.052) 1.280) .057) 1.179(.278(.11: Normality Tests.656(.146(.085) 1.805(.091) 1.191) 1. Marcoulides & Hershberger.154(.183) 1.140) .195 (.140) -.188(.183) 1.4.140) -.034 (.280) .094 (. 1997).064(.280) .226 (.582(.140) -.140) -.107 (.120) 1.091(. but with a non-signficant platykurtic tendency for the locus of control data.409(.719(.037(.140) -. Kurtosis and Skewness Statistics KolmogorovSmirnov Z (Significance Level) Skewness Kurtosis Statistic Statistic (Standard (Standard Error) Error) Study 1A Internality Externality (Chance) Externality (Powerful Other) Hopelessness BIT Usurpation right-of-way Freeway Urgency Externally Focused Frustration Destination-activity Orientation 1.280) -. values for the Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic were non-significant (p>.102) 1.560(.099(.280) .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 .140) .022 (.280) .332 (.082 (.126(.297(.107) 1.140) .409(.179(.280) .126(.140) -.280) .140) -.099) 1.280) .140) -.192) 1. Skewness and Kurtosis Data were studied to determine whether they were normally distributed and therefore capable of satisfying parametric assumptions.140) .140) .190) 1.064(.511(.099(.297(.323 (.11 indicates that variable distribution fell within these limits.204(.428) . Normality can also be assessed by examining sknewness and kurtosis values (Hair et al..203(.280) -. Table 4.05).280) .239 (.962 (.140) .280) -.297 (. In all cases.140) .280) -.020 (. 2005.351 (. Table 4.192(.140) .3 Normality.560(.140) .408(.280) ..280) -.260) . indicating that the distribution of scores did not depart from normality.280) -.219 (. Skewness and kurtosis values of ± 1 are acceptable (Leech et al.280) -.280) -.091(.105 (.085) 1.140) -.010 (.920(.280) -.453(.379(.085 (.140) -.140) -.106) 1.403(.080(.280) .356 (.410(.085 (.280) .256 (.353(.099) 1. 2006).278(.186) 1.

270) 1.306) .147(.986 (.130(.135) 1.187) 1.392(.153) .113 (.911 (305) 1.070 (.153) .306) -.293 (.247) .219) .327 (.219) .719(.157) .106(.972(.435) -.057) 1.919 (.435) -.913(.153) .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 .276(.210) .195 (.142(.629(.128 (.098) 1.360) .Table 4.210) .219) .417) .024 (.497(.259) .306) .210) .366) 1.244(.414(.062(.186(.153) .276 (.973(306) .510) 1.210) .153) .024 (.640(.463(.321) 1.006(.153) .841(.153) .022 (.266 (.160 (.159(.435) -.533) .567(.306) -.417) .375) 1.102) .138) 1.300(.417) -.962(.417) -.051) 1.884(.219) .209(.503(.153) 983(.052) 1.360) .154) -.198(.210) -.256(.007(.915(.110 (.088 (.338 (.306) -.417) -.306) .128) .084) 1.048(.467(.053(.417) -.210) -.147(.265) 1.443(.952(.962 (.948(.306) -.417) -.219) -.001 (.153) .435) -.210) .153) .277(.959 (.279 (.852(.210) -.478(.064) 1.106(.247) 1.100) .306) .030(.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 1.099) 1.681(.011 (.417) -.317) 1.104) 1.153) -.537(.807 (.435) -.106 (.451(.360) -.267) .219) -.540(.306) -.805 (.423(.715(.501(.153) .053(.003 (.994(.435) -.713(.120(.469) 1.210) .101) 1.847 (.940(.359 (.223 (.362(.153) .138(.210) .271(.219) .567(.264) .098) 1.366(.153) -.417) .426) .022 (.417) -.306) .236(.295(.979(.417) .131(.812(.214) 1.417) -.359 (.297 (.360) .822 (.156(.913 (.306) -.852(.210) .153) .324(.978(.052) 1.435) -.051) .799(.219) -.370(.354 (.435) .

column c).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. (2) injuries severe enough to require out-patient treatment at a medical clinic (see Table 4.12.12. However. Male and female automobile drivers reported involvement in one crash with almost the same frequency. 1B and 1C selfreported that they had been involved in at least one motor vehicle crash over the preceding year (see Table 4. with 44. (3) injuries requiring hospitalisation (see Table 4.13).4. if so.3 per cent being hospitalised. column a). Between 10 and 13 per cent of all automobile drivers in Study 1 sought medical treatment at a hospital in the preceding year as a result of motor vehicle crashes.4 Crash and Injury Occurrence Data Participants in all studies indicated whether they had experienced an accident within the preceding twelve months in which their vehicle had sustained more than RM100 damage and. Table 4. whether the accident had resulted in (1) no injuries or injuries insufficiently severe to seek medical attention (see Table 4. For motorcycle drivers. injury occurrence was much higher. column b). 124 . males were more than twice as likely to report involvement in two or three automobile crashes.12.

13: Crash Occurrence Frequency. Gender and Ethnicity in Study 2 (N=122) Motorcycle drivers Ethnicity No. involved in one crash Total Ethnicity No. involved in two crashes Total Ethnicity No.Table 4. involved in one crash Total Ethnicity No. involved in three crashes Total Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Gender Male Female 80 57 119 103 33 44 232 204 24 9 19 7 7 2 50 18 12 5 9 3 1 2 22 10 Total 137 222 77 436 33 26 9 68 17 12 3 32 More than half of the motorcycle drivers sampled in Study 2 reported that they had been involved in at least one motor vehicle crash over the preceding year (see Table 4. Table 4.14: Crash Occurrence Frequency. involved in three crashes Total Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Gender Male Female 20 8 25 13 16 1 61 22 17 4 15 4 11 0 43 8 10 1 6 1 3 0 19 2 Total 28 38 17 83 21 19 11 51 11 7 3 21 125 . Gender and Ethnicity in Study 1 (N=855) Automobile Drivers Ethnicity No.14) Regardless of ethnic background. male motorcycle drivers reported higher crash occurrence than female motorcycle drivers. involved in two crash Total Ethnicity No.

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

388** .331** 1 * Correlation is significant at .218** .05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .316** .97 43.231** .155** .376** .152** .376** .435** .147* -.306** .533** .416** 1 .625** .566** 1 -.381** .342** -.339** .280** .278** .2691 6.64 7.08 2.201** .749** .391** -.5 5.209** 1 .D.211** .23 2.434** .544** -.147* .818** 1 .476 .239** .942** 1 .553** -.405** .482** .471** .88 7.3455 .027 1 .96 19.804** .01 level (2-tailed) 127 .129* .442 1 -.69 24.901** .247** .716** .52 34.202** .Table 4.662** 1 .00 165.371** .04 26.44 4.22 3. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1A (n=301) Mean Distal Variables1 1 Internality (I) 2 Externality-Chance (P) 3 Externality-Powerful-Other (O) 4 Hopelessness (BHS) Proximal Variables1 5 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) 6 Usurpation of right-of-way 7 Freeway Urgency 8 Externally-Focused Frustration 9 Destination-activity Orientation Outcome Variables2 10 Crash Occurrence 11 Injury Occurrence S.513** .57 4.396** .345** 1 -.036 .246** .45 6.340** .15: Means.76 3.516** 1 -.78 .58 . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 9.186** .562** -.191** .

331** .921** .213** .071 .731** .310** .505** .66 3.337** .3079 .97 Outcome Variables2 16 .550** .153** .418** .382** 1 -.403** .01 level (2-tailed) 128 .275** .496** .14 4.103 -.688**.555** .312** 1 -.411** .372** .69 8.355** .586** .331** .408** .5695 .342** .366** .514** .697** 1 .816** .438** 1 .334** .335** .97 4 4.50 5.444** .167** .22 4.434** .816** .147** .84 7.401** .461** .16: Means.089 -.378** .531** .520** .343** .45 5 87.86 6.278** 1 -.462** .341** .9 13 46.355** .148* .103 -.509** .240** .159 -.491** .254** .173* .763** .540** .D.386** .06 3 2.039 .48 3. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1B (n=302) Mean S.294** 1 .369** .587** 1 -.393** .319** .521** .762** .445** .272** .324** .271** .286* .099 .347** 1 -.178** .518** .53 19.028 -.440**.157** .276** .9 12 71.847** .669** 1 -.91 15 27.225** .254** .489**.213** .491** .779** 1 -.176* .60 10 16.414** .013 1 .200** .195** .343** .051 .84 5.150** .842** 1 .523** .140* .00 14 19.542** .452** .172** .5 6 17.028 .41 3.162** .298** .964** 1 .4960 17 .85 9.584** -.268** .56 2 4.279** .254** .380** .430** .43 12.855** .067 -.602** 1 .376** .355** .Table 4.363** .353** .448** .82 7 13.463** .48 5.481** .358** .9 28.443** .516** .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 . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Distal Variables1 1 9.003 .55 9 21.25 8 18.05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .515** .338** .213** .380** .4624 1 -.407** 1 -.236** .172** .400** .65 Proximal Variables1 11 170.

264** .271** .373** .69 -.202** .387** .166** .130** .91 -.368** .296** .17 -.641** 1 4 4.745** 1 7 13.183** .11 12.183** .278** .227** .166** .58 9.86 -.270** .310** .294** .306** .565** .592** .401** .193**.749** .057 .402** .192** .218** .03 -.-181** .304** .224**.305** .348** 1 6 16.895** 1 13 26.250** .735** .423** .109 .342** .345** .189** .275** .291** .483** .110 .191** .338** .31 -.167** .313** .Table 4.340** .534** 1 18 19.862** .298** .293** .151* .261** .545** .254** .349** 1 16 67.306** .191** 1 3 .428** .230** .277** 1 8 19.747** .203** .456** .095 .17 -.615** .413** .526** .199**.245** .038 .549** 1 Proximal Variables1 15 161.70 1 2 4.03 5.481** .103** .8 -.219** .378** .079 1 Outcome Variables2 20 .89 5.448** .185** .354** 1 5 88.484** .302** .275** .286** .210**.42 3.221** .265** 1 19 25.324** .364**.189** .81 -.241** .856** 1 17 43.383** .120 .162**.37 6.075 .246** .228** .377** .838** .01 level (2-tailed) S 129 .412** .095 .390** .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 .9 -.311** .216** .364** .D.131* .069 .263** .178** .202** .343** .307**.355** .119* 1 21 .210** .18 -.277** .385** .183** .434** .230** .192**.379** .259** .174** .229** .454** .67 7.395** 1 11 65.292** .81 5.531** 1 10 16.258** .003 .465** .051 .296** . Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1C (n=252) Mean S.251** .209** .506** .141* .38 5.106 .476** .186** .36 -.230 .277**.501 . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Distal Variables1 1 10.109 .00 -.076 .422 -.270** .49 6.235** .304** .17: Means.451** .70 8.85 19.212** .367** .226** .259** .357** .502** .320** .356** .314** .221** .254** .101**.70 3.508** .7 -.033 .05 -.196** .366** .343** .370** .181** .268**.404** .235** .392** .31 3.530** .7 28.082 .402** .518** .97 -.64 -.446** .222** .228** .150* .78 8.308** .422** 1 9 22.804** .323** .150* .139** .137* .80 17.516 .52 7.05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .292** .224** .424** 1 12 18.98 4.288** .158** .296** .241** .725** .281** .199** .9 -.278** .588** 1 14 20.148** .016 .281** .252** .151* .081 .

all BIT subscales. but it was not correlated with crash occurrence or injury occurrence.2 Results of Study 2 Table 4. externally-focused frustration. However. 130 . 1B and 1C. and destination-activity orientation. 4.5. it was not correlated with crash occurrence or with crash injury. proximal and outcome variables within the sample of motorcycle drivers in Study 2. Hostility (HOS) was significantly correlated with all other variables except with crash occurrence and crash injury. Of these negative the BIT subscales measuring freeway urgency and externally-focused frustration were significant. All distal and proximal variables were positively correlated except internality (I) which was negatively corrected with the BIT total score. standard deviations and relationships between distal. freeway urgency. BHS was significantly correlated with total BIT score and with all of the BIT subscales. crash occurrence and injury occurrence. The BIT subscale measuring destinationactivity orientation was significantly correlated to crash occurrence but not to injury occurrence.18 shows means.BHS was significantly correlated to the total BIT score and to BIT subscales: usurpation of right-of-way. Similar to observed results in study 1A.

167 .122 7.314** .428** .413** .562** 1 .232** .66 5.325** .290** .043 .30 .580** 1 .6803 .50 73.76 48.212* .183* 1 .240** .415** .01 level (2-tailed) 131 .139 .4966 1 .535** 1 .413** 1 .485 11.111 -.269** . 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.14 27. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 3.55 175.614** .376** .D.200* -.758** 1 .165 .035 3.06 20.349** .18: Means.150 -.264** .259** .Table 4.418** .072 .201* .179 7.374** .5738 8.876** .4683 .251** .226** .291** .880 .750** .48 5.025 -.334** .630** .323 23.383** .941** 1 .409** .233** .371** -.621 3.317** .219** .367** .182* -.917 3.192* -.081 8.313** 1 .500** .05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .028 1 .356** .795** 1 * Correlation is significant at .66 1.

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

194* .197* .32 3.45 19.268** .149 .255** .095 .116 .521** .032 1 .091 .05 3.604** .166 .82 11.276** .067 .10 1.643** .12 4.030 .Table 4.180** .182* -.236** .117 .114 .271** .147** .286* 1 .275** . Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 3 (n=133) Mean S.646** .025 -.178** .193* -.561** 1 .173* . 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 12.42 66.091 -.172** .194* 1 .588** 1 .013 .618** 1 .150** .404 .028 .261** .3 6.112 -.106 .636** .19: Means.51 3.4 5.32 7.864** 1 .060 .060 -.816** .443** 1 .07 8.021 1 * Correlation is significant at .373** .200* .177 1 .263** .721** .204* .245** .257** .99 10.156 .622** .88 1 .528** 1 .324** .071 .120 .08 15.338** 1 .853** .0301 .289** 1 .54 11.061 .109 -.141 .054 .023 .070 -.74 15.151 -.01 level (2-tailed) 133 .06 2.65 75.103 .658** .378** 1 .17 20.240** .82 5.072 .218* .13 3.121 .165 .31 8.020 .039 .807** .371** .235** .040 .167** .153** 1 .84 2.148* .018 -.234** .401** -.222* .43 8.235** .213** .213** .240** .749** .023 -.117 .2000 .35 11.576** .092** .454** .121 .229** .872** .072 -.418** .171 .225** .292** .128 .11 15.246** .05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .117 .156 .149 .048 .15 32.D.161 -.152 .254** -.

20: Results of Logistic Regression Analyses Showing the Effects of BIT Component Factors on Crash Occurrence Study 1A Usurpation of Right-of Way Freeway Urgency Externally-focused Frustration Destination-activity Orientation B=. p<. 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=.120.1. 4.01 Study 1B B=.048. p<.01 B=.20). p<. p<.4.01 B=. p<.146.01 B=.01 B=. p<. p<.063.041. were significantly related to crash occurrence (see Table 4. p<.01 B=. These results supported H1. that behaviour in traffic influences crash occurrence.3 inclusive.102. p<. p<.088 p<.063. p<.01).117.135.01 B=.01 B=.229.01.01 B=.01 B=. Study 2: B=.1.1 through H1.034.1 Hypothesis 1: Behaviour in Traffic Influences Motor Vehicle Crash Outcomes First.1). p<. p<. When the relationships between the four component factors of the BIT scale and the likelihood of a crash outcome were tested. Study 1C: B=.6 Hypothesis Testing This section reports the results of analyses to test the hypotheses formulated in chapter 3 (see Table 3. p<. results of logistic regression analyses indicated that usurpation of right-of way. While controlling driver experience and driving frequency. p<.01 134 . p<.04.6. H1.01 B=. and externally-focused frustration. Table 4. p<.095.4 was not supported. analyses were conducted to test whether BIT scores influenced crash occurrence. p<. but not destination-activity orientation. p<.01.090. p<.1. Study 1B: B=. p<. p<.01 B=.01 B=.125. These results supported H1.278.01 B=. freeway urgency.238.202.1.315.01.080. p<.01 B=. For the destination-activity factor.180.172.095.01 Not Significant Study 2 B=.01 Study 3 B=.01 and Study 3: B=.01 Study 1C B=.

p<.Behaviour in traffic also influenced injury occurrence in all studies except Study 3.140.01 B=.158. p<. Study 1C: B=.01 B=.23 and Table 4. p<.6. p<. Study 1B: B=.035. p<. p<.01 B=. When driver experience and travel frequency were controlled. Table 4.019. freeway urgency. p<. 1B and 1C (see Table 4. logistic regression analyses indicated that usurpation of right-of way. the results of logistic regression showed that total BIT scores were strongly regressed with the likelihood of experiencing an injury related to a motor vehicle crash (Study 1A: B=.01 B=.01.01 B=.087. These results supported H1.118.091.01 B=. Table 4. p<.095. p<. p<.01 B=.120. p<.01 Not Significant Study 2 B=.01).01 B=.01.22.01 Study 3 Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant 4.01 B=.059. respectively).075 p<.033 p<. p<.01 B=.035.038.2. p<. p<.069. When the relationships between the likelihood of injury occurrence and the four component factors of the BIT scale were tested.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.165.05 Study 1B B=. p<.01 Study 1C B=.21).24. p<.074. 135 .01 and Study 2: B=. externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation were significantly related to traffic crash injury in all studies except Study 3 (See Table 4.21: Results of Logistic Regression Analyses Showing the Effects of BIT Component Factors on Injury Occurrence Study 1A Usurpation of Right-of Way Freeway Urgency Externally-focused Frustration Destination-activity Orientation B=. that behaviour in traffic would influence injury occurrence.054.01 B=. p<.064.

Table 4.320** 64 110 41 17 69 173.23: 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<.60 185.01 N M SD F 186 88 18 9 161.98 33.92 157.48 171.35 155. * p<.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<.73 170.184** 136 .31 161.29 21.15 161.25 25.32 28.88 28.50 28.35 33.77 8.52 25.64 26.03 25.600** Table 4.98 171.16 3. N M SD F 221 60 19 2 168.35 24.05.35 4.30 22.56 175.01.06 19.25 5.82 168.44 178.82 33.68 26.77 165.41 167.89 21.43 20.64 27.074* 110 81 37 45 29 181.32 147.

05) and about once every two weeks (p<.01).61 165. and those who almost never travelled (p<.29 15. drivers with 3 years of licensed driving experience had significantly lower total BIT scores when compared with drivers that had 3 years experience but less than 5 years of licensed driving experience (p<. the effect of travel frequency on total BIT score was significant.06 160.01).01). Drivers who travelled about once or twice a week had significantly higher total BIT when compared to those who almost never travelled (p<.88 167. Drivers who travelled every day had significantly higher total BIT scores when compared to those who travelled several times a week (p<.Table 4. On the other hand. 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<.00 16.00 14.52 3.53 17.06 8.01.73 157.05).14 15.05). 137 . In Study 2. N M SD F 187 46 16 3 159. about once every two weeks (p<.05).01).77 16.24: The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores in Study 1C (N=252) Variable Driver Experience 3 years or less 3 to 5 years 5 to 7 years More than 7 years Driving Frequency Everyday Several times a week About once or twice a week About once every two weeks Almost never Note: ** p<. Drivers who travelled everyday had significantly higher total BIT scores when compared to those who almost never travelled (p<.81 167.01). drivers who travelled everyday had significantly higher total BIT scores when compared to those who travelled several times a week (p<.25). * p<.12 161.12 154.345* 67 69 33 45 38 170.39 19.05.73 24. motorcycle drivers’ experience was not significantly related to total BIT scores (see Table 4. In Study 1C.01 14.060** In Study 1A. In Study 1B.

it is concluded that Hypothesis 2.81 161.05.01. that drivers’ demographic characteristics would significantly influence total BIT scores was supported in studies of automobile drivers.31 78.26: 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<.71 168. the direction of the difference was opposite to what had 138 .68 20.37 9.52 172.753* 38 48 27 20 77.27 14.56 3.74 77.859 11. N.Table 4.528** In Study 3.920 (N. In other words.33 78. both driver experience and taxicab experience were tested.S.55 73.26 10.437 (N.64 24. It was found that the driver experience was statistically related to total BIT score (see Table 4.62 10.01.31 2. the difference in means of total BIT scores among the drivers in Study 3 was not statistically significant regardless of their years of experience as taxicab drivers. taxicab driver experience was not statistically related to total BIT score.80 22.316 1.82 162. * p<.25: The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores in Study 2 (N=122) Variable Driver Experience 3 years or less > 3 years but < 5 years 5 to 7 years More than 7 years Driving Frequency Everyday Several times a week About once or twice a week About once every two weeks Almost never Note: ** p<.89 20.65 73.09 15.S) Therefore.81 175. * p<. N. Table 4.58 188.94 20.55 10.S) 52 32 7 17 14 182.26). Not significant N M SD F 3 16 23 91 82.50 24.381 10.05. Not significant N M SD F 77 31 10 4 174.S.47 5.81 22.60 72.63 1. However. However.97 8.50 184.

where male automobile and motorcycle drivers scored significantly higher than female drivers. 4.2. in that driver experience significantly influenced total BIT score but taxicab experience had no statistically significant effect.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. Contrary to the subhypothesis. Again. ANOVA results for age. In Study 2. indicated no significant differences in mean total BIT scores. 1B. however. though. the longer the taxicab operator had been driving. the direction of the effect was consistent with the hypothesised relationship between driver experience and total BIT score.27).3 Hypothesis 3: Demographic Variables Influence Behaviour in Traffic The direct effects on total BIT scores of three demographic variables – gender. ethnicity and age – were investigated.been predicted by H2. 1C and 2 differed between different ethnic groups (see Table 4. 1C and 2. ANOVA indicated that mean total BIT scores in Studies 1A. driver experience and travel frequency actually increased total BIT scores. t-tests indicated that mean total BIT scores differed significantly between male and female participants. In this case.2. In Studies 1A. the lower was the total BIT score.1 and H2. only H2. 1B. Contrary to the two sub-hypotheses. For ethnicity. the observed effect was opposite to what had been predicted by H2.6. 139 . only H2. Hypothesis 2 was partially supported in the study of taxicab drivers. In Study 3. travel frequency actually increased total BIT scores.1 was confirmed.

age had no statistically significant direct effect on total BIT scores. H3. it was found that female automobile drivers scored significantly higher levels on the I dimension when compared to male automobile drivers.62.01).S. p<.01 F=19.98. Study 1C t=3. H3.68. Malaysian-Indian taxicab drivers had significantly lower total BIT scores than either Malaysian-Chinese taxicab drivers (p<.05).2 was confirmed.01 F=8.53. In Study 1A and Study 2.27: Effects of Demographic Factors on total BIT Scores Study 1A Gender Ethnicity Age t=2. In Study 1C.01 F=1. In Study 1B.44. so the null hypothesis could not be rejected and H3. and Externality-Powerful-Others (P).S. N. p<.66. p<.6. Therefore. in that gender and ethnicity significantly influenced total BIT scores. post hoc analyses indicated that MalaysianChinese automobile drivers and motorcyclists scored significantly lower total BIT scores than either Malaysian-Indian or Malay drivers (p<. p<.05 F=4.562.56. N. however.05. t(250) = 2. N.S Study 3 Not Applicable F=3. In Study 1B.S. Note: Not significant In Study 1A. p<.S. p<.74. Study 1B t=2.01 F=2. N. p<. In Study 3.81. p<.05 F=11. results showed that gender had no influence on the three dimensions of locus of control: Internality (I). 1C and Study 2.12.01 F=9.1 and H3. In all studies. p<.05).9. it is concluded that Hypothesis 3 was partially supported in studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers.Table 4.00.01 F=1.4 Hypothesis 4: Demographic Variables Influence Locus of Control The direct effects of the same three demographic variables on locus of control were also investigated. For taxicab drivers studied in Study 3. N. p<.01 F=.3 was not supported. Externality-Chance (C). in that ethnicity significantly influenced total BIT scores. 4. Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers scored significantly higher total BIT scores than Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers (p<.99.2 were confirmed. male 140 . Study 2 t=3.05.

01). p<.05 respectively.05 and p<. F(2.05. 141 .05. F(2. F(2.490. post hoc analyses showed that Malaysian-Indian drivers scored significantly higher on the C and P dimensions than did Malaysian-Chinese drivers (p<.01. In Study 1C. p<.527. 299) = 5.05).370.05 and F(2. 298) = 3. E and P scores. ethnic group differences were significant only with respect to P subscale scores.941. 1B.503. ethnic group differences were significant only with respect to mean C and P subscale scores. Post hoc analyses indicated that Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers had significantly lower I scores than did either Malaysian-Chinese or Malay drivers (p<. Post hoc analysis showed that MalaysianIndian automobile drivers scored significantly higher than did Malaysian-Chinese drivers (p<.automobile and motorcycle drivers scored significantly higher on the P dimension than did female automobile and motorcycle drivers. F(2. F(2. p<.05 respectively. 249) = 3. 299) = 3. 298) = 6. In Study 1A. p<. Consistent with findings in Study 1A. p<. Post hoc analyses showed that Malaysian-Indian motorcycle drivers scored significantly lower than all other ethnicity groups on the I dimension (p<. 2 and 3 the age variable had no significant direct effects on any of the three dimensions of locus of control.05). p<. t(299) = 2. ethnic group differences were significant only with respect to I subscale scores.01 respectively.476. Malaysian-Indian drivers had significantly higher scores on the C dimension than did Malay drivers (p<.05 and F(2.041. For Studies 1A. 298) = 3. p<.01 respectively). t(120) = 2. 119) = 5.462.01). In Study 1B. p<. In Study 2. 1C.566. all ethnic groups had significantly different mean I.05) and Malaysian-Indian drivers scored significantly higher on the P dimension than did drivers in all other ethnic groups (p<.

1B or 1C.Therefore.2 and H4. ANOVA results found no significant differences in mean BHS scores between ethnic groups or different age groups among automobile drivers in Studies 1A. it was found that the gender and ethnicity of motorcycle drivers did have a significant direct effect on hopelessness. Independent sample t-tests on data from Studies 1A. p<. H5. that age influences hopelessness. it was observed that age had no significant effect on any of internality.5 Hypothesis 5: Demographic Variables Influence Hopelessness The direct effects of gender. in that gender was observed to significantly influence the externalitypowerful-others scores. was not supported in either Study 1 or Study 2.05.2 and H4. externality-chance and externality-powerfulothers.2.3.3. Hypothesis 5 was not supported with respect to automobile drivers in Study 1.1. H4.1.079.3. based on the results of t-tests and ANOVA. Hypothesis 5 was partially supported in Study 2 with the sample of motorcycle drivers. in Study 2. H4. H4. that gender and ethnicity influence hopelessness. Age was found to have no influence on BHS scores with the sample of motorcycle drivers in Study 2. 4. H5. Malay motorcycle drivers had a significantly higher BHS score when compared to Malaysian-Chinese motorcycle drivers (p<.2.3 were supported. ethnicity and age on hopelessness were investigated. t(120) = 2. Female motorcycle drivers scored significantly lower than male motorcycle drivers.3. were supported.2.6. externality-chance and externality-powerful-others. In Study 1. In Studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers.1 and H5. Therefore. that ethnicity significantly influenced internality.01). Hypothesis 4 was partially supported in studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers.3 were not supported.3 was supported. 1B and 1C found no significant differences in mean scores of hopelessness (BHS) between male and female automobile drivers. so H4.2. However. 142 . H4. In addition.1.

2 and H6. 143 . H6.6 Hypothesis 6: Locus of Control Influences Hopelessness In Study 1A.290. no significant effects were observed between I and BHS scores in the sample of motorcycle drivers.2 and H6.254. 4. Therefore.01) but C and P had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = . p<. p<.306.342.01 respectively). that externality-chance and externality-powerful-others would influence hopelessness.01 and B = . were supported.1.28). p<.7 Hypothesis 7: Hopelessness Influences Behaviour in Traffic In studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers.354. results of linear regression analyses indicated that hopelessness had a significant positive effect on total BIT scores and on scores for each of the four BIT component factors (see table 4.01) but C and P had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = .4. In Study 1B. I was found to have a significant negative effect on BHS scores (B = -. H6.01 and B = . p<.312. p<. that the three locus of control dimensions influence hopelessness.01 and (B = . Hypothesis 6 was partially supported in Study 2. In Study 1C. p<. were supported.01 and B = . but C and P had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = . In Study 2.6.239.341. was not supported.01. p<. p<.01. respectively).6. H6.1. p<. it is concluded that Hypothesis 6 was supported in studies of automobile drivers. respectively). respectively).01) but externality-chance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P) had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = .186.01.3. internality (I) had a significant negative effect on hopelessness (BHS) (B = -.3.254. that internality would influence hopelessness.371. H6. with higher levels of internality related to lower levels of hopelessness and higher levels of both externality dimensions associated with higher hopelessness. p<. p<. I had a significant negative effect on BHS scores (B = -. with the sample of motorcycle drivers.

01).153.05) and destination-activity orientation (B = . p<.01).01) and destination-activity orientation (B = . externally-focused frustration (B = .247.317.099. p<.01 B=. p<. the higher the hopelessness scores.01 B=. externally-focused frustration (B = . p<.287.349. p<.05). p<.05 In Study 1A.232. with both automobile and motorcycle drivers. p<.247.01 B=. p<. p<.01 B=.01 B=.01).01). p<.05).01 B=.191.S.141.01 B=. externally-focused frustration (B = .01 B=.05 B=.01). p<. p<. the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = .200. p<.280.157.05).05) but not for freeway urgency. p<. 144 . p<. p<. the higher the hopelessness scores.05 Study 2 B=.232. the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = .153.151.1. p<.01 B=. In Study 1C.2. p<.4. externally-focused frustration (B = .415. freeway urgency (B =. that hopelessness would have a significant positive direct effect on usurpation of right-of-way. p<.141.01 B=. In Study 1B.317. p<.Table 4.01 B=. N. the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = .191.254.01). p<.280. p<.278.254. H7. meaning that H7 was only partially supported for that study. that hopelessness would have a significant positive influence on total BIT scores.151.01) and destination-activity orientation (B = .157. p<. freeway urgency (B = . p<. the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = . it is concluded that Hypothesis 7.275. it was observed that the higher the hopelessness (BHS) scores. p<. p<. that hopelessness would have a significant positive effect on freeway urgency was not supported in Study 1B.287.349. p<.28: Direct effects of hopelessness on BIT scores Total BIT score Usurpation of Right-of-way Freeway Urgency Externally-Focused Frustration Destination-Activity Orientation Study 1A B=. 1C and 2. p<.05 B=. H7. p<.01).05) and destinationactivity orientation (B = . it was observed that the higher the hopelessness scores.01 B=. H7.05 Study 1C B=. p<. was supported in Studies 1A.418. B=.275.288. p<.151. p<.415.3 and H7.151. In Study 2. freeway urgency (B = .01 B=. Therefore. p<. p<.01 Study 1B B=. externallyfocused frustration and destination-activity were supported in both Studies 1 and 2.

01 B=. p<.753. with internality observed to exert a positive effect on BIT and the two externality dimensions to exert negative effects.6.S.388. B=. p<. p<.336.044.168. it is concluded that Hypothesis 8 was supported for automobile drivers in Study 1.339.625.29: Direct Effects of Locus of Control on Total BIT Scores Study 1A I C P Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 Study 3 B=-. N. p<.178.29). p<. H8. that locus of control would influence total BIT scores were supported in Study 1.315.239. N.01 B=. that the higher the subscale score for I.01 B=. where only H8. provided support for hypothesis H8. but not H8. Hypothesis 8 was partially supported for motorcycle drivers in Study 2. Hypothesis 8 was partially supported for taxicab drivers in Study 3. that internality and externality-chance would influence total BIT scores were supported. but not of the motorcycle and taxicab drivers in Studies 2 and 3 (See Table 4.229. the higher were mean total BIT scores automobile drivers in Study 1. N.297.01 B=.006.3.3.05 B=.077.3 that externality-powerful-others would influence total BIT scores.S. p<. p<.01 B=. results indicated that the higher were subscale scores for P.01 B=-.S. p<. motorcycle and taxicab drivers).01 B=. Therefore. B=. the lower were mean total BIT scores. p<.01 B=-.2.1. H8.01 B=-. Table 4. p<. With regard to H8.1. the higher were mean total BIT scores of automobile and motorcycle drivers in Studies 1 and 2.4. results indicated that the higher were subscale scores for C. p<. but not of the sample of taxicab drivers in Study 3.1 and H8.8 Hypothesis 8: Locus of Control Influences Behaviour in Traffic It was hypothesised that internality (I) would have a negative influence on total BIT scores while both externality-chance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P) would have a positive influence on total BIT scores. With regard to H8.2. Results of multiple regression analyses (in studies of car. 145 .208. H8.2 and H8. that internality would negatively influence total BIT scores was supported.01 B=.1. p<.01 B=-.

05. results revealed that Malay automobile drivers with high internal control had significantly lower scores on BIT subscales measuring usurpation of right-of-way.581.01 and F=8.704. Further.Additional analysis: Interaction of ethnicity and locus of control on BIT. p<.2).01 (see Figure 4.1: Interaction Effects between Ethnicity and Internality on BIT In Study 1C. it was found that Malay automobile drivers with high internal locus of control scored significantly lower in total BIT than did Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers with high internal control Malaysian-Indian student car drivers. F=4. =8. freeway urgency and externally-focused frustration than did Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers with high internal control.710. p<.1). 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.01 respectively (see Figure 4.1). p<.909.01 (see Figure 4.272. 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. F=4. Scores for the three locus of control dimensions – internality. F=7. Mean Score on Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) 175 Ethnicty Malay MalaysianChinese 170 MalaysianIndian 165 160 155 150 low high Internality Figure 4. In Study 1C. p<. 146 . p<.

R2=.00 62.00 low high Externality (Chance) Figure 4. 147 .Mean Score on Usurpation of Right-of Way Ethnicty 74. First.444. p<. p<.033. B = .9 Hypothesis 9: Hopelessness Moderates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Behaviour in Traffic For Studies 1A. Residuals Normality: Skewness=. the results of hierarchical regression indicated that the R2 value changed after the internality x hopelessness interaction was added in the regression model (R2=.034.00 Malay MalaysianChinese 72. Hopelessness moderated the relationship between internality and the total BIT score and between externality-chance and to total BIT score.00 66.00 68. 1B and 1C. multiple regression showed mixed results.2: Interaction Effect between Ethnicity and Externality-Chance on Usurpation of Right-of Way 4.00 64. Kurtosis=-. This means that motorcycle drivers with high internality scores and high hopelessness scores tended to have higher total BIT scores when compared to motorcycle drivers with high internality scores but low hopelessness scores (see Figure 4.05.282.6.537) and the moderator (hopelessness) showed a significant result. in Study 2. However. F=4.327. hopelessness did not moderate the relationship between locus of control and BIT.05.00 MalaysianIndian 70.3).

R2=.BIT Level Effect for drivers with high hopelessness score Effect for drivers with low hopelessness score Internality Figure 4. p<. F=18. Residuals Normality: Skewness=.463.459.608.167.371). Effect for drivers with high hopelessness score BIT Level Effect for drivers with low hopelessness score Externality (Chance) Figure 4.4). Kurtosis=-.01. p<.4: Moderating Effect of BHS on the Externality (Chance) -BIT Relationship 148 .01. 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. and the moderator (hopelessness) showed a significant result.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=.070. B = .

480. N.467.298. p<.01 t=4.01. ethnicity and age exerted direct effects on drivers’ Aggression Questionnaire (AQ) scores. p<. In Study 1C.820.690.603.05 t=4. mean total AQ scores differed significantly between ethnic groups.603. p<.01 t=-.521. the H9.30). that hopelessness would moderate the relationship between externalitychance and total BIT scores.S t=1. N. 1C and 3.780.01 t=2. ANOVA revealed no significant differences between ethnic groups in mean total AQ scores. and t(250) = 2. verbal aggression and indirect aggression (see Table 4.10 Hypothesis 10: Demographic Factors Influence Aggression Analyses tested whether gender. were supported. p<. N.01 (see table 4. p<.05 t=. Post hoc analysis showed that Malaysian-Chinese 149 . it is concluded that Hypothesis 9 was not supported in Study 1. In both studies. t(300) = 2. Hopelessness did not moderate the locus of control-BIT relation for automobile drivers.1.31). F(2.164.2.05 respectively.Therefore.690. Hypothesis 9 was partially supported in Study 2.677. However. p<.S. In Study 1B and Study 3. that hopelessness would moderate the relationship between internality and total BIT scores.S t=2.01 The relationship between ethnic background and aggression was tested for automobile drivers in Studies 1B. and H9. results indicated that male automobile drivers scored significantly higher than female drivers on measures of physical aggression. 4. N.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. p<. p<. p<. When mean subscale scores for the five AQ component factors were tested. t= . p<.210.S t=2.6. p<. With motorcycle drivers. male automobile drivers had significantly higher total AQ scores than did female automobile drivers.032.01 t=2. Mean total AQ scores differed significantly between male and female participants in Studies 1B and 1C. Table 4.05 Study 1C t=2. 249) = 5.187. however.

N. ANOVA revealed no significant differences between ethnic groups in mean scores in any of the AQ subscale scores. F=5.01).804. N. F(2.01).904.629. N.182. In Study 1C. Malaysian-Chinese and Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers were significantly different. p<.automobile drivers in Study 1C had significantly lower total AQ scores than did Malay or Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers (p<. F=1.S.S. N.01 F=2.S. p<.S.526. F=2. p<. Table 4.S. When AQ subscale scores were tested for Study 1B and Study 1C.077. p<. Malaysian-Chinese and Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers were significantly different. N. F(2.763. N. the mean verbal aggression (VER) scores of Malay.01 Study 3 F=1.S F=10.01 F=.021. In Study 3. F=.632.05 Study 1C F=5. N. N. N.398. F=2. F=1.31: Direct Effects of Ethnicity on AQ Total and Subscale Factors Total Aggression score Physical Aggression (PHY) Verbal Aggression (VER) Anger (ANG) Hostility (HOS) Indirect Aggression (IND) Study 1B F=2.01.432.564. N. Similar to the findings in Study 1B. 249) = 10. The mean indirect aggression (IND) scores of Malay. 299) = 4.422.S. F=1. N. Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers had significantly lower IND scores than drivers from other ethnic groups (p<.561. Malaysian-Chinese and Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers were also significantly different.57.041. N. mixed results were found. Malay automobile drivers scored significantly higher VER scores than drivers from other ethnic groups (p<.521. F=2.S.05. 299) = 5. p<. F(2.S.01). Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers had significantly lower IND scores than drivers from other ethnic groups (p<.155. F=1. F=4.S.432. N.01).S. F=2. Mean total AQ scores and mean scores on the five AQ subscales did not differ significantly between age groups either for automobile drivers in Studies 1B and 1C or for taxicab drivers in Study 3.S.01. In Study 1B. mean IND scores of Malay. F=1. p<. N.041.567.S. 150 .S. p<.

2 (that ethnicity would influence aggression level) was supported only in Study 1C and only with respect to total AQ. freeway urgency.Therefore. 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 4.3 (that age would negatively influence aggression) was not supported. VER and IND) of five component factors among automobile drivers sampled in both Studies 1B and 1C.4. This means that when taxicab drivers’ aggression scores were higher. H11. The higher the total aggression scores.29).3 and H11. H10.32).1. the higher were automobile drivers’ total BIT scores and scores on the four components. respectively.1 (that gender would influence aggression) was supported with respect to measures of total aggression and to the same three (PHY. in studies of both automobile drivers and taxicab drivers.2. however. H10. linear regression analyses indicated that total AQ scores predicted total BIT scores and also scores measuring the four BIT component factors: usurpation of right-of-way. externally-focused frustration. total BIT scores and scores on usurpation of right-of way and freeway urgency subscales were higher. 4. that aggression would have a positive influence on total BIT scores. freeway urgency. it is concluded that Hypothesis 11. and destination-activity orientation (see Table 4. that aggression would have a direct positive effect on externally-focused frustration and on destination-activity orientation.11 Hypothesis 11: Aggression Influences Behaviour in Traffic In Study 1B and Study 1C. that aggression would have a direct positive effect on the usurpation of right-of way. 151 . was supported. In Studies 1B and 1C. with regard to the taxicab drivers sampled in Study 3. were supported. H11.6. However. it is concluded that Hypothesis 10 was partially supported. H10.4. H11. Therefore. VER and IND subscale scores. externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation.3 and H11. only H11. In Study 3. were all supported.

263. p<. the higher were total BIT scores.01 respectively.183.387.01. When the interaction effect of ethnicity and hopelessness was tested on the BIT and its four component factors. N.01. B = .881. B = .01. p<. Study 1C and Study 3. Additional analysis: Interaction effects of ethnicity and aggression on BIT. p<. no interaction effects were found in all studies – Study 1A.01 Study 3 B=. B = . and B = . but that this does not apply to taxi drivers. However.565. Malay automobile drivers with high VER scores tended to score 152 . B=. p<. p<.5).01 B=.204.380.01 B=.01. p<. 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.05 B=.01 B=.01 B=. Study 2 and Study 3. B = . indirect aggression (IND) was also found to have significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1B and Study 1C. p<. p<.216.121.370.01 B=.01 and B = .229.01 and B = . p<. p<.491. B = .370. it was found that there was an interaction effect between ethnicity and verbal aggression (VER) on freeway urgency. p<. respectively.01 Study 1C B=. 1C. p<. their total BIT scores tend to be higher. Similarly.S.05 (see Figure 4. F=3.01 respectively.Table 4. p<. N.01. p<.505. the higher the levels of PHY and HOS.048.263. p<.01 B=. p<.01. Study 1C and Study 3. hostility (HOS) was found to have a significant positive influence on BIT in Study 1B. and B = .438. but not in Study 3. p<. With both automobile and taxicab drivers. This implies that when automobile drivers have higher levels of ANG and IND. Verbal aggression (VER) was found to have no significant influence on total BIT scores. p<.428.385.05 B=. p<.545. p<.01 B=.483.540.01 B=. p<.461. Also.235. respectively. Linear regression analyses indicated that physical aggression (PHY) had a significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1B.520.01 B=. p<.32: Effect of Aggression on Total BIT Scores and on BIT Component Factors Study 1B B=. p<.324. 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.S. but not in Study 3. p<. 1B.

Kurtosis=-.00 Malay ChineseMalaysian 50. p<.297. F=81. The moderating effect of I was significant. Residuals Normality: Skewness=. p<.6.131. R2=. R2=. p<. aggressive drivers with low internal locus of control would 153 .00 46.05.961.645. Mean Score on Freeway Urgency Ethnicty 52. respectively.362. R2=. and R2 values changed after the I x AQ interaction was added in the regression models (R2=.01. Study 1C and Study 3. B=-.516.01.172.00 Low High Verbal Aggression Figure 4.00 42.12 Hypothesis 12: Locus of Control Moderates the Relationship between Aggression and Behaviour in Traffic 4. B=-.076. Kurtosis=-.003. for Study 1B.929. In other words. p<.5: Interaction of Ethnicity and Verbal Aggression on Freeway Urgency 4.12.significantly higher on freeway urgency than did Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers with high VER scores. p<. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-.316.1 Internality as a Moderator Hierarchical regression analyses revealed that internality (I) moderated the relationship between aggression and total BIT score.271.01.6.00 44. F=100.100.01.00 IndianMalaysian 48. and B=-. 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.

6: Moderating Effect of Internality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship 4. This applied to both automobile drivers and taxicab drivers.109.431. Consistent with the findings from Study 1B.01. R2=. p<.01. B = . respectively).088. p<. p<.704. F=78. Kurtosis=-.117.2 Externality-chance and Externality-powerful-others as Moderators In Study 1B and Study 1C.069. p<.757.01 respectively. Residuals Normality: Skewness= -.271. and the moderating effects of C and P were 154 . R2=.have higher BIT scores compared to drivers with high internal locus of control (see figure 4. F=94. R2=.794.297. respectively). In Study 1B. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-.387. the hierarchical regression revealed that externalitychance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P) moderated the relationship between aggression and total BIT score. F=91.01.271.6. Kurtosis=. 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=. Effect for aggressive drivers with low internality score BIT Level Effect for aggressive drivers with high internality score Aggression Level Figure 4.360.507. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-463. p<.01. and the moderating effects of C and P were significant.6). R2=.369.606.897.694.12.015.015.01 and B = . Kurtosis=-. R2=. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-. p<. F=71.297. R2=. R2 values changed after both the C x AQ and P x AQ interactions were added in the respective regression models (R2=. Kurtosis=.

with the samples of automobile drivers study for student car drivers. p<. B = . H12. This means that aggressive automobile drivers scoring high on either the C or P locus of control dimensions had higher total BIT scores than automobile drivers scoring low on either the C or P dimensions (see Figure 4.significant. and H12.302.1. R2 values did not change after either the C x AQ or P x AQ interactions were added in the regression models.7).332. that the internality.01 respectively. p<.2. 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. H12.3. Effect for aggressive drivers with high externality scores BIT Level Effect for aggressive drivers with low externality scores Aggression Level Figure 4.01 and B = .7: Moderating Effects of Externality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship However. 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 . it is concluded that the Hypothesis 12 was supported in Studies 1B and 1C. and the moderation effect was not significant. Therefore.

with the sample of taxicab drivers. p<.314.05. p<.737. There were also significant differences between ethnic groups on subscale scores measuring statements about physical aggression F(2.263. 156 . Hypothesis 12 was only partially supported in Study 3. ANOVA results showed that ethnic groups differed significantly with respect to mean total HAT scores. and about revenge F(2. 248) = 3. There were no significant differences between ethnic groups with respect to hostile statements about the derogation of others. t(250) = 3.01. t(249)=2. No significant differences were observed between age groups with respect to total HAT scores or to scores on any of the three HAT subscales. 249) = 4.01. 4. H122 and H12.1. Post hoc analysis indicated that Chinese-Malaysian automobile drivers had significantly lower scores on the subscale measuring statements about physical aggression than did either Malay automobile drivers (p<. p<.05). male automobile drivers scored significantly higher on HAT subscales measuring statements about physical aggression. F(2. Chinese-Malaysian automobile drivers had significantly lower scores than IndianMalaysian automobile drivers (p<.343. p<. that internality moderates the relationship between aggression and total BIT scores was supported.01 but not on about the derogation of others. However.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. Also.05).05) or Indian-Malaysian automobile drivers (p<. that externality-chance and externality-powerful-others moderates the relationship between aggression and BIT scores were not supported.dimensions of locus of control moderate the relationship between aggression and total BIT scores were supported.3. p<.05.01 and revenge: t(249) = 3.01).6.279. Only H12. On the subscale measuring statements about revenge.885. 249) = 5. Post hoc analysis indicated that Chinese-Malaysian automobile drivers had significantly lower total HAT scores than either Malay or Indian-Malaysian automobile drivers (p<. p<.

H14.01 and destination-activity orientation. derogation of others and revenge) positively influence total BIT scores. This means that. were supported. H13. p<.01. The effects of HAT subscales measuring the three classes of hostile automatic thoughts. the higher the total HAT scores.413.379. p<.14 Hypothesis 14: Hostile Automatic Thoughts Influence Behaviour in Traffic In Study 1C.2 and H14.224. B = . that demographic variables would influence hostile automatic thoughts. p<.01.Therefore.2. B = . was supported. Linear regression analyses indicated that subscales measuring thoughts about physical aggression.6. were supported.01. the higher the scores on the three classes of hostile automatic thought. (that thoughts about physical aggression. the higher were total BIT scores. B = .3. p<.307. was not supported.01 and B = . it is concluded that the Hypothesis 14.192. was partially supported. that gender and ethnicity respectively would have significant direct effects on hostile automatic thoughts. H14. 157 .1 and H13. This means that. and also scores measuring the four BIT component factors: usurpation of right-of-way. H13. Therefore. on total BIT score were also tested.277. derogation of others and revenge had a significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1C B =. that hostile automatic thoughts would influence behaviour in traffic. p<. B = . linear regression analyses indicated that total HAT scores predicted total BIT scores. 4.01. p<. p<. externally-focused frustration. B = . B = . with the sample of automobile drivers studied. that age would influence hostile automatic thoughts. p<.01.01.394.1. the higher were automobile drivers’ total BIT scores and scores on the four components. freeway urgency. respectively.364.3. it is concluded that the Hypothesis 13.

p<. Physical Aggression and Revenge. F=55.002.809. Kurtosis=.4.01.297. Effect for aggressive drivers with high HAT score BIT Level Effect for aggressive drivers with low HAT score Aggression Level Figure 4. p<. The R2 value changed after the HAT-Physical Aggression x AQ interaction was added in the regression model (R2=.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. also moderated the relationship between aggression and BIT. R2=.-554. and the moderating effect of HAT was significant. B = . Kurtosis=.911.188. F=57. In other words. p<. and the moderating effect of HAT-Physical 158 .297.01.085). Normality Residuals: Skewness=. 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.8).8: Moderating Effect of Externality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship It was observed that two of the HAT subscales.013.6. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-. 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. R2 values changed after the HAT x AQ interaction was added in the regression model (R2=.05. R2=.072).565.

3. F=59.026. Kurtosis=. The R2 value also changed after the HATRevenge x AQ interaction was added in the regression model (R2=. p<. was not supported. R2=.01. that total HAT score would moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic.33). B = .475. it is concluded that Hypothesis 15. that hostile statements about physical aggression and revenge respectively moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic. were supported. 159 . Therefore.6. that hostile statements about the derogation of others moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic.092).297.246. 4. p<.01.207. H15.01. The HAT subscale measuring thoughts about the derogation of others did not moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic. Normality Residuals: Skewness=. H15. B = .Aggression was significant.1 and H15. p<.294. was supported. and the moderating effect of HAT-Revenge was significant.2.16 Summary of Hypothesis Testing The following table provides summarised results for the hypotheses and subhypotheses in this study (see Table 4. However.

2: Ethnicity will influence total BIT score H3.3: Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.S 3 P.S N.S N.2.S S S S S N.S P.2: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.S P.S S N.2: Taxicab experience will have a negative influence on total BIT score H3: Demographic variables will influence behaviour in traffic H3. S N.S N.4:Destination-activity orientation will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.3: Age will have a negative influence on total BIT score H4: Demographic variables will influence the Locus of Control H4.S S S N.S S N.1: Ethnicity will influence the Locus of Control: Internality H4.1.S N.1.S N.1: Age will influence the Locus of Control: Internality S S S S S S S S S S S S S S P.1: Driver experience will have a negative influence on total BIT score H2.S S P.1.2.2.S 1B S S S S S S S S S S S S S S P.S S S S S N.S S S S P.S N.S N.S S S S S S N.1.S P.1: Gender will influence total BIT score H3.1: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.2: Traveling frequency will have a negative influence on total BIT score H2.2.S S S N.3.S P.S P.2.S S S N.S N.S N.S N.S N.S N.4: Destination-activity orientation will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H2: Driver characteristics will influence behaviour in traffic H2.Table 4.2.S N.1.1.S N.1.S N.S N.1: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.S 1C P.S.1: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.1: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Internality H4.S S N.S P.2: Freeway urgency will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.2: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.S S S N.S S S N.S N.S 2 S S S S S S S S S S S P.S 160 .S S N.2: Ethnicity will influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.S N.S N.3: Gender will influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H4.S S S N.S N.S S S S S N.S N.3: Ethnicity influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H4.2 :Freeway urgency will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.3:Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.33: Summarised Results of the Hypotheses and Sub-hypotheses STUDY 1A H1: BIT will have a positive influence on motor vehicle crash outcomes H1.2.

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

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

C.045 . F3.93 . F3. Study 2: motorcycle driver. BHS.52 (Jöreskog and Sörbom.34: SEM Comparison (Study 1C) Distal Factors 1C1 1C2 1C3 1C4 1C5 1C6 I. These models were re-specified by adding different proximal context factors. P. externality (Chance) and externality (Powerful-Other) as distal context factors. F4 F1. F2. BHS.00000 .093 .34.93 .00111 . F4 χ2 49.58 35.80 104. C. externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation as proximal context factors. F2.7.00126 . externally-focused frustration (F3) and destination-activity orientation (F4) Of the six models tested.00000 .f.90 110. Aggression (AQ). HAT I. AQ I.102 . P. Hopelessness. freeway urgency.g.087 .060 Note: Internality (I). Model 1C5 had better fit but necessitated dropping one of the component factors.97 . freeway urgency (F2).1 Study 1C The contextual mediated model in this study was tested with four distal factors – Locus of Control. C. HAT I. 4. BHS I.38 100. AQ. Usurpation of right-of-way (F1). (2) usurpation of right-of-way.7 Testing the Contextual Mediated Model Using Structural Equation Modelling (LISREL Analysis) The contextual mediated model was tested using Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) – path analysis through LISREL 8. F3 F1. Three studies (Study 1C: automobile driver. F2. C. Externality Powerful-Other (P). P I. C. F4 F1.93 .02 d. 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. F3. F2.4. F2. AQ. 163 . All proposed models measured: (1) internality. Hopelessness (BHS). C. two were worthy of further examination. AQ.068 . F3. e. Externality Chance (C). F4 F1. Table 4. 23 28 33 38 24 33 p-value GFI . P. and (3) crash occurrence and injury occurrence as outcome. P. F2. 2002).96 RMSEA . Hostile Automatic Thought (HAT).97 63. F4 F1.00000 . This contextual mediated model was tested six times and the goodness-of-fit indices for these models are indicated in Table 4. HAT Proximal Factors F1.05522 . F3. P. hopelessness or subtracting the latent variables in order to obtain the optimal goodness-of-fit index. AQ and Hostile Automatic Thought (HAT).96 .

Making a decision to select one of these models over the other raised a number of interesting points. RMSEA=.96. AGFI=.97. GFI=. .3. which are detailed in sect. . d.91.94.42. Externality (Powerful-Other).96. CFI=.42. subsequent additional analysis was carried out to calculate a range of comparative fit indices.060.35.10). The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=. GFI=. but not as good as for C5. RMSEA=.99) and constituted the best fit of all six of the tested models.28 and . with path coefficients = -.48.045. The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that all possible paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant: Internality. 164 .98).043.51 and PGFI=.=33. . The five distal variables accounted for 70% of the variance in BIT scores. values were: NFI=.=24.92) on accident involvement. .22 respectively (see Figure 4. 5.32.14.26. AGFI=.043. To aid this discussion. The five distal variables accounted for 67% of the variance in BIT scores.97.92) on accident involvement. For Model C5. .02.29 and . The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that all possible paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant: Internality.97. CFI=. . goodness-of-fit was characterised as excellent (χ2=35. and PGFI=. For Model C6. d. values for these additional indices were: NFI=. RMR=.13. The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=. Externality (Powerful-Other). ECVI=. RMR=.destination-activity orientation (F4). retained all four of the BIT component factors and fit indices were acceptable. An alternate model.5. with path coefficients = -.10).26. C6.f.f. Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thought had effects on BIT. For Model C6. Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thought had effects on BIT. goodness-of-fit was characterised as very good (χ2=63. of the BIT score. Externality (Chance). For Model C5. ECVI=.23 respectively (see Figure 4. Externality (Chance).

79* .045 RMR=.63* .99 P-value = .9: Contextual Mediated Model 1C5 (Three BIT Factors) 165 .f =24 CFI=.29* Aggression (AQ) .Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome Internality -.005522 N=252 RMSEA=. BITF4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4.58* .97 GFI=.57* Injury Occurrence .92* Accident Involvement .32* Externality (Chance) .26* Crash Occurrence Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) .13* Externality (Powerful Other) BIT1 BIT2 BIT3 . BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration.97 d. BITF2=Freeway Urgency. *p<.05 BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way.51* .22* Hostile Automatic Thought Model Statistics χ2=35.043 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.

39* .060 RMR=.00126 N=252 RMSEA=.31* Externality (Chance) . BITF2=Freeway Urgency.Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome Internality -.043 Note: Values showed are path coefficients. *p<.29* Aggression (AQ) .56* .77* .63* .05 BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way.50* .22* Hostile Automatic Thought Model Statistics χ2=63.92* Accident Involvement . BITF4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4.10: Contextual Mediated Model 1C6 (Four BIT Factors) 166 .f =33 CFI=. BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration.58* Injury Occurrence .98 P-value = .02 GFI=.13* Externality (Powerful Other) BIT1 BIT2 BIT3 BIT4 .96 d.26* Crash Occurrence Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) .

IND PHY.35). d. GFI=. ANG. F2.00000 .00000 GFI RMSEA . HAT-D.80) on the accident involvement. path coefficients = . externally-focused frustration (F3) and destination-activity orientation (F4) As depicted in Figure 4.91 . HAT-P. HOS.73 169. VER.94 169.66).65 and . HAT-R PHY. HAT-D. F3 F1. Hostile Automatic Thought-Revenge(HAT-R). F3. F2. 167 . VER. Hostile Automatic Thought was found to have a direct effect on the AQ (path coefficient=. F3. F3 F1. 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). Usurpation of right-of-way (F1). IND. Verbal aggression (VER). IND. the final model has provided a reasonable fit to the data (χ2=153. HAT-R Proximal Factors F1. ANG.66 131.92 . HOS.00111 .078 Note: Physical aggression (PHY). IND. The results for the goodness-offit indexes are shown as follows: Table 4.13 respectively. F4 χ2 108.00000 . HAT-R PHY.084 . F2.91.084 . ANG. VER. freeway urgency (F2). RMSEA=. HOS. F2.In addition.=61. HOS.41 d.41. F4 F1.91 . HAT-P. The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=. Indirect aggression (IND). HOS.35: Different Contextual Models (Study 1C) Distal Factors PHY. HAT-D. IND.f. HAT-R PHY. F3. the contextual mediated model was tested using Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thoughts and their latent variables (component factors) as distal context factors.10. Hostile Automatic Thought-Derogation of others (HAT-D).95). Angry (ANG).91 .93 .078. HAT-P. HAT-D. The proposed contextual mediated model was tested five times (see Table 4. Aggression (AQ). using automobile drivers sampled in Study 1C.66 153. Hostility (HOS).080 . ANG. 42 61 50 61 61 p-value . ANG.081 . CFI=.00000 . Hostile Automatic Thought-Physical aggression (HAT-P). HAT-P.f. F2. F4 F1.

f =61 CFI=.72* . BIT3=Externally-Focused Frustration.68* Aggression (AQ) BIT1 BIT2 BIT3 BIT4 .058 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.63* Indirect Aggression .60* Injury Occurrence Physical Aggression .13* Model Statistics χ2=153.91 d. *p<.62* .11: Contextual Mediated Model Study 1C (Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thoughts) 168 .05 . BIT2=Freeway Urgency.41 GFI=.80* Accident Involvement .66* .29* Hostility .90* Derogation of Other Hostile Automatic Thought .61* .65* Crash Occurrence Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) . BIT4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4.83* .Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome Physical Aggression .58* .95 P-value = .65* .69* Anger .000 N=252 RMSEA=.078 RMR=.82* Revenge BIT1=Usurpation of Right-of way.

169 . path coefficients = -.2 Study 2 In Study 2.95 . F2. P.12). F4 F1. Externality Powerful-Other (P). C. The goodness-of-fit indexes for these models are shown as follow: Table 4. Usurpation of right-of-way (F1).06722 .36: Different Contextual Models (Study 2) Distal Factors Proximal Factors χ2 29. The four distal variables accounted for 49% of the variance in BIT. Compared to the Study 1 for student car drivers. BHS I. CFI=. Hopelessness (BHS).07580 . F2.047. freeway urgency (F2).4. The proposed contextual mediated model was tested three times (see Table 4. P I.f.36). the participants were motorcycle drivers.=28.65 and . The contextual mediated model was tested using locus of control and hopelessness as distal context factors. C. F4 39.94 . BHS F1. The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that three paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant. F3. d. Internality and Externality (Chance) the Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) but not Externality (PowerfulOther). C.94 . P.66) on the accident involvement. The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=. the final model for the student motorcycle drivers did not include hopelessness.86 23 28 23 . Externality Chance (C). p-value GFI RMSEA I.98). RMSEA=. F3 F1.80 respectively (see Figure 4.7.33 33.94.17631 .12 d.047 .12. 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=29.058 . GFI=.f. F3.062 Note: Internality (I). F2.

*p<.83* BIT3 .046 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.12 GFI=.65* Externality (Chance) .Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome BIT1 BIT2 .57* Internality -.89* .70* BIT4 .88* Crash Occurrence .f =23 CFI=.80* Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) .78* .99 P-value = .17631 N=122 RMSEA=.95 d.12: Contextual Mediated Model Study 2 170 . BIT3=Externally-Focused Frustration.05 Injury Occurrence Model Statistics χ2=29. BIT2=Freeway Urgency.05 BIT1=Usurpation of Right-of way. BIT4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4.66* Accident Involvement Externality (Powerful Other) .047 RMR=.

F2. C. C. but not Externality. The four distal variables accounted for 12% of the variance in BIT. F4 50. P. freeway urgency (F2).7. F2. F4 Crash Occurrence 18. CFI=.35265 .95 . d.39.027 I. C.f.061. F2.13). The goodness-of-fit indexes for these models are shown as follow: Table 4. Usurpation of right-of-way (F1).03084 . F3.4.37).94 . AQ F1. C. AQ and only crash occurrence as outcome has provided the best goodness-of-fit to the data (χ2=31. RMSEA=. I. P. P Proximal Factors F1. F3. GFI=. F4 Outcomes χ2 d. This contextual mediated model was tested four times (see Table 4. The contextual mediated model was tested using locus of control and hopelessness as distal context factors.82 28 .40) on the accident involvement. Hopelessness (H). path coefficients = -. F2.f.95). have effects on the Behaviour in Traffic (BIT). 171 .=21. AQ F1.061 Note: Internality (I).3 Study 3 In Study 3. externally-focused frustration (F3) and destination-activity orientation (F4) Model included locus of control. p-value GFI RMSEA Crash Occurrence. the participants were taxi drivers. The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=.22 23 .95.97 . F3.37: Different Contextual Models (Study 3) Distal Factors I.20 respectively (see Figure 4.93 .079 Injury Occurrence I. F3.20 and . 37.06743 . Externality Chance (ExC). Externality Powerful-Other (ExPo).39 21 .59 17 . The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that two out of four possible paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant. Internality and AQ. F4 Crash Occurrence 31.068 Injury Occurrence Crash Occurrence. AQ F1.00524 .

95 P-value = .39* Internality -.74* -.05 BIT1=Usurpation of Right-of way.03 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) .95 d.f =21 CFI=.Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome BIT1 BIT2 .40* Crash Occurrence Externality (Powerful Other) .61* BIT4 .06743 N=133 RMSEA=. BIT4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4. BIT3=Externally-Focused Frustration.63* BIT3 .20* Aggression (AQ) Model Statistics χ2=31. BIT2=Freeway Urgency.20* Externality (Chance) .053 Note: Values showed are path coefficients. *p<.061 RMR=.13: Contextual Mediated Model Study 3 172 .39 GFI=.13 .

and.8. the mediating effect of BIT on hopelessness and crash outcomes relationship could not be estimated. consistent with path analysis results. Step2=independent variable has a significant effect on the dependent variable.8 Testing Mediational Relationships Using SPSS The mediating effects of BIT on: (1) the relationship between hopelessness and accident involvement. 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.8. 4. BIT was a complete mediator for the relationship between AQ total score and crash occurrence. (3) the relationship between aggression and accident involvement. Table 4. hopelessness did not significantly influence the crash outcomes (see Table 4. 4. Therefore. (2) the relationship between locus of control and accident involvement. 2 and 3 are satisfied.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 4.4.38: 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. 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). 173 . Not applicable = mediating effect could only be tested when conditions in Step1.38).39).1 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hopelessness and Crash Outcomes In all studies.

4 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Crash Outcomes For automobile drivers. behaviour in traffic (BIT) had complete or partial mediating effects on the relationship between the three locus of control dimensions – Internality (I). in Studies 1A.8.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. Externality-Chance (C) and Externality-PowerfulOthers – and crash outcomes (See Table 4.40). 1B and 1C. Table 4.3 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hostile Automatic Thought and Crash Outcome The regression results showed that the BIT partially mediated the relationship between hostile automatic thought and crash outcomes (see Table 4.39: 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 4.41). Table 4. 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 4.8.

no mediating effect of BIT could be estimated since requisite conditions in the second step of the analysis were not satisfied. For taxicab drivers in Study 3.mediating effect of BIT total scores could not be estimated because requisite conditions in the second step of the analysis were not satisfied. With respect to the relationship between I and the crash outcomes and the relationship between P and the crash outcomes. For motorcycle drivers in Study 2.41: BIT Mediates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Crash Outcomes BIT mediates I-Crash Occurrence Relation Study 1A Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 Study 3 BIT mediates I-Injury Occurrence Relation Study 1A Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 Study 3 BIT mediates C-Crash Occurrence Relation Study 1A Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 Study 3 BIT mediates C-Injury Occurrence Relation Study 1A Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 Study 3 Step 1 Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 1 Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 1 Significant Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Step 1 Significant Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Step 2 Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Not Significant Step 2 Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Not Significant Step 2 Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 2 Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Step 4 Complete Mediator Partial Mediator Partial Mediator Not Applicable Not Applicable Step 4 Complete Mediator Partial Mediator Partial Mediator Not Applicable Not Applicable Step 4 Partial Mediator Complete Mediator Partial Mediator Complete Mediator Not Applicable Step 4 Partial Mediator Complete Mediator Partial Mediator Complete Mediator Not Applicable 175 . C or P and the two crash outcomes. Table 4. BIT had a complete mediating effect on the relationship between C and both crash outcomes. BIT had no mediating effects on the relationship between I.

Study 2: t(422)= 8. Motorcycle Drivers and Taxicab Drivers 4. p <.01. Automobile drivers in Studies 1A.9 Comparison of Automobile Drivers.01. p <. Study 2: t(421)= 7. 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. p <. Study 1C vs. Study 1B vs. 176 .1 Differences between Automobile Drivers and Motorcycle Drivers In a subsequent analysis.05.9. scores for distal variables (locus of control and hopelessness). Study 2: t(421)= -3.162. Study 1B vs.665. automobile drivers scored higher than motorcycle drivers on I.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. Automobile drivers also scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers on C. Study 2: t(372)= 8.837. p <. Study 2: t(422)= -2.01. Study 2: t(372)= -3.442.01. 1B and 1C scored significantly lower on hopelessness than did motorcycle drivers.Table 4. Study 1A vs.01. Study 1A vs. It was found that there were significant differences in scores for hopelessness. Study 2: t(421)= -4. p <. Study 1C vs.663.993. Study 1A vs.01. With respect to the three dimensions of locus of control.426. There was no significant difference in scores on the P dimension between automobile drivers and motorcycle drivers. p <. p <.

801.484. p <. Study 1C vs.926. Study 1A vs. There were no differences between motorcycle drivers and taxicab drivers on the P dimension. and to injury occurrence.747.01. Automobile drivers scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers in injury occurrence. Motorcycle drivers scored higher than taxicab drivers on C.687.837.2 Differences between Automobile Drivers and Taxicab Drivers With respect to locus of control.261. p <. p <. 4. Study 1C vs. respectively. “freeway urgency”.614. Automobile drivers scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers in crash occurrence. p <. Also.704. Study 2: t(372)= -5.200. t(986)= 5. and on all four BIT subscales: “usurpation of right-of way”. Study 2: t(422)= -6. taxicab drivers scored higher than automobile drivers on the I dimension. Study 1B vs. p <.577.775. p <. Study 1A vs. t(253) = 2.01. Study 1B vs. p <.9. Study 2: t(422)= -4. p <. p <.977.01. There were no significant differences scores on either C or P between the automobile drivers and taxicab drivers.01. Study 2: t(421)= -7.01.01. Study 1A vs.01.01. automobile drivers scored higher than taxicab drivers with respect to crash occurrence. p <. p <. t(986)= 30. Study 2: t(372)= -6. p <. Study 1C vs. p <. Study 2: t(421)= -3. p <.01.861. p <. t(986)= 3.01.01. t(253)= 8. Study 2: t(421)= -8. t(986)= 6.01. Automobile drivers scored higher that taxicab drivers on total BIT scores. p <.9. and t(986)= 35.3 Differences between Motorcycle Drivers and Taxicab Drivers Taxicab drivers scored higher than motorcycle drivers on the I locus of control dimension. p <.01.01.402.Automobile drivers scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers with respect to the total BIT score. t(986)= 7.01.433. t(986)= 34. p <. 177 . t(986)= 37.01. “externally-focused frustration” and “destination-activity orientation”.01.211.186. Study 2: t(372)= -7. 4.01.

“freeway urgency”.946. “externally-focused frustration” and “destination-activity orientation”. and all four BIT subscales: “usurpation of right-of way”.01.01.01. t(253)= 31.Motorcycle drivers had higher total BIT scores than taxicab drivers. Also. p <. drivers scored higher with respect to crash occurrence. and t(253)= 37.881.016. p <. t(253)= 39.977. t(253)= 8. t(253)= 11.01and to injury occurrence.01. p <.737.01. t(253)= 35. respectively. p <.982.01. p <.567. p <. t(253)= 8. p <. 178 .

Papacostas and Synodinos (1988) investigated four dimensions of driving behaviour conceptually related to the Type A behaviour pattern (TABP). Evans. human factors that conceptually might be expected to have a strong influence over driving behaviour and crash occurrence end up. 2. externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation. Elander et. 1995.2. in which the roles played by variables in mediating and moderating effects of personality factors are more closely examined than in the past. age and personality may be the most important factors in crash causation (Bridger..1 A Contextual Mediated Model for Understanding Factors Influencing Unsafe Driving Traffic psychologists. While it has been generally assumed and frequently stated that driver characteristics. researchers have been frequently frustrated when attempting to quantify the effects of psycho-social variables on either driving behaviour or crash outcomes. 1991). Elander et al. not directly on driving behaviour and crash outcomes but rather on some intervening variable located more proximally to the event (see sect. The present research applied Sümer’s concept of a contextual mediated model. upon examination. Often. Composite BIT scores were comprised of measures of usurpation of right-ofway. in which a set of personality and demographic factors are thought to exert effects. In an earlier study. ethnic and driver experience differences with respect to 179 . (1993). Parker (2004) and others have stressed the importance of examining crash causation from a broader. including gender.4.1). al. 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. freeway urgency. exerting weaker influence or more equivocal results than anticipated (Dewar. 2002b). They found gender.CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION 5. 1993. multi-factorial perspective.

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

… 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

6 months as licensed drivers. For taxicab drivers. as it did with the less experienced university students in the other groups. Because of occupational demands.53.63.2 years. there are other possible influences. 5. the extent to which an individual is connected to others through interpersonal networks. SD=1.1 months. In the present study. SD=131. respectively). By virtue of their age and occupation.01years. it might also be assumed that their traffic exposure was greater than that of the students. SD=. They were also more experienced (266. Malaysian-Indian automobile 187 .hierarchy.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.1. internals reported that they engaged in safer behaviour in traffic.66) than the automobile drivers and motorcyclists (20. although driving frequency was not measured for taxicab drivers. social trust and norms that promote coordination and cooperation. Of course.5. SD=11.25 years. For taxicab drivers.7 months. SD=22. Hijar and Tovar (2005) have noted that social capital. SD=1.10) than the automobile drivers and motorcyclists (28. taxicab drivers were considerably older (43. as well.3. but the externality-chance dimension had no significant effect. respectively). This would be an error more likely to be made by younger novice or less experienced drivers. 20. Further research is needed to examine the influence of driving experience. it might be assumed that taxicab drivers could well have a broader social network. traffic exposure and other variables on the effects that internality and externality exert on driving behaviour. affected driving behaviour and decisions about the use of public roads.16. the continued operation of their vehicle is fundamental to their livelihood so motivational factors may take precedence over attributions of external control. Inclán. and 36. 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.

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

Again. Gomez. Salih &Young. where Cheung et al. by extension. Indeed. 1999). including locus of control.8 million in 1996. than between Singaporean-Chinese and Chinese participants from China. 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.3. It is also consistent with the results of a study by Fontaine and Richardson (2003) which found differences in cultural values within the workplace were not significant among the three Malaysian ethnic groups.3 Locus of Control and Ethnicity: Malay and Chinese-Malaysian Drivers The present research found no significant difference between Malay and Chinese participants in any of the three dimensions of locus of control. the proportion of the population residing in urban areas increased from 51% in 1991 to 55. and. Sendut. although they were consistent with more recent research by Sinha & Watson (2007). 1966. Nandy. as a group. have been largely limited from participation in social and political processes that would necessitate that sort of social skill development and. 1999. 1981). 1999) where one’s skills at manipulating the system may have fostered a need for greater internal control.5 million in 1991 to 11. Willford (2003) concluded that Indian-Malaysians. 2002.Malaysian participants scored lower in internality was contrary to Carment’s earlier conclusions with individuals from India. Closer proximity of cultural groups can be assumed to increase contact and transmission of knowledge and awareness of value systems (Hofstede. but two possible influences stand out. the reasons for this commonality in outlook are probably multi-factorial. This is consistent with recent findings among Malay and Chinese ethnic groups in Singapore.5% annually from 9. (2006) found greater commonalities in personality traits. 1999. an internal locus of control. The size of the urban population in Malaysia increased by 4. 1998. 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. 5. In reference to Carment’s explanation of the earlier results. Armstrong (1987) argued that urbanisation has affected 189 . as a result.7 in 1996.

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

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

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

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

Lambie & Marcel. Carretie.1) defined multivariate thinking as “a body of thought processes that illuminate interrelatedness between and within sets of variables” and proposed that 194 . so too does the mental effort required (de Waard & Brookhuis. an overburdening of cognitive workload capacity or both. Taylor & Fragopanagos. Tomkins. In fact. 2000. Making sense of.Robbins. as well as other task demands of driving in traffic. 1999.5 Testing the Contextual Mediated Model Using Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) 5. Performance (e. 162). 1997). 2005). Additional studies are needed to investigate whether this relationship is best explained through an internal stimulus-response process. Tavris (1989) referred to anger as the “misunderstood emotion”. MartinLoeches. they may well reach a “red line” at which more mental effort is required than is available. Dien. internal locus of control and tendencies toward more dangerous behaviour in traffic. subject to ambiguous interpretation (Chan. As the costs of achieving or maintaining a certain target level of performance increase. This can happen both in conditions of very high task demand and in conditions where the driver’s state is affected (p. Watson & Wan. As drivers contend with heightened feelings of aggression and increased internal chatter. Hinojosa. Mercado & Tapia. The present research has demonstrated linkages between hostile automatic thoughts. Trabasso & Liwag.. 1979) and disruptive to attentional processing of external stimuli (Adolphs. Martin. 2002. As de Waard (2002) has argued: There are limits to the investment of effort. 1993). and attempting to exercise control over. 2002. and at the same time processing feelings of responsibility arising from one’s internal locus of control requires the investment of mental effort. lane control in driving) will drop if effort investment is insufficient or ceases. Stein. hostile automatic thoughts.1 Advantages of Using SEM Harlow (2005. 2004. 5.g. 1996.5. 2000. aggressive emotionality. p.

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

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

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

of intervariable relationships for high-risk undergraduate automobile drivers were compared using an initial set of goodness-of-fit indices (see sect. statistical. 88). two structural equation models.1. provided the chosen one meets pre-determined standards for goodness-of-fit. In some cases. it makes sense to choose a model with a slightly poorer fit but more useful information over the best-fitting model. this judgment rests squarely on the shoulders of the research. while Model 1C6 (see Figure 4. However. If selection criteria were to be based solely on goodness-of-fit parameters.10) excluded the fourth factor. a finding that was further supported by additional subsequent analyses using a further series of goodness-of-fit indices. More importantly. it is concluded that the selection of Model 1C5 would be preferable 198 .7. destination-activity orientation. 158). In the case at hand. Sobel and Bohrnstedt (1985) pointed out that exclusive reliance on goodness-of-fit indices is unacceptable. they can in no way reflect the extent to which the model is plausible. the choice between the two would be Model 1C6 given its superior index coefficients. Model 1C5 (see Figure 4.3). stating that. There is some support for this position in the literature. when taking into consideration “practical considerations”. and practical considerations (p.9) included all four components of the BIT scale. as suggested by Byrne (2001). Both models were judged to have an excellent or very good fit.soundness. “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. assessment of model adequacy must be based on multiple criteria that take into account theoretical. Thus. 4. Index coefficients from the original and subsequent analysis are shown in Table 5. 1C5 and 1C6. Byrne (2001) argued that: Fit indexes yield information bearing only on the model’s lack of fit.

51 Very Good Model 1C6 Distal Context: I. F2.97 0.043 129. P.96 1.045 0. Injury Occurrence Degrees of Freedom RMSEA GFI Chi-sq/Df RMR AIC NFI CFI AGFI PGFI NCP ECVI Overall model fit 63.02 0. AQ.48 30. Given that multivariate analysis revealed a significant association between this BIT component and crash outcomes. BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration. HAT Proximal Context: BITF1. C. C.02 0.909 0. Fit Statistics (Threshold values) Outcomes: Crash Occurrence.97 0.1: Goodness of Fit Statistics for Model 1C5 and 1C6 (Initial and Subsequent Analyses) Model 1C5 Distal Context: I. BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration.034 97. HAT Proximal Context: BITF1.99 0. BITF2=Freeway Urgency.94 0.42 11. BITF2=Freeway Urgency.98 0. 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.91 0.96 0. F3 & F4 BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way.97 1.499 0. BITF4=DestinationActivity Orientation Outcomes: Crash Occurrence.97 0. 199 .02 0.060 0. F3 BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way. Injury Occurrence 35. P. AQ.97 0. F2.39 Best because it includes important information about destination-activity orientation behaviour that would be lost if Model 1C6 were chosen.Table 5.

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

for automobile drivers sampled. via BIT. externality-powerful other. externality-chance. crash occurrence (r = -. internality and aggression had direct effects on BIT and indirect effects. Findings in this study underscored the strong role of BIT in predicting accidents.26. aggression.5. indicating that driving behaviour is closely related to involvement in motor vehicle crashes. on crash outcomes. externally-focused frustration. Sümer. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) had significant effects on BIT scores (path coefficients = .45).35. four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way.5. and destination-activity orientation) for the proximal factor-BIT and two latent construct (crash and injury occurrence) for outcomes ws preferable to alternative models that included the hopelessness variable.14. Rothengatter. freeway urgency. 1991.29).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. . Evans. This suggested that automobile drivers with high levels of 201 . . externalitychance.6. Examination of the predictive relationship between distal and proximal variables yielded support for the contextual model and were consistent with previous findings (e. As observed from the investigation of structural paths.4. In Study 1C. 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. 2003).g.21).5.66).35 and . with five distal factors (internality. indicating the importance of this factor in crash outcomes. externality-powerful other.28 and .23 respectively) and the BIT displayed a significant effect on crash outcomes (path coefficient = . 2001.18) and injury occurrence (r = -.34) and injury occurrence (r = . and hostile automatic thoughts). . The results suggested that the alternative model. Distal factors (locus of control: internality.1). They appeared to be the strongest predictors among the five distal factors (path coefficients = -.28 respectively). Internality was significantly but negatively correlated with BIT (r = -.4 Testing the Contextual Mediated Models Using SEM 5.

externality-powerful other and hopelessness).55). The second alternative model also had four distal factors but only three latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way. crash occurrence (r = . Aggression. with hopelessness removed as a distal factor but four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way. 202 .23) and injury occurrence (r = . freeway urgency and externally-focused frustration) for the proximal factor. as well as low probability of crash and injury occurrence. had a better fit than other alternative models. and destination-activity orientation) comprising the proximal factor and two latent constructs (crash and injury occurrence) comprising the crash outcome variable. externally-focused frustration. freeway urgency.25). The first alternative model had four distal factors (locus of control: internality. Results indicated that the first alternative model. externality-chance. Investigation of the path parameters revealed that only two of the distal factors. and four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way. which sampled motorcyclists. was significantly and positively correlated with BIT (r = . Aggressive automobile drivers tended to have high level of BIT scores. One of the most compelling findings in Study 2 was that externalitychance scores had the highest correlations with BIT (r = . internality and externality-chance (path coefficients = -. freeway urgency. 5.internality were more likely to have low total BIT scores.24). crash occurrence (r = . on the other hand. and destination-activity orientation) as proximal factors.66) directly predicted crash outcomes.65 and . the base model (with only the locus of control variable) was compared against two alternative models.20) and injury occurrence (r = .2 Study 2: Motorcyclists In Study 2.5.80) indirectly and the proximal factor-BIT (path coefficient = .41). externally-focused frustration. 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.4. and high probabilities of crash and injury occurrence.

Distal factors. crash occurrence. For motorcyclists. 4. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts. hopelessness. Results indicated that the third alternative model. had a better fit than alternative models. freeway urgency. freeway urgency.24 respectively) that had direct effects on the proximal factor and a simultaneous indirect effect on crash occurrence. in turn and indirectly. Both dimensions of external locus of control had insignificant results. for the sample of taxicab drivers. via BIT.5. with four distal factors (internality.6.5 What Can be Learned from Testing Contextual Models with SEM? The use of SEM provided support for the contextual mediated model. externally-focused frustration. the bestfitting model used only a single latent construct. the base model (with only the locus of control variable) was compared against three alternative models (see sect.5. had significant direct effects on the four latent constructs that comprised the proximal variable (BIT) and.3). externality-powerful other and aggression). for crash outcomes. as a result. had no significant effect on BIT scores. crash occurrence. the result was slightly different as a belief in chance as an outcome determinant had a significant effect on BIT scores. such as internality.4. The first alternative included four distal factors (internality. externality-chance. externality-chance. Investigation of the path parameters revealed that there were only two of the four distal factors.5. This suggested that internality and aggression play important roles in affecting the behaviour in traffic of taxicab drivers and. aggression). their crash occurrence. internality and aggression (path coefficients = -.20 and . with the sample of taxicab drivers. on the two latent variables comprising crash outcomes. 5. All models included four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way. However. four latent constructs (usurpation of right-ofway. and destination-activity orientation) as proximal factors. externally-focused frustration. the results of measurement model analysis showed that one of the distal factors. to measure outcome. The second and third alternative models only had one latent construct. externality-powerful other.3 Study 3: Taxicab Drivers In Study 3. 203 . and destination-activity orientation) comprising the proximal factor and one latent construct (crash occurrence) comprising the outcome variable. Finally.

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

2%). Ages of participants in this research ranged from 18 to 29 years.In Malaysia.to 25-year old high-risk group was 99. Study 1B: 100%.2% and Study 2: 99.31. Selangor. Sabah. making it the single highest risk age group (see Table 2. Table 5. Since.2). while Malacca and Negeri Sembilan were overrepresented. With regard to whether the sample was representative of peoples of the various states and regions of Malaysia. the sample does not appear to be very repreresentative of the Malaysian population. during the interval from 2000 to 2003. Approximately one-third of all automobile crashes. The proportion of the total sample for Studies 1 and 2 falling within the 16.55). young drivers are among the most likely to experience a motor vehicle crash.6%. Study 1C: 99. in Malaysia. with a mean age of 20. as elsewhere. 205 . it is helpful to examine the distribution by state in which research participants obtained their driving licenses.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. individuals usually obtain their license in the state in which they are registered as resident. The most populous state.6% (Study 1A: 99. Sarawak and Kelantan were under-represented in the sample.13 years (SD = 1. The Spearman rank correlation coefficient for these two sets of scores is rs=. contributed the largest proportion of the sample. Based alone on the number of residents living in each state. these data may provide an indication of the extent to which the samples studied here are representative of the fourteen states and districts of Malaysia. involved drivers aged 16 to 25 years.

Table 5.576 2. and there are different crash frequencies in each one.2 (5) 0.000 215.19 Per cent (rank) of participants sampled 17.000 Per cent of national population 26. 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.8 6. attempting to determine sample representativeness based on only state population would be flawed.887.6 0. It is important to remember that the purpose of this research was to study the population of young.7 (2) 2.300.200.000 1.260.7 (14) But.6 6. Not all states have the same number of drivers. For that reason.5 (4) 4.1 (7) 8.150.4 provides similar comparisons for the state of origin of the sample of motorcyclists.5 (8) 3.000 2.880 3.3 (12) 11.6 5.9 9.2 11.3 compares the state of origin of participants in Study 1 with the more relevant measures of vehicle registrations and crash occurrence. Table 5.000 2.396.807 733.500.8 (6) 6.4 5.9 (9) 7.000 3.2 7. In both cases.004.2 3.500 1.0 4.6 2.2 (13) 11. high-risk drivers in Malaysia. the state of origin is defined as the state in which the participants’ driving licenses were issued.387.818.0 8.9 (3) 2.000 1.6 (10) 7. Table 5.286 1.2 (11) 12.503.2 (1) 3.2: Distribution of National Population and Sampled Participants by State State 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Selangor Sabah Johor Sarawak Perak Kelantan Kuala Lumpur Kedah Penang Pahang Terengganu Negeri Sembilan Malacca Perlis State Population (approx) 7.188 1.0 12. 206 .100. in this case.674 1.

34 3.55 7.27 14.3: State of Origin Compared with Crash Frequency and Vehicle Registrations (Study 1) Average Motor Vehicle Crash Frequency (2000-2003) 34.20 12.34 11.91 2.76 3.70 3.785 393.212 39.041 92.230 266.19 3.19 4.496 187.768 6.93 0.4 4.163 10.84 11.92 25.28 3.75 4.251 324.170 13.104 6.093 5.029 273.144 12.588.05 2.46 8.97 12.617 10.88 2.725 70.88 3.600 135.13 6.490 525.98 0.37 3.920 181.93 9.63 207 .85 1.43 2.24 2.50 29.467 25.96 3.026 10.Table 5.36 8.16 2.561 1.24 0.606 24.68 7.22 17.198 156.635 1.35 4.774 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 12.45 9.735 165.89 3.496 Private Automobile Registrations (until 2003) 703.064 9.003 10.90 5.428.19 7.70 12.137 698.

03 4.10 9.768 6.212 39.33 4.63 13.Table 5.76 3.20 15.49 0.74 208 .221 36.15 5.133 705.92 25.305 276.59 12.38 4.66 11.029 273.288 444.43 2.4 4.561 1.026 10.46 5.14 7.003 10.88 3.496 % Private Vehicle Registrations (until 2003) 933.22 3.28 3.79 13.75 5.064 9.958 % 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 12.617 10.679 90.45 2.727 161.93 7.59 1.144 12.35 4.38 0.656 821.98 0.02 10.48 1.615.4: State of Origin Compared with Crash Frequency and Vehicle Registrations (Study 2) Average Motor Vehicle Crash Frequency (2000-2003) 34.170 13.104 6.64 2.82 9.992 776.112 347.989 6.27 14.02 7.93 9.64 1.722 255.36 8.467 25.606 24.283 770.37 3.856 310.88 2.49 12.46 14.995 233.63 11.725 70.

This sample was comprised of individuals within the age group that has the most motor vehicle crashes. both for the studies of automobile drivers and for the study of motorcyclists. at least.824** . there are many other dimensions on which members of a sample can or cannot be representative of the population from which they have been drawn. Table 5.5 shows the The Spearman rank correlation coefficient (rs) for the variables in Tables 5. it can be argued that they were. Even though data collection was carried out at a single university location.4.5: 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. were licensed as drivers in – the states with the most registered vehicles and the highest numbers of crashes. At least on these dimensions.701** 1 Study 2: Motorcyclists Motorcycle crash frequency (by state) Vehicle registrations (by state) Participants’ state of origin 1 2 3 1 . 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. it is possible to say that sampling.796** 1 Were the participants studied in this research representative of high-risk Malaysian drivers? In terms of their age and their regional origin.903** .814** 1 .3 and 5. Of course.Table 5. Future studies of Malaysian driving behaviour will need to expand the range participant 209 . participants came from – or.908** 1 3 Participants’ state of origin .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Programmes with content focused on building internal attributions and a sense of personal responsibility would enhance training outcomes. The treatment or rehabilitation of dangerous drivers has relied heavily on cognitive behaviour modification applications (Deffenbacher et. Further research should focus on the role played by locus of control in influencing patterns of BA. Typically. which may mitigate the negative effects of roadway hostility. Findings from the present research can guide planners of remedial courses and counsellors to teach methods for increasing internal attributions. Summala. 2004). these approaches require special therapeutic training and large efforts on behalf of drivers. task capability (Fuller. can be focused specifically on combinations of risk factors at both the distal and proximal levels. an area of increasing importance in fleet management (Barjonet & Tortosa.In the present research.. (2003) to moderate the effects of aggression on driving outcomes. once identified.7.3 Driver Selection. Drivers may need to undergo cognitive restructuring about their beliefs about their own responsibility over road safety in order to increase levels of internality. Luckner (1989) and others have successfully developed training curricula that encourage internality. Coupled with simulated or actual driving experience and methods to modify patterns of hostile selftalk. Further research is required to investigate implications for improving driving performance. whether that adaptation is the result of perceived risk (Wilde. external locus of control and hostile attributions. Gidron & Davidson. 1996). Training and Rehabilitation The results of the present research have important implications for the improvement of driving behaviour. though. changes in driver behaviour might be better targeted. could be screened out. 220 . Christ et al. 1996). locus of control was found to exert effects on Type A driving patterns and. al. consistent with the earlier findings of Gidron et al. scarce resources for screening drivers. 5. 1982). 2002. Specifically. 1997. 2005. 2006) or cognitive processing (Keskinen. Drivers with combinations of TABP and aggression.

This framework can be integrated with the “Three E’s” to identify specific crash prevention measures arising from the findings of the present research. Specific measures aimed at reducing accident occurrence or injury can be classed according to whether they are predominantly based on engineering principles. teams of humans. At the same time. educational programming (including public awareness and driver training).4. 5.7. Slinn. 1). Matthews and Guest (1999) have argued that traffic engineering has also undergone a transition in emphasis over the last decade. education. 1961. the technologies sophisticated and the interactions among humans. the Haddon Matrix (Haddon.1 Generating and classifying crash prevention interventions Ergonomists and safety scientists have.7. or legal intervention.4 Preventive Measures: “The Three E’s” 5.2 Engineering Interventions Engineering applications in transportation have become increasingly cogniscent of human thinking processes. These have been euphemistically termed the “three E’s”. From this has emerged the growing 221 . and machines are highly intricate (p. World Health Organisation.5. for the last fifty years. 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.4. and the effective enforcement of regulatory legislation (Wheatley.7. 1957). the tasks we ask operators to perform today are highly cognitie. 1970) provides another system for classifying highway events for the purposes of research or accident prevention (see Figure 2.4). Unlike 100 years ago. Cooke and Durso (2008) have noted that: Most industrial tasks require human operators to interact with various technologies. 1957. recognised that the cardinal bases of accident prevention fall into three categories: engineering.

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

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

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

thermoplastic management systems – Many ability to detect lane and epoxy materials to metropolitan areas have departures and to alert drivers designate lane configurations. 225 .Table 5. traffic and systems (RDWS) – curve different materials to increase weather sesors. reversible corrections through a motorlanes. lane road conditions. variable speed warning systems advise lane conspicuity and message signs (VMS). – 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. management centers (TMCs)  integrated lane marker with closed-circuit television  road departure warning applications – these combine (CCTV) camersas. infrastructure. etc. to allow easier lanes and synchronised actuated increase in steering overtaking and lane signals decreases the need as the vehicle nears a lane. generally  comprehensive lateral control controlled from a central assistance (LCA) – a point. traffic drivers when their speed is definition. unsafe  blind spot monitoring systems lane deviation. keeping. 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. departure warning. the systems vision sensing technology to transmit information to combine lane and road drivers about traffic flow. created intelligent traffic of impending hazards. Hi H 1.6: Engineering Applications for Crash Prevention Finding Drivers who usurp the right-ofway and commit lane violations are more likely to experience crash outcomes.1 Vehicle Road Environment  lane departure warning  lane marker improvements –  integrated traffic systems (LDWS) – have the using plastic. blind spot sensing and lange change assist.1. and likelihood of. transitions for. 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. Integrated with combination of radar and roadside sensors. “rumble strips” in expressways.

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

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

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

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

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

Yergil (2005) notes that: In order to maintain the self-concept of a law-abiding citizen. Azjen & Fishbein.sample of drivers by Manstead. 2001. Parker. after all. drivers create a sense of belionging to a majority group and therefore negate the possibility that they are behaving in a socially deviant manner (p. 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). 498). The theory of planned behaviour (TPB. drivers need to resolve the contradiction between cognitions: “traffic laws are laws” and “I violate traffic laws. They showed that the frequency of violations was related to the evaluated percentage of other drivers who commit the same violations. 1992). Future research is needed to determine the extent to which beliefs in a Just World and the false consensus bias influence both subjective norms and attitudes underlying 231 . Reason & Baxter. Stradling. 1991.” 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). Ajzen. opinions about what significant others would think of the behaviour (subjective norms) and perceived behaviour control (PCB). Both biases seem rooted in an external locus of control. By doing so. to consensual beliefs of powerful others. 2001) provides an interesting theoretical framework for considering the influences of these cognitions and their interplay with regulatory controls. Another possible way to minimise the same contradiction is to diminish the significance of the violation by labelling it as an action that. on one hand attributing outcomes to a fatalistic notion of Just World and. on the other. is allowed to occur in a Just World.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Motorists more careful because of Ops Sitak. (2007). (2004). Driving: through the eyes of teens. 21(4). Y.. Amsterdam: Elsevier. D. what can we know – traffic psychological analysis of Driver Behaviour. S. 467-477. Motorcyclist accident involvement by age. R. R. and Nash.pdf 244 . M. J.. P. 557-562. November). and Huguenin.F.org/workshops/05CampoGrande [80] Chan. Campo Grande.H. N6. Cognitive effects of environmental knowledge on urban route planning strategies. Paper presented at the Traffic Engineering and Management in Malaysia workshop.ghipr.ictct. The Star. Doing data analysis with SPSS 10.0. [82] Chaplin.M. Retrieved March 31. 10(2).. Howard. [79] Chaloupka-Risser (2005). and Lim.-H. November 12). Cheung. 2008 from http://www. 41. (1985).D. R. Personality across the ethnic divide in Singapore: are “Chinese traits” uniquely Chinese? Personality and Individual Differences. [83] Che Ali bin Che Hitam (2001. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. [84] Cheah. Self-consciousness in Chinese college students in Hong Kong. gender and risky behaviors in Taipei. What are we allowed to ask. Traffic management and road safety along federal roads in Malaysia. F. Brazil. Dictionary of Psychology.G. T.[77] Carver. J.-H. Sunway Campus. S. Matto Grosso do Sul. (Eds. (2000). (1996). 109-122. Proceedings of the International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT) Extra Workshop. Kuala Lumpur. R. [78] Chalmé. Malaysia. 2007 from http:www. Monash University. 61-71). [86] Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and State Farm Insurance (2007). New York: Dell. In Rothengatter.-L. and Denis. [81] Chang. Retrieved October 15. and Yeh. H. [85] Cheung. Pacific Grove CA: Duxbury. W.P. (2006). (2007. T.W.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp.com/statefarm/chop/youngdriversurvey/PDF/NYD_Survey_FIN. Visser. Taiwan. Personality and Individual Difference. March 20-22.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[172] Gregersen, N.P. and Falkmer, T. (2003). In-vehicle support systems and young, novice drivers.
In Dorn, L. (Ed.) Driver Behaviour and Training (pp. 277-292). Aldershot UK: Ashgate.

[173]

Green, P. (2002). Where do drivers look while driving (and for how long)? In Dewar, R. E. and Olson, P.L. (Eds.) Human Factors in Traffic Safety (pp. 77-110). Tucson, AZ: Lawyers & Judges.

[174]

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

[175]

Greenwood, M. and Woods, H.M. (1919). The incidence of industrial accidents upon individuals with specific reference to multiple accidents. (Industrial Fatigue Research Board Report No. 4). London: Medical Research Council.

[176]

Greenwood, M. and Yule, C.V. (1920). An inquiry into the nature of frequency distributions representative of multiple happenings, with particular reference to the occurrence of multiple attacks of disease or repeated accidents. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 89, 255-279.

[177]

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

[178]

Groeger, J.A. (1997). Mood and driving: is there an effect of affect? In Rothengatter, T. and Carbonell Vaya, E. (Eds.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp.335342). Amsterdam: Pergamon.

[179]

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

[180]

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

[181]

Groeger, J.A. and Clegg, B.A. (1995). Automaticity and driving: time to change gear? In Rothengatter, T. and Carbonell Vaya, E. (Eds.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp.137-246). Amsterdam: Pergamon.

253

[182]

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

[183]

Guastello, S.J. and Guastello, D.D. (1986). The relation between the locus of control construct and involvement in traffic accidents. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 120(3), 293-297.

[184]

Haber, R.N. and Haber, L. (2002). Why witnesses to accidents make mistakes: the cognitive psychology of human memory. In Dewar, R. E. and Olson, P.L. (Eds.) Human Factors in Traffic Safety (pp. 663-695). Tucson, AZ: Lawyers & Judges

[185]

Haddon, W. Jr. (1963). A note concerning accident theory and research with special reference to motor vehicle accidents. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 107, 635-646.

[186]

Haddon, W. Jr. (1970). A logical framework for categorizing highway safety phenomena and activity. Paper presented at the 10th International study Week in Traffic and Safety Engineering, Rotterdam, 7-11 September.

[187]

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

[188]

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

[189]

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

[190]

Hair, J.F. Jr., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E. and Tatham, R.L. (2006). Multivariate Data Analysis. Sixth Edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

[191]

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

[192]

Haight, F.A. (2004). Accident proneness: the history of an idea. In Rothengatter, T. and Huguenin, R.D. (Eds.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. 421-432). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

254

[193]

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

[194]

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

[195]

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

[196]

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

[197]

Harper, J.S., Marine, W.M., Garrett, C.J., Lezotte, D. and Lowenstein, S.R. (2000). Motor vehicle crash fatalities: a comparison of Hispanic and non-Hispanic motorists in Colorado. Annals of Emergency Medincie, 36(6), 589-596.

[198]

Harré, N. Foster, S. and O’Neill, M. Self-enhancement, crash-risk optimism and the impact of safety advertisements on young drivers. British Journal of Psychology, 96(Pt 2), 215-230.

[199]

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

[200]

Hattaka, M., Keskinen, E., Gregerson, N.P., Glad, A. and Hernetkoski, K. (2002). From control of the vehicle to personal self-control; broadening the perspectives to driver education. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 5, 201-216.

[201]

Hattaka, M., Keskinen, E., Katila, A. and Laapotti, S. (1997). Self-reported driving habits are valid predictors of violations and accidents. In Rothengatter, T. and Carbonell Vaya, E. (Eds.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. 295-304). Amsterdam: Pergamon.

[202]

Heerwagen, J.H. and Orians., G.H. (1993). Humans, habitats and aethetics. In Kellert, S.O. and Wilson, E.O. (Eds.) The Biophilia Hypothesis. 9 (pp. 138-172) Washington DC: Shearwater Books / Island Press.

[203]

Henderson, J.T. (1976, April). Hope and self-destruction: the ratio of external threat to feelings of personal competence on the underlying continuum of self-destructive behavior. Paper

255

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

[204]

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

[205]

Herzog, T.R., Black, A.M., Fountaine, K.A. and Knotts, D.J. (19970. Reflection and attentional recovery as distinctive benefits of restoratie environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 17,, 165-170.

[206]

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

[207]

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

[208]

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

[209]

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

[210]

Holder, E.E. and Levi, D.J. (2006). Mental health and locus of control: SCL-90-R and Levenson’s IPC scales. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 44(5), 753-755.

[211]

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

[212]

Hong, I., Iwasaki, M., Furuichi, T. and Kadoma, T. (2006). Eye movement and driving behavior in curved section passages of an urban motorway. Proceedings of the Institute of Mechanical Engineers, 220(D10), 1319-1331.

[213]

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

256

[214] Howarth, C.I. and Gunn, M.J. (1982). Pedestrian safety and the law. In Chapman, A.J., Wade,
F.M. and Foot, H.C. (Eds.) Pedestrian Accidents (pp. 265-290). Chichester UK: John Wiley & Sons.

[215]

Hoyle, R.H. and Robinson, J.C. (2004). Mediated and moderated effects in social psychological research: measurement, design and analysis issues. In Sansone, C., Morf, C. and Panter, AT. (Eds.) Handbook of Methods in Social Psychology (pp. 213-233).

[216]

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

[217]

Hsieh, T.T., Shybut, J., and Lotsof, E.J. (1969). Internal versus external control and ethnic group membership. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 33, 122-124.

[218]

Huguenin, R.D. (1997). Do we need traffic psychology models? In Rothengatter, T. and Carbonell Vaya, E. (Eds.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. 31-40). Amsterdam: Pergamon.

[219]

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

[220]

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

[221]

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

[222]

Hyman, G.J., Stanley, R. and Burrows, G.D. (1991). The relationship between three multidimensional locus of control scales. Educational and Psychological Measuresment, 51(2), 403-412.

[223]

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

[224]

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

257

[225]

Islam, Z. and Hoque, N.M.S. (2004, December). Road users behavioral culture of Dhaka, Bangladesh: an anthropological perspective. Paper presented at the First International Conference-Seminar on Culture, Asian Institute of Medicine, Science & Technology, Sungai Petani, Kedah, Malaysia.

[226]

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

[227]

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

[228]

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

[229]

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

[230]

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

[231]

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

[232]

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

[233]

Jonah, B.A. (1997a). Sensation seeking and risky driving. In Rothengatter, T. and Carbonell Vaya, E. (Eds.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. 259-267), Amsterdam: Pergamon.

[234]

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

[235]

Joseph, C. (2006). Negotiating discourses of gender, ethnicity and schooling: ways of being Malay, Chinese and Indian schoolgirls in Malaysia. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 141), 35-53.

258

[236]

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

[237]

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

[238]

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

[239]

Karlberg, L., Undén, A.-L., Elofsson, S. and Krakau, I. (1998). Is there a connection between car accidents, near accidents, and Type A drivers? Behavioral Medicine, 243(3), 99-106.

[240]

Kawazoe, H., Murakami, T.., Sadano, O., Suda, K. and Ono, H. (2001). Development of a lanekeeping support system. Proceedings of Intelligent Vehicle Technology and Navigation Systems pp. 29-35). Warrendale, PA: Society of Automotive Engineers.

[241]

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

[242]

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

[243]

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

[244]

Keskinen, E., Hatakka, M., Laaapotti, S., Katila, A. and Peräho, M. (2004). Driver behaviour as a hierarchical system. In Rothengatter, T. and Huguenin, R.D. (Eds.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. 9-24). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

[245]

King, A. (2004) Measures and meanings: the use of qualitative data in social and personality psychology. In Sansone, C., Morf, C.C. and Panter, A.T. (Eds.) The Sage Handbook of Methods in Psychology (pp. 145-172). Thousand Oaks CA: Sage

[246]

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

259

[247]

Klem, L. (2000). Structural equation modeling. In Grimm, L.G. and Yarnold, P.R. (Eds.) Reading and Understanding More Multivariate Statistics. Washington DC: American Psychological Association.

[248]

Klockars, A.J. and Hancock, G.R. (2000). Scheffé’s more powerful F-protected post hoc procedure. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Sciences, 25(1), 13-19.

[249]

Koh, S. (2005, October 31). Stop the road carnage! Malaysian Chinese Association (MCA) Online. Retrieved April 5, 2007 from http://www.mca.org.my/services/printerfriendly.asp?file=/articles/exclusive/2005/10/47611.html &lg=1

[250]

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

[251]

Krishnan, R., & Radin Umar, R.S. (1997). An update on road traffic injuries in Malaysia. Journal of University Malaya Medical Centre, 2(1), 39-41.

[252]

Laapotti, S. and Keskinen, E. (1998). Differences in fatal loss-of-control accidents between young male and female drivers. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 30(4), 435-442.

[253]

Laapotti, S. and Keskinen, E. (2004a). Are female drivers adopting male drivers’ way of driving? In Rothengatter, T. and Huguenin, R.D. (Eds.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application. (pp. 201-208). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

[254]

Laapotti, S. and Keskinen, E. (2004b). Has the difference in accident patterns between male and female drivers changed between 1984 and 2000? Accident Analysis and Prevention, 36, 577-584.

[255]

Laapotti, S., Keskinen, E. and Rajalin, S. (2003). Comparison of young male and female drivers’ attitude and self-reported traffic behaviour in Finland in 1978 and 2001. Journal of Safety Research, 34(5), 579-587.

[256]

Laapotti, S., Keskinen, Htakka, M. and Katila, A. (2001). Novice drivers’ accidents and violations – a failure on higher or lower hierarchical levels of driving behaviour. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 33, 759-769.

260

[257]

Lajunen, T. (2001). Personality and accident liability: are extraversion, neuroticism and psychoticism related to traffic and occupational fatalities? Personality and Individual Differences, 31(8), 1365-1373.

[258]

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

[259]

Lajunen, T. and Summala, H. (1997). Effects of driving experience, personality, driver’s skill and safety orientation on speed regulation and accidents (pp. 283-294). In Rothengatter, T. and Carbonell Vaya, E. (Eds.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. 283294), Amsterdam: Pergamon.

[260]

Lam, L.T. (2004). Environmental factors associated with crash-related mortality and injury among taxi drivers in New South Wales, Australia. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 36, 905908.

[261]

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

[262]

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

[263]

Lau, G., Seow, E. and Lim, E.S.Y. (1998). A review of pedestrian fatalities in Singapore from 1990 to 1994. Annals of the Academy of Medicine, 27(6), 830-837.

[264]

Law, T.H., Radin Umar, R.S.,and Wong, S.V. (2005). The Malaysian government’s road accident death reduction target for year 2010. IATSS Research / International Association of Traffic and Safety Sciences, 29(1), 42-49.

[265]

Law, T.H., Radin Umar, R.S., Zulkaurnain, S. and Kulanthayan, S. (2005). Impact of the effect of economic crisis and the targeted motorcycle safety programme on motorcycle-related accidents, injuries and fatalities in Malaysia. International Journal of Injury Control and Safety Promotion, 12(1), 9-21.

261

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

. 37(1). and Saleh.G. Accident Analysis & Prevention.. T.org/workshops/05Helsinki/P1_Ozkan. (1974). Tassinary. 42. Anger on and off the road. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. (2002). T. 18. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 269 . B.. Reason. Ergonomics. 92. Applied Psychology: An International Review. and Synodinos. 1036-1048. and Kaistinen. A. 40. Manstead. S. [343] Özkan. (pp. 113-140. D. 38(3). (2001). Lajunen. 2007 from www. 479-486. Retrieved December 20. Hebl.S. Multidimensional Traffic Locus of Control Scale (T-LOC): factor structure and relationship to risky driving. T. [350] Parsons.M.S. J. D. M. Ulrich. 533-545. 125-134). C. O.R. 3-13.D. (2008).[342] Özkan. R. Finland. D. Poster session presented at the 18th International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT). H.. [347] Parker. C. Accident Analysis & Prevention. and Grossman-Alexander.E. Traffic locus of control. M. 38(5). J. T.. Anger and aggression among drivers in three European countries. 34. 507-526. R. driving violations and accident involvement. and Huguenin. W. 456-461. [345] Papacostas.ictct.G... (Eds. British Journal of Psychology.A. and Summala. [346] Parker. and Lajunen (2005). Lajunen. N.pdf - [344] Pai. Locus of control in university students from eastern and western societies.S. Dimensions of driving behaviour and driver characteristics. [351] Parsons. (2004). Personality and Individual Difference. R. Driving errors. (1988). Road safety: what has social psychology to offer? In Rothengatter. (2005). The view from the road: implications for stress recovery and immunisation.T. L. T. and Schneider. [348] Parker. Exploring motorcyclist injury severity in approach-turn collisions at T-junctions: focusing on the effects of the driver’s failure to yield and junction control measures. Amsterdam: Elsevier.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application. (1995). (1998). [349] Parkinson.W.R and Stradling. Helsinki. J. 229-235. driving skills and attitudes toward in-vehicle technologies (ISA & ACC).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Appendix A: List of Published and Research Scales 294 .

Research scales (BIT and HAT) were obtained and used with the permission of the authors.exe?grab_id=0&page_id=1549&query=Beck%20Hopelessness%20Scale&hiword= BECKER%20Beck%20Hopelessness%20SCALED%20SCALES%20SCALING%20Scale%20 Behaviour in Traffic Scale (BIT. Buss & Warren. Hawaii 96822 USA http://www. TX 78259 USA http://pearsonassess. with the understanding that they would not be re-published.html 295 . 1988) Obtained with permission from the authors: c/o Dr. Published scales (AQ and BHS) are marketed only to professional psychologists capable of meeting criteria for psychometric knowledge and expertise. Brace & Company).A number of variables studied in the present research were measured using scales copyrighted by corporate publishers or by universities where they were developed.eng. Papacostas Department of Civil Engineering 2540 Dole Street University of Hawaii at Manoa Honolulu. CA 90025 USA http://portal. Papacostas & Synodinos.hawaii. Available from: Western Psychological Services 12031 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles.wpspublish. 2000).com/cgibin/MsmGo.70400&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL Beck Hopelessness Scale (BHS.edu/~csp/csp.S. Beck & Steer. Information for obtaining copies of these instruments is provided below: Aggression Questionnaire (AQ. 1993).com/portal/page?_pageid=53. 19500 Bulverde Road. Available from: The Psychological Corporation (Harcourt. C. San Antonio.

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

Appendix B: Personal Information Form (PIF) 297 .

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

When you want to use a car. do you have ready ACCESS to a car? (please check only one) ___ yes. what phrase best describes what happened? (please check only one): ___ my vehicle was changing lanes and hit (or was hit by) another vehicle ___ my vehicle hit (or was hit by) another vehicle that was changing lanes ___ my vehicle went out of control and went off the side of the road ___ my vehicle went through a red light (or sign) at an intersection (junction) ___ the other vehicle went through a red light (or sign) at an intersection ___ my vehicle hit another vehicle from behind ___ my vehicle was hit from behind by another vehicle ___ other (please specify:__________________________________________ ) 299 . Within the last twelve (12) months. do you have ready ACCESS to a motorcycle? (please check only one) ___ yes. most of the time ___ no 11. sitting behind driver) ___ car (passenger) ___ bicycle (non-motorized) ___ I was walking ___ other (please specify: _______________) If yes. all the time ___ yes. all the time ___ yes. How often do you travel on a motorcycle: as a driver (please check only one): ___ every day ___ several times a week ___ about once or twice a week ___ about once every two weeks ___ almost never ___ never as a passenger (please check only one) ___ every day ___ several times a week ___ about once or twice a week ___ about once every two weeks ___ almost never ___ never 9. some of the time ___ yes. When you want to use a motorcycle. some of 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. have you been in a motor vehicle accident that required you to be hospitalised for injuries? yes no If yes.

What is your gender? 16. but no injuries? If yes. Within the last twelve months. 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 required you to go to a medical clinic for minor injuries? yes no If yes. in what kind of vehicle were you travelling when the accident occurred? ___ bus ___ motorcycle (driver) ___ car (driver) ___motorcycle (pillion.12. What is your age? ___ male _____ years ___ female 17. have you been in a motor vehicle accident that resulted in damage over RM100 to your vehicle. sitting behind driver) ___ car (passenger) ___ bicycle (non-motorized) ___ I was walking ___ other (please specify: _______________) If yes. what phrase best describes what happened? (please check only one): ___ my vehicle was changing lanes and hit (or was hit by) another vehicle ___ my vehicle hit (or was hit by) another vehicle that was changing lanes ___ my vehicle went out of control and went off the side of the road ___ my vehicle went through a red light (or sign) at an intersection (junction) ___ the other vehicle went through a red light (or sign) at an intersection ___ my vehicle hit another vehicle from behind ___ my vehicle was hit from behind by another vehicle ___ other (please specify:__________________________________________ ) 13. sitting behind driver) ___ car (passenger) ___ bicycle (non-motorized) ___ I was walking ___ other (please specify: _______________) If yes. What is your ethnic background? (please specify only one:) ___ Malay ___ Indian-Malaysian ___ Chinese-Malaysian ___ other (please specify: _____________) THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR COOPERATION 300 . in what kind of vehicle were you travelling when the accident occurred? ___ bus ___ motorcycle (driver) ___ car (driver) ___motorcycle (pillion. Within the last twelve months.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful