This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
ALAN GIFFIN DOWNE
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY MULTIMEDIA UNIVERSITY APRIL 2008
Siti Hasmah Digital Library
Digitally signed by Siti Hasmah Digital Library DN: cn=Siti Hasmah Digital Library, c=MY, o=Multimedia University, ou=Research Library, email=kamal. email@example.com Date: 2009.07.02 11:55:19 +08'00'
The copyright of this thesis belongs to the author under the terms of the Copyright Act 1987 as qualified by Regulation 4(1) of the Multimedia University Intellectual Property Regulations. Due acknowledgement shall always be made of the use of any material contained in, or derived from, this thesis.
Alan Giffin Downe, April 2008 All rights reserved
I hereby declare that the work contained herein has been done by myself and that no portion of the work contained in this thesis has been submitted in support of any application for any other degree or qualification of this or any other university or institute of learning.
______________________ Alan Giffin Downe
First, I wish to acknowledge the contribution of my supervisor, Dr. Stanley Richardson, whose guidance, wisdom and high standards have motivated me and kept me on track throughout all phases of the project. I also thank my former employer, Multimedia University, for permitting me to undertake doctoral studies during my time as a lecturer in the Faculty of Management. In this regard, I would like to express my gratitude for the gracious support and encouragement I have received from Prof. Dr. A. Seetharaman, current Dean of Management and from Prof. Dr. Hj. Mohd. Ismail Sayyed Ahmad, former Dean of Management. I also wish to thank Dr. A.S. Santhapparaj, Dr. V. Anantaraman and especially Dr. Sayed Hossain for coordinating and serving as panelists, respectively, when I presented this research to the faculty during my work completion seminar.
Several researchers at other institutions have provided assistance in the form of test instruments, unpublished papers and guidance over the course of this project. I especially thank Dr. Jerry Deffenbacher (University of Colorado), Dr. Yori Gidron (Brunel University), Dr. C.S. Papacostas (University of Hawaii at Manoa), Dr. Dianne Parker (University of Manchester), Dr. Murali Sambasivan (Universiti Putra Malaysia), the late Dr. C.R. Snyder (University of Kansas), and Dr. Henriette Wallén Warner (Dalarna University).
I would like also to thank four undergraduate research assistants who completed data collection for the study of Kuala Lumpur taxicab drivers: Agatha Yeoh Siew Ling, Gracy Thomas, Nazlina Nasihin and Sangeetha Munisamy.
I wish to acknowledge the Road Engineering Association of Malaysia (REAM), an organisation to which I have felt privileged to belong, as an Associate Member, since 2001.
There are many individuals who have contributed greatly to the completion of this project through their helpful suggestions, collegial affiliation and friendship, notably Aw Lin, Aznur Hajar Binti Abdullah, Azrai Abdullai, Ming-Yu Cheng, Adeline Chua, Cynthia Downe, Ridhwan Fontaine, Jessica Ho Sze Yin, Lily Idayu, Loke Choong Khoon, Loke Siew Poh, Razlina Rezali, Omar Salahuddin Bin Abdullah, Bobby Varanasi and David Yong. A special expression of thanks is due to Fatimah Syam @ Noor Azleen A. Gani at the Siti Hasmah Digital Library for her very helpful assistance. For their caring support, I also wish to thank my mother, Evelyn G. Downe and Howard, of Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada.
The phrase, “without whom this research would never have been completed” appears ubiquitously in theses and dissertations around the world. But never has it been truer than in the contribution made here by my wife, Siew-Phaik Loke. She has helped me to score questionnaires, set up spreadsheets and enter data into the computer. She provided thoughtful input into solving even the most baffling problems of multivariate analysis. She sustained me with her constant reassurance throughout the project. And she did it all while excelling at her own PhD studies, starting a business, launching her career as a university lecturer and lovingly, patiently caring for our son. To her, I will be always grateful.
DEDICATION In the wee hours of a cold morning on December 5th, 2002 my father, Dr. A.E.R. Downe, Professor Emeritus of Biology at Canada’s Queen’s University passed away in his hospital bed in Kingston, Ontario after suffering a long and debilitating illness. For 47 years, he had been my inspiration and my role model. From him, I learned the value of hard work and family, the excitement that comes from scientific inquiry and the fortitude that evolves in a man’s struggle against adversity. Not a day goes by when I don’t find myself thinking of him.
On that very same day, on the other side of the planet, my little boy Richardson Downe Loke Ken, at ten months of age, took his first unaided steps, launching a jerky trajectory from the sofa to the television set, where he hugged the image of Sir Alex Ferguson. From his birth, I have marveled at Kenny’s boundless energy, his gentle disposition and his ability to fill his mother’s and my existence with one part challenge and nine parts joy. I only hope that I am able to teach him the same lessons that my father taught me.
It is to these two very special people that I dedicate this work.
demographic characteristics and driving exposure in predicting crash and injury occurrence. where. vii . and that driver behaviours. driving experience and demographic characteristics are the specific contributors of these factors. one sample of university students whose primary mode of transportation involved motorcycle riding (n = 122) and one sample of professional taxicab drivers (n = 149) were studied. Effects of the distal variables and proximal variable on self-reported history of crash occurrence and injuries were examined. seven fatalities are recorded each day. BIT had four components: usurpation of right-of-way. some personality constructs. respectively). gender and ethnicity) and psychological (locus of control.ABSTRACT Motor vehicle crashes are a serious social and economic problem in Malaysia. 302 and 252. on average. previous attempts to investigate relationships between psycho-social variables and crash incidence have frequently yielded weak associations and inconclusive results. externally-focused frustration. However. hopelessness. freeway urgency. 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). The present research was conducted to examine the interaction between the role of behaviour in traffic. Three samples of university students whose primary mode of transportation involved driving automobiles (n = 301. Distal variables included driver (driving experience and driving frequency). demographic (age. self-reported patterns of driving considered more proximal to the causality of the crash and self-reported crash and injury histories of the participants. A contextual mediated model was used to examine interactions between a set of variables considered distal to the causality of the crash event. Previous research has found that human factors play the chief role in contributing to crash outcomes. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) characteristics. personality traits. The role of the proximal variable in mediating distal effects on crash outcomes was also investigated.
The role of the proximal variable. 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. The advantages of multi-disciplinary approaches to the study of roadway crashes are discussed. Among distal variables. consistent with the assumptions of the contextual mediated model.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. BIT exerted a strong mediational influence over the effects of distal variables on crash outcomes. 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. As hypothesised. 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. Implications for both theory and practice are discussed. particularly with respect to an ongoing debate within traffic psychology over the comparative importance of theories or models of driving behaviour. all four BIT components were associated with higher occurrence of both self-reported motor vehicle crashes and crash-related injury. as well. locus of control moderated the BIT-aggression relationship. Results indicated that. viii . As reported in previous studies. BIT.
3 ix .3.1 Risk Homeostasis Theory (RHT) 2.1.1 Roadway Crashes in Malaysia and Public Perceptions of Causality 2.1 1.2 The Emergence of Traffic Psychology as a Scientific Discipline 2.4 1.2 Studies of Causal Factors in Malaysian Roadway Crashes The Professional Background 2.2.4 Risk Theories 184.108.40.206.1 An Applied Perspective 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.TABLE OF CONTENTS COPYRIGHT PAGE DECLARATION ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS DEDICATION ABSTRACT TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES PREFACE CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1.2.3 1.2 1.2 A Multidisciplinary Approach Theories of Driving Behaviour 2.3.2 2.3.1 Concepts.5 220.127.116.11.3 The Individual Differences Approach 2.3.1 Human Factors and the Motor Vehicle Safety Problem in Malaysia 2.2 Differential Accident Involvement 2. Theories and Models 2.2 Traffic Psychology: Slow Progress in Theory-Building 18.104.22.168 Human Factors in Roadway Crashes: A Vexing Research Challenge 22.214.171.124 Accident Proneness 2.
4 2.1 Type A Behaviour Pattern and Motor Vehicle Crashes 2.6.2 Demographic Variables: Age.2.5 Hierarchical Theories of Driver Adaptation 2.3.3 Aggression Proximal Variables in the Present Research 126.96.36.199.188.8.131.52.5 2.1 Driver Characteristics: Driver Experience and Driving Frequency 3.4.6 184.108.40.206.220.127.116.11.2.2 Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) Descriptive Models of Driver Behaviour 18.104.22.168.3 Locus of Control 22.214.171.124 Driver Characteristics 2.2.2 Zero Risk Theory 2.3.2 A Contextual Mediated Model of Personality and Behavioral Predictors of Motor Vehicle Crashes 126.96.36.199.188.8.131.52.184.108.40.206.2 Process Models 2.1.4 Hopelessness 3.5.3 Core Concepts in the Contextual Mediated Model: Moderation and Mediation 2.5.6 Task Capability Interface (TCI) Theory 220.127.116.11.1.7 Attitude-behaviour Theories 2.2 Driving Frequency and Traffic Exposure 2.3.5 Use of the Contextual Mediated Model in Other Research Distal Variables in the Present Study 2.3 Locus of Control and Ethnicity 18.104.22.168.6. Gender and Ethnicity 3.2 Locus of Control and Driving Behaviour 2.3.1 Locus of Control 22.214.171.124 Studies of Driving Behaviour Using the Contextual Mediated Model 2.3 Psychological Variables 126.96.36.199 3.5.2 Gender 2.5.2 Conceptualization and the Research Framework Definition of the Variables 3.1 Demographic Variables 2.2 A Conceptual Shift from TAPB to Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) As A Variable 34 35 37 38 38 39 41 41 42 42 43 45 47 49 50 50 50 52 56 58 58 61 63 63 63 64 67 69 71 73 73 75 CHAPTER 3: METHOD OF INVESTIGATION 3.1 The Haddon Matrix 2.2 Hopelessness 2.1 Age 2.5.1 Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) 2.3 Ethnicity 2.5 Aggression 78 78 84 84 84 84 85 85 x .1 Unidimensional and Multidimensional Constructs 2.1 Experience 2.1 Statistical Models 2.
1 The Sample 188.8.131.52 Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) and Comparative Fit Index (CFI) 184.108.40.206 One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) 220.127.116.11 3.2.7 Structural Equation Modelling 3.7.1 Chi-Square (χ2).3 Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) and Root Mean Square Residual (RMR) 3.6 3.7.3 Beck Hopelessness Scale (BHS) 3.8 Crash Occurrence 18.104.22.168.9 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 .7.7.7. p-Value and χ2/df Ratio 3.4 3.5 3.5 Study 3 Formulation of Hypotheses Methods of Data Collection and Analysis 22.214.171.124.2 Research Instruments 3.7.1 Study 1A 3.5 Hostile Automatic Thoughts (HAT) 3.6 Logistic Regression Analysis 3.2 Study 1B 3.6 Personal Information Form (PIF) Procedure 126.96.36.199 Levenson Locus of Control Scale 3.7.2 Study 3 Analysis of the Data 3.5.6 Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index (AGFI) 188.8.131.52 Kolmogorov-Smirnov One-Sample Test 3.4 Linear Regression Analysis 184.108.40.206.220.127.116.11 Degree of freedom (df) 3.2.7 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) 3.5 Multiple Regression Analysis 3.7.4 Study 2 3.6 Hostile Automatic Thoughts 3.8 Parsimony Goodness-of-Fit Index (PGFI) 3.3 Study 1C 3.5.1 Studies 1 and 2 3.3 The General Linear Model (GLM) Univariate Analysis 3.9 Injury Occurrence Research Design of the Studies 3.1 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) Scale 18.104.22.168 Expected Cross-Validation Index (ECVI) 22.214.171.124 Normed Fit Index (NFI) 3.7.4 Aggression Questionnaire (AQ) 126.96.36.199.188.8.131.52 3.1 Independent-sample t-tests 184.108.40.206.5.3.5.
2.6.2 Hypothesis 2: Driver Characteristics Influence Behaviour in Traffic 4.4 Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 3 Reliability and Validity 4.3 220.127.116.11.6 Hypothesis 6: Locus of control Influences Hopelessness 4.6.15 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 4.2.3 Results of Study 3 Hypothesis Testing 18.104.22.168.5 Hypothesis 5: Demographic Variables Influence Hopelessness 4.2. Skewness and Kurtosis Crash and Injury Occurrence Data Distal and Proximal Variable Data 4.13 Hypothesis 13: Demographic Factors Influence Hostile Automatic Thoughts 22.214.171.124 Hypothesis 9: Hopelessness Moderates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Behaviour in Traffic 4.11 Hypothesis 11: Aggression Influences Behaviour in Traffic 4.2 4.1 Description of the Sample 4.3 Validity Test Results 4.4 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the HAT Scale Normality.3 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the AQ Scale 126.96.36.199.1 Results of Study 1 4.1 Internality as a Moderator 4.2 Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 1 4.6.12 Hypothesis 12: Locus of Control Moderates the Relationship Between Aggression and Behaviour in Traffic 4.7 Hypothesis 7: Hopelessness Influences Behaviour in Traffic 188.8.131.52.6.4 4.6.6 xii .5.3.6. Gender and Ethnicity 4.6.2 Results of Study 2 4.1 Reliability Test Results: Cronbach’s Alpha 4.10 Hypothesis 10: Demographic Factors Influence Aggression 4.1.1 Hypothesis 1: Behaviour in Traffic Influences Motor Vehicle Crash Outcomes 4.6.8 Hypothesis 8: Locus of control Influences Behaviour in Traffic 4.2 Externality-chance and Externality-powerful-others as Moderators 4.3 Hypothesis 3: Demographic Variables Influence Behaviour in Traffic 4.1.5 184.108.40.206.2 Parallel-Form Reliability 4.14 Hypothesis 14: Hostile Automatic Thoughts Influence Behaviour In Traffic 220.127.116.11 Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 2 4.4 Hypothesis 4: Demographic Variables Influence Locus of Control 4.1 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the BIT Scale 4.6.1 Age.1.5.CHAPTER 4: ANALYSIS OF DATA 4.2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Levenson Locus of Control Scale 4.
18.104.22.168.8.5.8 22.214.171.124 xiii .2 Use of Self-Report Methods 5.3 Locus of Control and Ethnicity: Malay and Chinese-Malaysian Drivers Aggression Testing the Contextual Mediated Model Using Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) 5.2 5.1 Differences between Automobile Drivers and Motorcycle Drivers 126.96.36.199.7 4.1 188.8.131.52 Timeframe for Data Collection 179 182 185 185 187 189 190 194 194 196 197 201 201 202 203 203 204 204 210 211 5.4 5.16 Summary of Hypothesis Tests Testing the Contextual Mediated Model Using Structural Equation Modelling (LISREL Analysis) 4.2 Locus of Control and Ethnicity: Indian-Malaysian Drivers 184.108.40.206.8.4.1 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hopelessness and Crash Outcomes 4.2 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Aggression and Crash Outcomes 4.1 Advantages of Using SEM 220.127.116.11.3.9 Relationship Between Aggression and Behaviour in Traffic 4.4 Testing the Contextual Mediated Model 5.1 Internal and External Locus of Control as Determinants of Driving Behaviour 5.7.1 Study 1C: Automobile Drivers 5.4 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Crash Outcomes Comparison of Automobile Drivers.5 5.3 A Contextual Mediated Model for Understanding Factors Influencing Unsafe Driving Hopelessness Locus of Control 5.3 Study 3: Taxicab Drivers 18.104.22.168 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hostile Automatic Thought and Crash Outcome 4.3 Differences between Motorcycle Drivers and Taxicab Drivers 158 159 163 163 169 170 173 173 173 174 174 176 176 177 177 179 CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION 5.3 Best Fit or Best Model 5.2 Study 2 4. Motorcycle Drivers and Taxicab Drivers 4.3 Study 3 Testing Mediational Relationships Using SPSS 4.2 Goodness of Fit 5.1 Generalisability of Findings 5.2 Differences between Automobile Drivers and Taxicab Drivers 22.214.171.124.2 Study 2: Motorcyclists 5.5 What Can be Learned from Testing Contextual Models with SEM? Limitations of the Study and Methodological Considerations 5.1 Study 1C 4.8.
7 5.7. Training and Rehabilitation 5.3 Education 5.4 Preventive Measures: “The Three E’s” 5.4 Measurement of Driving Frequency Implications and Areas for Further Study 5.3 Driver Selection.4. Models in Traffic Psychology 5.4.2 Factors in Behavioural Adaptation (BA) 126.96.36.199 Generating and classifying crash prevention interventions 5.7.1 Theory vs.188.8.131.52.2 Engineering Interventions 184.108.40.206.4 Enforcement 212 215 215 218 220 221 221 221 229 230 CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION 233 REFERENCES GLOSSARY APPENDICES Appendix A List of Published and Research Scales Appendix B Personal Information (PIF) 237 287 294 297 xiv .7.
11 xv .1 2.2 Malaysian Roadway Crashes and Casualties.LIST OF TABLES No.9 4.8 111 121 121 122 4. Kurtosis and Skewness Statistics 13 14 57 91 95 97 98 101 112 114 2.1 4.3 114 4. Table Page 2.4 3.1 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.4 115 117 118 119 4. 2002-2006 Numbers of Automobile Drivers and Motorcyclists Involved in Road Crashes by Age Group Key Value Clusters for Each Malaysian Ethnic Group Research Hypotheses Dimensions of the BIT scale The Five Subscales of the Aggression Questionnaire The Three Subscales of the Hostile Automatic Thoughts (HAT) Scale Statistical Methods for Hypothesis Testing Gender and Ethnicity of the Sample for Studies 1 and 2 Age. Gender and Ethnicity of Participants in Studies 1.10 4.5 4.2 4.7 4.6 4.5 4.3 3.2 3.3 3.
Gender and Ethnicity in Study 1 (N=855) 124 125 Crash Occurrence Frequency.21 135 4. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1A (n=301) Means.22 136 4.15 Crash and Injury Occurrence Crash Occurrence Frequency.26 138 139 144 145 4.4.14 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. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 2 (n=122) Means.12 4.13 4.28 4. Gender and Ethnicity in Study 2 (N=122) 125 Means.24 137 4.23 136 4.19 133 4.20 134 4.17 129 4.25 138 4.29 xvi . Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1C (n=252) Means.16 128 4.18 131 4. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1B (n=302) Means.27 4.
4.4 208 5.41 175 5.1 199 206 207 5.31 4.37 4.32 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 4.3 5.30 4.6 xvii .36 4.34 4.5 209 225 5.35 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 4.33 4.2 5.39 4.
6 2.1 4. 2000) Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen.1 2. 2. 2003) Inter-variable Relationships in Mediation Models Inter-variable Relationships in Moderation Models Page 36 37 40 42 44 46 47 2.2 2. 1996) Task-Capability Theory (after Fuller.2 3.4 148 xviii .2 147 148 4.4 4.7 2.3 4. Behavioral Predictors and Motor Vehicle Crashes (from Sümer.3 3. 1989) The Haddon Matrix (Noy.4 2.3 2. 1996. 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 2.1 3.9 59 2.5 Figure Task Cube (from Summala. 1997) Contextual Mediated Model of Personality. 2007) 50 Hierarchical Levels of Driving Behavior (after Keskinen.LIST OF FIGURES No.8 Proposed Contextual Mediated Model for Safety Research in Agriculture (from Downe. Hatakka.10 64 80 81 82 83 146 3.
8 4.9 4.12 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 4.13 xix .7 4.6 4.4.
My research design needed a serious re-working. I feel like it each time I think of that moment. I knew the fellow. handle the latent variables I wanted to include in my structural equation model. when humans are prone to imagine fairies or werewolves.PREFACE Accidents occur. She told me about the motorcycle crash that had claimed the life of her cousin. I didn’t recognise her at first. just every so often. I was confused by the results I was getting. LISREL couldn’t. I wanted to throw in the towel. they are prone to other types of error as well.Talib Rothengatter & Raphael Huguenin. xx . And they crashed. Then one evening into my office came a student from my first-year Critical Thinking class. but she’d nagged him. I hope it makes a contribution. He was driving. But sometimes. and his mental state. How important these factors are. She had been badly injured. He was very popular with other students. . I like to watch boxing. 2004 Some three years or so into my Ph. only a trimester or two earlier. they were focused on the errand. or wouldn’t. I told her not to worry. I despair that we may never be able to snare this werewolf. they cut across a lane too quickly. She was afraid she had missed too many lectures. programme. he’d taken the same course as she.D. They quarreled and then left on his motorbike. They were hurrying. like encounters with fairies and werewolves. I sure felt like it as I sat there beside her. She had needed to go on an errand. at least not with real tears. lane deviation and all the rest. she was riding pillion. He died instantly and she spent three weeks in the hospital. The factors she described that evening were the same ones I’d been trying to study – freeway urgency. Her hands and voice quivered. I feel like it a bit right now. The behaviour of the traveller. He didn’t want to go. I don’t cry much any more. but accidents or encounters with fairies or werewolves are random events. Her face and arms had been bruised and lacerated. they were frustrated and angry with each other. are factors that influence the likelihood of occurrence. and this thesis is the result. She started crying and couldn’t stop. I’m pretty happy with it. I got back to work on them. is a matter of debate … Obviously. I’m a fairly big guy. externally-focused frustration. He’d sent me a nice card at Christmas. to the weary traveler. But. finally. things were not going well.
Theeuwes. Ogden.g. 2002. Peters & Peters. 2000. 2007. 2002) and road safety engineering (e. Sleet. perceptual difficulties and drink driving” (p. 2001. perceptual (Hong. 11). 2007. Sabey (1999). 2004) have been studied extensively. Graham. kinaesthetic (Zhang & Chaffin. highway engineers and automotive design specialists. leading to a rich information base for regarding humancentred design as a “requirement for all elements in the traffic system. Furuichi & Kadoma. for instance. Notwithstanding the extensive literature that exists on safety design factors for automotive products (e. judgement. 1999). 2000). Verwey. This is particularly salient in developing countries. cognitive (Vaa.. Drivers’ attentional (Most & Astur.g. 2006. Stanton & Pinto. including the 1 . Enns. Olson. where rates of roadway accidents and deaths have been consistently higher than in other parts of the world (Peden & Hyder.2 million deaths in motor vehicle crashes worldwide (Peden. the quest for a better understanding of the causality and prevention of roadway mishaps has become an urgent task for safety researchers. Mills & Vavrik. Scurfield. the most prevalent factors have been human failures associated with speed. 2002).CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1. 2002) and their impairment (de Raedt & Ponjaert-Kristofferson. Iwasaki. policy-makers. Drivers’ performance and avoidance of collisions depend on their skills. scholars still search to identify the relative effects of vehicle. Green. road. anticipation. 2000). environment and human characteristics on the risk of accidental events and fatalities. Mohan & Hyder. perceptual-motor processes (Young & Stanton. state of mind and physical well-being. 1996. Even after decades of study..1 Background of the Study With an estimated 1. such as Malaysia. much of the recent attention on causal elements in roadway crashes has focused on the human factors involved. 2004). 2001). Consistently over the years. 2004). “human factors play a major role in road accidents. Trick. commented that.
790. The research comprised five separate studies of Malaysian drivers aged 18 to 73 years.000 fatalities were recorded (Ministry of Transport Malaysia. and as a “major public health problem” (Subramaniam.252 accidents in 2006 and over 6.2 Road Safety in Malaysia Malaysia is a nation of motor vehicle users. Very early initial attempts to identify an “accident proneness” personality trait (Tiliman & Hobbs. 21). with the intent to determine the degree to which measures of aggression. According to Dewar (2002b). There was a total of 341. 2003). there are conflicting findings and associated problems with this research” (p.732 motor vehicles were registered in 2006. This first chapter of this dissertation presents the background of the study.351. McKenna. This dissertation is a report of research into relevant psychosocial variables and their effects on self-reported driving behaviour. 2007). 2004. concludes by noting the delimitations of the research. 2002. the vehicle and the new technologies that are increasingly being deployed by the road and fitted in vehicles” (Carsten. as a “social menace”(Abdul Kareem. A total of 10. describes its significance and presents an overview of the methodology used.112). Malaysia is also a nation with a disproportionately high frequency of motor vehicle accidents. 1989). The chapter 1. 1949) have since been replaced by more complex explanations that focus on the interaction between emotional. behavioural and attitudinal characteristics of drivers and the environmental situations in which they find themselves (Haight. 2005). locus of control. More challenging has been the attempt to link personality and psychosocial variables to driver behaviour and performance. 2 . often labelled as “tragic” (Koh.roadway. 1983). p. hopelessness and other variables interacted to affect attitudes toward driving and the severity and frequency of participants’ self-reported involvement in motor vehicle crashes.332 drivers and 15. including the study of a large number of variables. “the literature on personality has a long history. The high rate of roadway accidents and deaths has been described in both scholarly and popular print or internet media in extreme terms. However.
Rimmö. aggression (Parkinson. 2000). 1991. Blasco. Özkan. 1994. 2002. attitudinal and personality correlates of roadtraffic crash risk. Loo. 1997). Lajunen & Kaistinen. Historically. 2002) and many others. Dewar. 2003). 1979. Severson. Barjonet & Tortosa. 2005. Many studies have been devoted to the examination of behavioural. 1997). 2005). Huang. 3 . 2004. Cohn. 2007). Hartos & Simons-Martin. ethno-cultural background (Byrd. Investigations of individual differences have included driver age and gender (Beck. 3). Sumala & Zakowska. 2001. Wells-Parker et al. 2004. 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. Huguenin (2005) has argued that the field of traffic psychology arises from an “interdisciplinary. locus of control (Arthur. Gal & Syna Desevilya. 1997). Ulleberg. 2001). Wells. Schwebel. 2006. 1997. 1993. Ball & Rizzon. Parada & Cortes. Gonzalez. Lin. and (b) the elimination or reduction of effects of task-induced or environmental stressors on human performance when driving (Brown. Wu & Yen. Stewart. 2001. Hence. Trimpop & Kirkcaldy. 2002. 2000. Gidron. 2002. 2002b. there has been an increasing recognition of the need for theoretical formulations and specific models. Renner & Anderle. 1997). 2005. Verwey. 1999. Lajunen & Summala. Draskóczy. 2006. often with widely varying results (Dewar. Barrett & Alexander. easily generalised to a variety of cultural and social settings. Vasconcellos. West & French. risk-taking and sensation-seeking (Horswill & Coster. Hwang. integrative and international viewpoint based on application in order to address changing situations and objectives” (p.Trends toward high rates of motor vehicle crashes and fatalities have been observed in developing countries world-wide (Peden et al. 2003. leading many researchers and safety organisations to regard road safety as a leading international development issue (Garg & Hyder. Elander. Shinar. and the past twenty years has seen the emergence of the new discipline of traffic and transport psychology (Barjonet & Tortosa. that allow for better prediction and explanation of roadway crashes (Risser & Nickel. 2004).
. externally-focused frustration. Noy (1997). Hampson & Morris. theoretical basis for traffic psychology (Huguenin. however. 2005)..3 The Problem Statement Given widespread awareness about the high rates of death and injury resulting from motor vehicle crashes worldwide and in Malaysia. 1. Parker. with the risk of roadway casualty? 4 . for instance. has been that such behavioural models have seldom been used as the foundation for developing an integrated. in turn. aberrant driving behaviours) variables in predicting traffic accident involvement. falsifiable hypotheses might be drawn (Summala. in developing general and specific cognitive models of individuals’ interaction with the world around them (Brown. 2004). 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. Sümer (2003). loss of attention and the deliberate usurpation of right-of-way are frequent behaviours in traffic. Speeding. with resulting outcomes often involving crash and injury. 1997. personality and demographic) and proximal (i.e. it has been recognised that the psychosocial factors involved in driving safely differ greatly across the range of human. A frequent criticism. What demographic and personality factors are associated and interact with unsafe driving behaviour and. road and environmental conditions that comprise the driving situation. This has led to a growing interest in modelling human behaviour involved in the driving task and.Increasingly. leaving the field with inadequate theory development from which testable. 1997). vehicle. 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.e. 1996. has recently proposed a promising contextual mediated model which distinguishes between distal (i. in particular. drivers still operate automobiles and motorcycles in ways that reduce the likelihood of safe arrival at destinations.
but also on their interactions. gender and ethnicity. the present research might be seen as making a contribution to our growing understanding of that very interface. (d) driver hopelessness. 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. By better understanding the manner in which psychosocial characteristics of individuals might predispose them to engage in unsafe driving behaviour. and (f) drivers’ hostile automatic thoughts would not only affect each other but also four self-reported measures of behaviour in traffic. By focusing on not only demographic. this research is important to organisations and people concerned with driving safety. This is both a key goal and a persistent challenge within the emerging field of traffic psychology. psychological and behavioural variables inherent in the dynamics leading motor vehicle crashes.The aim of the present research is to determine those factors contributing to traffic accidents on Malaysia roadways. (b) driving experience. injuries and deaths. Results of the resulting analyses are detailed in chapter 3. (c) driver locus of control.4 The Professional Significance of the Study With the frequency of roadway crashes. in which distal psychosocial factors exert an influence on behavioural tendencies more proximally related to the crash event. with a view to assessing which preventive measures would be most effective. 5 . it becomes possible to construct a broader awareness of how demographic and personality variables contribute to motor vehicle crashes. p. 9). (e) driver aggression. While there is no doubt that collective knowledge pertaining to the causality and prevention of roadway crashes is growing exponentially. 2005. Fifteen hypotheses are formulated to predict that distal variables including: (a) driver age. “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. situated as proximal variables. The effect of the proximal variables on self-reported crash experience and the severity of injuries associated with crashes are hypothesised to be moderated by the distal variables. 1.
Of particular interest may be variables related to driver affect. 1974). 1997. 1993). Moreover. the development and adaptation of in-vehicle safety devices or intelligent transportation systems and the construction of models to foster additional research. It is also the first attempt to examine closely the effects of the psychological construct of hopelessness on driver behaviour. Laapotti. 2004. Findings of the present research have implications for driver selection and training. Rothengatter. Utzelmann. The present research adds to the growing body of literature dealing with driver aggression and its various forms of expression. 94). Some authors have suggested that. 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. in the applied sciences. Despite considerable popular attention to the problem of motor vehicle crashes and fatalities in the developing countries of Southeast Asia. road safety measures and public policy. Hatakka. Katila & Peräaho. 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. There is a growing sentiment that. 2004). 2000). 6 . “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. 1997). Näätänen & Summala. the plethora of theories available. 2005. they also have implications for a broader “theory versus model” debate in traffic psychology. the Malaysian setting has remained relatively understudied (Richardson & Downe. an area that some authors have argued is overlooked in the current literature (Keskinen. Recent trends in the philosophy of science call conventional hypothetico-deductive processes into question (Becker. p. 2004. 2001. all of which have been noted as purposes for traffic psychology (Brown & Noy.
this work represents the first instance in which Baron & Kenny’s (1986) widely-cited procedure for establishing mediation has been performed using logistic regression. 7 . To the author’s knowledge. with emphasis on the importance of model comprehensiveness as a factor in addition to goodness-of-fit.Notwithstanding a handful of well-founded reviews of statistical trends and risk factors (e.5 Overview of the Methodology Questions about how the study was conducted and the choice of research methods are answered fully in chapter 3. this research draws on principles from a wide range of disciplines. incorporating cognitive ergonomics.. in turn. and is appropriate for this examination of psychosocial features of the Malaysian driver. and on the manner in which those factors interact to affect safety outcomes on the roadway. Radin Umar. Certain methodological considerations add to the professional significance of this research. Che Ali. human motivation. 2001).. may be limiting the development of effective public policy and intervention measures. 1. The present research contributes a new perspective by offering initial empirical observations on several psychosocial factors that could be important in understanding why Malaysian drivers behave as they do in traffic. which deals with methodology. attitude theory. Selection of alternate structural equation models is also discussed. This has left the door open for largely unsupported speculation about the character of Malaysian drivers and. very little research has been focused on the psychological and social features of the motoring population in Malaysia. goes some distance in differentiating the present study from other more narrowly-defined examinations of driver behaviour. It is useful. In doing so. although adding additional layers of variables and complexity to the analysis. 2005) and attempts to link driver performance to road engineering (e. cultural anthropology and applied psychology.g. This broader perspective.g. 2001). A multi-disciplinary approach has been generally considered one of the hallmarks of the new field of traffic psychology (Rothengatter.
Anderson & Tatham. or outcome. second. driving (experience. each entailing data collection from a different sample. was a multi-dimensional path analysis depicting causal. Black. hostile automatic thoughts) on four self-reported measures of behaviour in traffic (usurpation of right-of-way. different combinations of variables were added to the respective structured equation model and the level of complexity was examined. Structural equation modelling is a family of statistical methods that “examines the structure of interrelationships expressed in a series of equations. 711). aggression. Study 2 and Study 3. in which there was no direct manipulation of independent variables in the laboratory or field setting. The present research consisted of three studies: Study 1. similar to a series of multiple regression equations. the effects of selected demographic (age. three separate phases were carried out (Study 1A. Babin. in their capacity to explain which specific predictors 8 . first. Structural equation models were also used to explain the relationships between these variables. driving experience. This model drew on the similar conceptual theory used by Sümer (2003) in the construction of his earlier contextualmediated model. The final result. freeway urgency.however. In each successive study. moderating and mediating relationships between variables. in their capacity to predict outcomes and. to include in this first chapter a general statement of the method used in order to round out the introductory picture presented. In Study 1. cultural background). destination-oriented activity) and two self-reported measures of accidentrelated (crash occurrence and injury occurrence) outcomes were assessed. hopelessness. at the conclusion of Study 1C. 2003). These equations depict all of the relationships among constructs (the dependent and independent variables) involved in the analysis” (Hair. access to vehicle) and psychological (locus of control. variables (Sekaran. Maruyama (1998) has argued that the two prominent reasons why researchers use structural equation modelling techniques lie. 2006. 1B and 1C). gender. In this case. The present research applied an ex post facto research design. externally-focused frustration. p. but where differences which already existed between subject groups on independent measures were evaluated to determine their naturally-occurring influence on dependent.
Again. in fact. A team of researchers flagged down taxi drivers at random and. Generalisability of the present study may be constrained by the single-setting of the subject pool and the limitations of the particular methods selected. These are discussed in detail in chapter 5 of the thesis but relevant issues are introduced here. a model was constructed using a sample of undergraduate participants for whom motorcycles were the primary mode of transport.6 Delimitations All research is confined by the boundaries of its scope and design. verbally administered psychometric instruments.to 45-minute trips. In Study 2. a third model was constructed. representative of the characteristics of high-risk Malaysian drivers. Student participants sampled for two of the three studies were selected from an undergraduate population at a single university. 9 . This issue is discussed at some length in chapter 5 of the thesis. In Study 3. 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. Such predictive capabilities were considered to be of importance in any examination of the dynamics leading to risks of roadway crashes and fatalities.are most important in predicting. over the course of 30. 1. leaving room for questions about the generalisability of findings to populations within and outside Malaysia. where it is argued that the “convenience sample” used in the model-building phases was. After the initial model-building had been completed. behavioural inventories and personal profile questionnaires. data were collected through classroom-based group administration of research instruments. with resulting variable relationships compared to the model that had been built from the responses of automobile users in Study 1. this time sampling professional taxicab drivers in the Kuala Lumpur area.
accident histories and behavioural trends reported by participants really valid? Or are they prone to the influences of confabulation. The present research. against the first two and these are covered in chapter 2. did not specifically compare these driving patterns within the context of participants’ self-reported behaviour in traffic. Lapses involve problems with attention and memory and include such things as switching on one thing when meaning to switch on something else. Are the attitudes. while recognising the distinction. Boyce & Geller. Stradling. and (c) culpability for crash outcomes. is discussed in chapter 5 of the thesis. Errors are a type of driving mistake involving failures of observation and misjudgement. 1997). at least to a certain extent.Concerns with research of this nature also frequently centre around the question of self-reported data. 2001) and others down-playing them (Hattaka. much of the recent driving safety literature has distinguished between errors. af Wählberg (2003) outlined three significant methodological deficiencies that have plagued the study of traffic accident predictors. The relationship between the manner 10 . 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. In a meta-review of traffic safety research. there has been a vigorous debate about the utility of self-report measures in safety research for several years. The present research included procedural elements to mitigate. Keskinen. 2002. Violations are deliberate deviations from those practices believed to be necessary to safely operate a vehicle and include such behaviours as speeding. (b) time-period for calculating accident frequency. social desirability or response set biases? Indeed. with some authors emphasizing methodological risks (af Wählberg. However. as well. 1990). close following or taking aggressive actions against another driver or vehicle. such as failing to check the rear-view mirror before pulling out or changing lanes. Baxter & Campbell. The prevalence of self-report measures in traffic safety research. Katila & Laapotti. lapses and violations as differing behavioural responses underlying the crash event (Reason. Manstead. including: (a) test-retest reliability of predictors. Finally. along with its implications for the validity of results and potential alternative methodologies.
in which behaviour in traffic was measured in this research and the dimensions offered by Reason et al is discussed in chapter 5. 11 .
In newspaper reports. These are thought to have contributed. a sample of 348 first-year university students indicated. Malaysia has experienced remarkable increases in population. 1989). 2007). “obnoxious” and “cowardly” (“Cowardly Malaysian Drivers”. industrialisation and motorisation. “peaceful”. but when asked to “describe what Malaysian drivers are like”. “discourteous” (Davin Arul. “bullies” and “selfish”. the Minister of Health characterised Malaysian roads as “worse than a war zone”. Nation-wide statistics seem to underscore the popular concern over safety issues. The high rate of roadway accidents and deaths has been described in scholarly and popular print or internet media in extreme terms. when asked to provide five adjectives which would “describe what Malaysians are like”. 2007). Malaysian drivers have been consistently characterized as “confrontational”. 2007). Over 6. Downe and Loke (2004) reported that. “patient”. 2005). in aggregate. economic expansion. 2005). A developing country in Southeast Asia. and as a “major public health problem” (Subramaniam. in order of frequency.000 fatalities were recorded (Ministry of Transport Malaysia. “impatient”. pointing out that annual fatalities exceed the total deaths among American combat personnel over four years of fighting in Iraq (Zolkepli. 2006). 2005). they indicated “angry”.1. “reckless”. A succession of online weblogs and internet sites authored by tourists and local writers alike have condemned Malaysian drivers as dangerous. 2007). there were 341. “friendly”.1 2. 2003). as a social “menace”(Abdul Kareem.1 Human Factors and the Motor Vehicle Safety Problem in Malaysia Roadway Crashes in Malaysia and Public Perceptions of Causality In 2006. often labelled as “tragic” (Koh. inconsiderate and aggressive.252 motor vehicle accidents in Malaysia. “ugly motorists” (“Rude Drivers”.CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 2. or as “negligent” (“Malaysia Records Highest Single-Day Death Toll”. “selfish” (“Our Roads are Filled”. to a rapid increase 12 . 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. “laid-back” and “considerate”. Recently.
885 35.109 in 1996 to a total of 341.091 37.1: Malaysian Roadway Crashes and Casualties.2).286 9. the number of crashes has increased 80% over the past ten years. 2007).253 source: Royal Malaysian Police (2007) The road accident death rate in Malaysia dropped from 8. from 189. The number of road fatalities has decreased slightly from 6.395 2006 6. & Wong. 2005).to 25-year-old age group (see table 2. 2003. 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.415 52.741 38.7111 2003 298. Studies 13 .000 vehicles in 1996 to 3.000 vehicles in 2006.1 summarises the five-year incidence of crashes and injuries. Generally. Table 2. 2005).218 2005 6.236 49.287 in 2006.287 9. In Malaysia.891 8. Table 2.012 19. 2002-2006 Motor Vehicle Crashes 2002 Total 279. Mohd Zulkiflee.200 9. but still lags behind frequencies in developed countries which generally fall below 3 deaths per 10.304 in 1994 to 6.264 2006 341.653 2004 326. 2005). This suggests that studies. 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. higher than any other age grouping or combination of consecutive age groupings.645 54.in the number of road traffic crashes (Abdul Kareem. in Malaysia. Subramaniam & Law.20 deaths per 10.417 47.425 5.252 in 2006 (Ministry of Transport Malaysia.228 9. Radin Umar.000 vehicles (Law.252 Motor Vehicle Casualties 2002 Fatalities Severe Injuries Minor Injuries Total 35.815 2005 328.552 37.040 2004 6.425 2003 6.98 deaths per 10. Abdul Rahman. one- third of all crashes in Malaysia involve automobile users or motorcyclists within the 16.
71 543 2.431 7.85 147 0.997 14.76 22. Some Ministry of Health estimates of medical costs alone have been as high as RM5. 2005).953 17. Recent international analyses have placed the total economic burden at around RM7 billion yearly.48 105 0.967 100 19.709 8.7 billion.07 2.551 12. or an average of RM4.15 3.389 6.21 3.005 15. 14 .94 2.50 979 4.418 100 19.10 3.54 708 3.038 13. Table 2.110 10. and particularly among younger drivers.820 13. 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.034 4.26 463 2.309 10.06 608 3.947 10. 2001).94 1.67 206 0. It has been reported that.15 43 0.29 2.64 135 0.92 2.65 2.47 280 1.68 128 0.81 2.07 2.315 17.2: Numbers of Automobile Drivers and Motorcyclists Involved in Road Crashes by Age Group 2000 2001 2002 2003 Number % Number % Number % Number % 37 0.08 1.90 159 0.05 1.37 337 1. Palamara.08 2. 2001.81 1.63 160 0.921 100 20.97 1.85 2.67 billion.086 9.205 11.40 1.77 3.049 15.15 572 2.61 99 0.593 11. general insurers paid RM1.29 708 3.803 9.378 11.49 450 2.72 554 2.22 150 0.23 2.16 90 0.56 3.6 million a day on motor claims (Abdul Kareem.65 121 0.08 541 2.11 2.448 17. or about 2.80 203 0. 2003).023 5.216 10.469 15.341 12.178 15.92 1.4 billion to RM5.180 10.82 1.31 3.45 30 0.68 3.05 2.99 164 0.41 302 1. has resulted in considerable economic loss for the country. 2002.08 585 2.05 2.94 625 3.4% of the Gross Domestic Product (Asian Development Bank. with one road accident victim admitted to hospital every six minutes (Bernama. in 1999 alone. 2006).48 323 1.81 3.of university-aged drivers are critical to understanding behavioural and situational factors that predict the most commonly occurring class of crashes (Stevenson.84 1.416 6.025 9.91 984 4. Morrison & Ryan.620 7.329 100 source:Royal Malaysian Police (2000.27 458 2.
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. physician and journalist has commented that: The human toll is unquantifiable. (Bernama.Yet. lane definition. economic figures and accident statistics provide only partial indications of the impact of the highway safety problem on Malaysian society. 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. and that alone justifies making concerted efforts to address the issue … The economic costs in property damages are huge. if people want to die? (Lim. Some seven years later. 1999). the same frustration was apparent when his Cabinet successor told a group of assembled journalists that: When I became Transport Minister two-and-a-half years ago I thought the biggest challenge was to build ports and airports. But it is nothing compared to bringing down the number of road deaths. Public interest and political frustration has given rise to extensive speculation over the possible causes of the problem. 2005). or the pain of the maimed. signs and lighting have been levied in certain quarters 15 . The loss of potential income of the dead and maimed in turn dwarfs those medical outlays (Bakri Musa. Criticisms of road configuration. traffic congestion. but miniscule compared to the expenses of medical care and rehabilitation. In spite of numerous road safety campaigns the number of accident cases have been increasing. There is no way to A popular measure the grief of those who have lost their loved ones. What else can we do. The economic consequences can be estimated. In 1999. which is actually a nightmare. 2006).
unlike in other countries. 2005). for instance. Who they are. given greater risks of accident. 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. 2001. most accounts have come around to commenting on driver demographic and behavioural characteristics as significant factors in motor vehicle crashes (Che Ali. The relatively high population of motorcycle riders. They are also bad in giving ample time to others and this is an example of non-defensive driving. 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. newspaper columnists. the Royal Malaysian Police (2007) reported 3. 2006). 2007). Generally. Those countries have had a motoring culture for nearly a century but our road-users are relatively newer to motoring (Sadiq. Researchers. how they think. 1997).215 deaths among motorcar drivers and passengers. though. approximately 45 per cent of all registered vehicles in 2006 (Road Transport Department Malaysia. as compared with 1. Krishnan & Radin Umar.(Abdul Rahman et al. serious injury and death (Per and Al Haji. They don’t even stop to look left and right or look in the rear view mirror.693 deaths among motorcycle operators and pillion riders. In 2006. senior policy-makers and politicians alike are shining the spotlight on the way in which Malaysian drivers’ traits and states may be contributing to the incidence of roadway accidents. 2007). 2005). 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 . is often mentioned as a factor. Maybe these drivers just never realised how simple it is to avoid accidents (Looi. In a recent newspaper interview.
Conducting time-series regression analyses of police data. causal factors underlying crash and injury rates on Malaysian roadways have remained largely understudied. 2007). 2. reasons and social contexts of motorcycle use (Reeder.2 Studies of Causal Factors in Malaysian Roadway Crashes Notwithstanding this public outcry. Radin Umar. perhaps. Law et al. Ahmad Hariza. 1996). risky behaviour (Chang & Yeh. they reported that the Asian-wide economic recession significantly contributed to a reduction in traffic fatalities. This is. Musa. In none of the studies of the MSP. MSP interventions had been aimed at modifying motorcycle riders’ awareness and attitudes of safety issues related to helmet use. however. respectively. conspicuity and excessive speeding. Bartle & Truman. In the same study. or else on the evaluation of specific safety interventions. Law.1. 2007) and crash Type And liability (Clarke. In a separate study. with a 27% and 38% drop in the rate of motorcycle casualties and motorcycle fatalities. since studies in other parts of the world have found that individual differences play a significant role in determining rider training outcomes. rather than personality factors. (2005) also examined the impact of a national motorcycle safety programme (MSP) on crashes and found that it had effected a 25% reduction in the number of motorcycle accidents. injuries and fatalities. Zulkaurnain and Kulanthayan (2005) examined the impact of economic variables on motorcycle-related crashes. due to fewer trips and reduced traffic exposures as a result of slower economic activity. Chalmers & Langley. The research that has been undertaken has tended to focus largely on the contribution of broader economic and social variables. For instance. 17 . was personality or demographic factors of motorcyclist samples investigated.general understanding of the causes and potential prevention strategies related to the country’s traffic safety problem. Mohd Nasir. Ward. Radin Umar and Kulanthayan (1999) found that the same MSP had significantly improved motorcycle riders’ perception and understanding of safety issues. a needed focus in the analysis of programme effects.
however. It has been estimated by expressway management authorities that up to 95% of the crashes occurring along the northsouth artery are due to human error. has linked peninsular communities. since 1994.122). they are accident prone. 1996). This.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. motivated largely by the government’s fear of unregulated public assembly. a capacity that makes them distinct as a society” (p. 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. the factor that made the high speeds possible. road engineers devoted their efforts to creating a public artery in which speed and limited stoppage were design priorities. 121-122). Although the expressway was meant to avoid both traffic and accidents. The very monotony of the road surface. 18 . He argued that. 110). these conflicting aims of speed and safety seemed to exacerbate them. “many Malaysians claim that as drivers. he argued that national leadership intended it to be both a symbol of progress. including speeding and falling asleep at the wheel (“N-S Highway”. Describing the expressway as a “stunning infrastructural achievement” (p. generalising to all driving environments and situations. 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. 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. According to Williamson. resulted in a myriad of problems.
driver experience and skill and the relationship between risk and factors such as speed choice and alcohol consumption” (p. Among engineering factors. the largest opportunities for harm reduction: A clear hierarchy of factors can be specified.1 The Professional Background Human Factors in Roadway Crashes: A Vexing Research Challenge Attention to the demographic. by far.2. Human factors are far more important than engineering factors. but rather 19 . 1991). personality characteristics (Elander.2. personality and behavioural characteristics of drivers has not been exclusive to the Malaysian scene. bad road conditions. 1993). levels of driving experience and.2 2. 1993. Among human factors. 62). According to the Commission for Global Road Safety (2006). The majority of accidents are not caused by problems of the vehicle. “human behaviour makes a direct contribution to crash risk through the extent of knowledge and understanding of traffic systems. etc. particularly. 784). Åberg. experiential. Because at least one driver is involved in every traffic crash. West and French. 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. This has included the examination of age and gender. Evans (1996) further argued that changes in driver behaviour offer. Christ. 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. Panosch and Bukasa (2004) argued that: Road safety is less a technical but rather a human factors problem. driver behaviour (what the driver chooses to do) has much greater influence on safety than driver performance (what the driver can do).
conflicting or of relatively little importance (Iversen & Rundmo. psychological factors may play different roles according to driver age (Dumais et al.by the behaviour of drivers. 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. 377). 2004). in reviewing early findings on human factors in this field. personality and traffic safety have been regarded by many as debatable. While the system-centered approach aims at creating those road conditions that reduce the chance of accidents in advance. The lack of progress in trying to identify psychological factors that cause. weak. 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. Further. as well as on the attitudes and behaviour of single drivers (p. or at least predict. to a large degree. unclear. Haddon (1963). and (c) the failure to differentiate between culpable and non-culpable crashes. 1997. Lajunen & Summala. 641). Ranney. 2004) and other contextual variables. There are two principle approaches in order to influence the driver: adjusting the traffic system to the driver or adjusting the driver to the traffic system. the individual-centered approach directly focuses on traffic relevant performance and personality aspects. prior accident experience (Lin et al. However. empirical findings to date about the relationship between driver characteristics. 2005). He conducted a meta-analysis of some 136 previous studies researching the effects of at least one psychological predictor of 20 . 2002. (b) the choice of time periods for calculating the frequency of crash-related outcomes. organisational climate (Caird & Kline. 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. 1994).
the picture that emerges is indeed grave. 2003). 2005). 1996.2. It would seem that very few of the studies on accident predictors are actually possible to interpret in any straightforward way.2 The Emergence of Traffic Psychology as a Scientific Discipline 2. Preston & Harris. 1961. the use of inconsistent crash definitions.1 An Applied Perspective Ever since Tillman and Hobbs (1949) stated that “a man drives as he lives” (p. 2. especially considering the salience of transportation in the routines of daily life. the extent of exposure of drivers to the driving task (af Wahlberg. 1993). and we are left with a very vague knowledge of what psychological variables can actually predict accidents (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. Other methodological factors that may cloud the relationship between psycho-social variables. information processing. 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. accuracy of witness recall of crash details (Crombag. 2003).2. there has been an interest in driver personality. and the influence of car and driver stereotypes on attributions of crash blameworthiness (Davies & Patel. Underwood & Milton. driving behaviour and crash-related outcomes include: the use of self-reported crash data. 2002. psychologists have given scant attention to this topic. 321). 1965) but did not really gain momentum until the 1980s (Risser.2. 21 . 482). 1997a). the lack of replication of many studies. Wagenaar & van Koppen. motivation and behavioural performance as potential underlying causal factors in driver behaviour (Jonah. Novaco (2000) argued that: The field of transportation has always had a rich potential for psychology. Nevertheless.
or peculiar to. ergonomics. Groeger (2002) argued that there is “no psychology which is specific to. Temes and Hermida (2001) found. or the psychological support for intervention. traffic and transportation. Ochando.2. in the field of traffic.” (p. transportation planning. 2. According to Rothengatter (2001). in a Spanish survey. that individuals tend to combine their interests in traffic psychology with some other area of specialisation such as educational psychology. as a general objective to minimise the harmful effects of traffic participation” (p. “the task of traffic psychology is to understand. predict and provide measures to modify road user behaviour at the levels identified with. conferences and coordination of professional affiliations ever since (Groeger. Indeed.2. eoncompassing engineering. 246). anthropology and sociology. Huguenin (2005) defines traffic psychology as “the psychological intervention. 4). traffic psychology has drawn from multidisciplinary perspectives. These interrelationshps provide a vast terrain for psychological research (pp.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. 2002). 4) and describes it as an “interdisciplinary. but that complex traffic 22 . To wit. medicine. This includes the research that serves this purpose” (p. psychology.654-655. integrative and international viewpoint based on application in order to address changing situations and objectives” (p. 3).2 A Multidisciplinary Approach From the outset.) The Traffic and Transportation Psychology Division of the International Association of Applied Psychology was established in 1994 and there has been a steady growth in publications. attitudes about the origin and destination of the trip and resources for choosing alternative travel modes and schedules.
which she described as the two main planks of social cognition.behaviour is a very important and worthwhile test-bed for psychology and psychological theory and. 24). In a recent special edition. the road environment comprises the vehicle. ergonomics is concerned with identifying and designing technical and organisational means for facilitating the driver’s interaction with the road environment. In the broadest sense. Odero. the road infrastructure and other road users. surrounding environments and 23 . a paradigm that has been applied increasingly to driving safety questions in developing countries (Dharmaratne & Ameratunga. in particular. as well. both by providing a better understanding of human-machine interaction. Much of the ergonomic research carried out to date has been focused on adapting motor vehicle conveyances. and that “ergonomics has much to offer in the design of driver education and training programmes. Stanton (2007) noted that. which are sometimes expressed in road markings and road signs (p. Garner and Zwi. 2002). emphasising the primacy of attitudes and attributions. Johnston. Peden & Hyder. 2003. the design of vehicle automation and a deeper understanding of why drivers behave as they do” (p. the design of driver interfaces and driver assistance systems with motor vehicles. Ergonomics has made a contribution. Spielberger and Frank (1992) made similar comments with regard to the contribution of health psychology through the use of public health models and methodologies. commented that: From the perspective of the driver. Hyder & Peden. 1995. 2004. Wilson. 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. 2000). 1158). 2007. there have been 103 papers published in the Ergonomics journal alone. 1997. the study of cognitive processes. and of cognitive control over vehicle and highway systems involved (Bridger. over the past ten years.
Noy. and “Generation Three” ergonomics. These applications are consistent with the paradigms Boff (2006) has described as “Generation Two” ergonomics. Concepts are the building blocks for theory and may be defined as: 24 . 1997. particularly the notions of mental load. error and cognitive modelling. 2006. 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. traffic psychologists frequently engage in theory-building. which focuses on symbiotic technologies that amplify human physical and cognitive capabilities. Increasingly.tasks to human capabilities and limitations. Neerincx & Schriebers. Stanton & Young. 26). 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. though. According to Barjonet & Tortosa (2001). 2001). a paradigm that Boff (2006) described as “Generation One” ergonomics. 2004). This involves the coherent grouping of general propositions for use as principles in explaining various classes of driving phenomena. Walker. which assumes a necessary communication between person and machine led to a dialogue between the various designers of car interiors.3 2. in which the goal is to manage automation and dynamic function allocations.1 Theories of Driving Behaviour Concepts. “This school of though. predict and modify road user behaviour. 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.3. Theories and Models In attempting to understand. 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. 2.
To a degree. A-18) Often. many models have been proposed. 2005. in traffic psychology. there is no generally accepted theory which elucidates principles from which a broad. the latter is defined more narrowly as “a set of assumptions or postulates. Ericsson & Bourne Jr. Healy. often in mathematical form. Reasons for this are likely several. Concepts can be linked together to form a theory. On the other hand. 8) Any set of systematically interrelated concepts or hypotheses that purports to explain and predict phenomena (Robbins. Many of the theories that have been proposed have failed to generate testable hypotheses. 2000. p. In traffic psychology. 2005).. which attempts to provide a generalised working construct that can account for empirical data or relationships” (Chaplin. or accident-causing behaviours. 1969). this may be due to 25 . p. often providing a category for the classification of phenomena (Theodorson & Theodorson. or both.2 Traffic Psychology: Slow Progress in Theory-Building Theory development in traffic psychology has not progressed well (Summala. generalisable understanding of the driving process can be deduced. Concepts are formed by a process of mental abstraction.A word or set of words that expresses a general idea concerning the nature of something or the relations between things. 2. Ranney (1994) pointed out that it has never been clear.3. but for the purposes of this thesis. each ordering driving reality from its own particular set of empirical observations. whether theories should explain everyday driving. “theory” is a term used interchangeably with the word “model”. which is then followed by a process of generalisation (Schneider. 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. 1995). 1985).
3 The Individual Differences Approach Placed in similar situations. These may be classified as: theories of individual differences. avoid obstacles. minimise delay and driving time. but it is also a reflection that the driving task is a highly sophisticated multi-factorial process involving perceptual.3. enjoy driving.the imprecise definition of concepts.. For over ninety years. and most of the time is not especially influential. 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. and emotional determinants. Groeger (2000) took a similar position with regard to the range of driver motivations: Although any rational analysis would surely place preservation of one’s own personal safety at the heart of the concerns of a driver. social. 2005). 2. perceptions. or ever had sufficient knowledge of possible outcomes on which to base a deliberate action (p. attitudes. 2002). hierarchical theories of driver adaptation. Notwithstanding these difficulties. five areas of theory attempt to explain and predict driving behaviour. … Just because we as investigators have an understanding of safety as a goal. risk adaptation theories. it is highly improbable that a single theoretical stance is likely to be sufficient to account for behaviour in traffic. etc. motives and personalities (Robbins. 189). feel in control. the driver’s aspirations are to reach destinations. it does not mean that the driver had safety as a primary goal. not all people act exactly alike and this is a function of their differing values. Rothengatter. cognitive. 26 . taskcapability frameworks and attitude-behaviour models (Keskinen et al. Instead. Groeger and Rothengatter (1998) argued that. given the complexity of human behaviour. 2004. I believe it is but one of the goals a driver has.
the first of which was characterised by low levels of altruism and anxiety and high levels of sensation-seeking. 1979). In an attempt to identify subtypes of young Norwegian drivers. McRae &Costa. poorer perception of traffic signs (Loo. while the second high-risk group reported high sensation-seking.Trimpop and Kirkcaldy (1997). 1980) and other safety outcomes. thrill and adventure seeking and tended to avoid socially stimulating situations when compared with violators. “these findings have yet to be embodied in a general theory of differential crash risk. 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). aggression. the extraversion variable has been associated with a higher frequency of traffic offences (Renner & Anderle. or “Big Five” personality model (Costa & McRae. There have been theories of crash causation that have focused on particular groups of 27 . irresponsibility and driving related aggression. crash frequency (Pestonjee & Singh. 1995. the search for individual differences relevant to crash involvement continues to yield a large body of literature. but not occupational accidents. found that a sample of young Canadian automobile drivers. neuroticism. without driving violations had lower scores on measures of risk-taking behaviour. Ulleberg (2001) found two high-risk groups. Lajunen (2001) reported that countries with high extraversion scores had more traffic fatalities than those with moderate or low extraversion scores. extraversion was found to predict traffic accidents. anxiety and driving anger. Of the five factors examined – extraversion. In a large number of studies of specific samples from various countries. conscientiousness. 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. aged 16 to 29 years. According to Rothengatter (2002). Similar studies of driver risk-taking and other individual differences have been largely absent with Asian populations and non-existent in Malaysia. However. for instance. Drawing from a large pool of data that included personality measures and both traffic and work-related statistics for 34 nations. 1990). 2000).
in response to concern over the number of accidental deaths and injuries in World War I production industries (Blackler & Shimmin.finding. 1984). sensori-motor skill. λ. occupational and otherwise. the average number of accidents. or higher conative or cognitive function” (Cresswell & Froggat. differed from person to person (Greenwood & Yule. Research by board statisticians. West & French. could be modelled almost exactly by the Poisson distribution but then that. that individual is more likely at all times to incur an accident than his colleagues even though exposed to equal risk. during and following the war years. The designation of a high-λ individual as “accident prone” implied that.3. 2. but persists today.152). The individual values of each worker’s λ became known as the degree of accident proneness. The difficulty was that no one knew how to determine its value for a given individual. In 1917. the British government established the British Industrial Fatigue Research Board. an idea that has had an uneven level of acceptance by ergonomists and traffic psychologists through the years. weight and perhaps even intelligence. According to Haight (2004). ‘Accident proneness’ had a nice ring to it. but none have attempted a more general integration” (Elander. and that this is due to some characteristic or summation of characteristics associated with corporeal dexterity. it should be a reasonably simple matter to find 28 . personality. in certain cases. It provided a challenge to the psychology profession to devise a way to measure it. If each individual has a unique λ-value. 1962. found first that the frequency of accidents. p. 1993. his or her accident proneness.3. just as one can meaure height. 1920). p. 290). “irrespective of environment.1 Accident Proneness One concept that sought to integrate individual differences within a predictive theory relates to the “accident-prone personality”.
Farmer and Chambers (1926. “Because crashes are so infrequent. it was pointed out are highly sensitive to the length of the survey period. inadequate or irrelevant. 2004). The accident-prone concept. Arbous and Kerrich (1951) and much later McKenna (1983) systematically destroyed the supportive literature. inappropriate. with shorter periods giving sharper contrasts (Moore. 422). in traffic or when playing 29 . perhaps physiological. at home. in successive years. an individual driver’s prior crsh rate would not be an effective predictor of future crash rates even if some individuals did have expected rates higher than others” (Evans. The theory of the accident-prone individual also came under attack on a conceptual basis. by devising clever tests. in a Finnish telephone survey. as well. Hale and Glendon (1987) concluded that the evidence for the transfer of accident liability differences across different work tasks or different working environments is quite weak so that accident proneness would appear to be largely task specific. made an assumption that. subjects reported significant. 1929. 1997). 294).out what that value is. with extensive critiques that concluded statistical analyses were almost all invalid. more probably psychological (p. that high-λ group would be comprised of the same individuals or of an entirely new cohort (Haight. 195). with a series of tests constructed by Greenwood and Woods (1919). in any sample. replicable result that correlated substantially with the accident experience of individuals (Haight. noting that. 1939) and many others. p. 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. Early work on the concept attempted to do just that. None of the experiments. motivated largely by a desire to select lorry drivers in Europe who were less likely to become involved in costly roadway crashes (Barjonet & Tortosa. Scores on the λ dimension. 1991. 2004). a certain percentage would experience a higher accident frequency than would other groups year after year. A study by Salminen and Heiskanen (1997) provided empirical support for this position. but did not take into consideration whether. however. Johnson (1946). produced a positive. 1956). but very low correlations between accident frequency at work.
“it is still difficult to identify the accident prone individuals that compose this group. 2.. Only 15% of the studies included in their analysis had been conducted on road user crash experience. but the authors reported that the heterogeneous nature of sub-groups did not permit comparisons. pp. roadway.05. The concept itself is ill-defined. 1993). Pijl. it is still generating research and controversy (Vavrik. 8-9).sports. It is seen as preferable to earlier formulations because it places more emphasis on contributing factors outside the person. 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. it denotes an area of study rather than a theory. because individuals can experience multiple accidents because of chance alone and also because of a higher exposure to risk independent of personal factors” (p. So. Despite the low repute in which many have regarded the accident proneness concept. Visser. While their stated conclusion was that an accident prone group definitely existed.2 Differential Accident Involvement McKenna (1983) suggested that the accident proneness concept should be replaced by the less historically loaded term “differential accident involvement”. the consensus position became that: Accident proneness as a concept has little use in practical accident prevention. Ultimately. Alternative explanations must be found for persons experiencing multiple accidents (Lindsey. This concept does not prejudge the issue of causation. in no case did correlations between traffic crashes and other types of accidents exceed r =. no stable personality characteristics that can be identified with accident-proneness have been discovered. 562). moving away from the main conceptual criticism of traditional 30 . 1980. 1998).3. screened for operational and prevalence rates related to accident proneness within work.3. therefore. and assumes that individuals may vary along a continuum with regard to factors that affect their risk of crash (Elander et al. Stolk. sports and family settings. Neeleman and Rosmalen (2007) have published a meta-review of 79 studies.
After the relatively easy engineering measures were implemented to reduce the seriousness of the consequences of driver behaviour. when they perceive a discrepancy between the observed level of risk and the desired target level of risk. 1988) proposed that a control mechanism operates to keep overall risk per unit time constant. suddenly confronted with uneven pavement. they adjust their behaviour to eliminate the discrepancy. and that transient factors probably interact with stable traits of the individual in their causation. Elander et al. albeit not crash occurrence. 2000). researchers began to turn their attention to not-so-easy measures for changing driver behaviour. A driver who enters a construction zone. Wilde (1982.3.3. large earth-moving 31 . The introduction of divided highways.accident proneness (Chmiel. 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. 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. 2. concluded that differential crash risk is not readily accounted for by previous crash rates. following their review of the literature.1 Risk Homeostasis Theory (RHT) In an attempt to explain these findings. That is. compulsory seatbelts and vehicle design improvements reduced motor vehicle crash fatalities. 2.4. in fact. but avoids the assumption of a stable phenomenon that accounts for more accidents in all situations. substantially. For example. experience more accidents than others. However. people strive to maintain a target level of risk all the time and. crash barriers.. in a study of driving on icy roads. Dewar (2002b) noted that the notion of differential liability allows for the observation that some individuals do.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.
1994) argued that this made the theory essentially untestable. Huguenin (2001) noted that RHT has spawned a considerable number of studies. Wilde (1994) reframed the concept of target risk as an individual variable based on four perceived utilities. Collectively. “the aggregate target risk in a community is what produces the accident toll and the only way in which this toll can be reduced. reduced the predicted safety benefits of such systems (Wilde. p. 2008. according to the theory. 2005). Sagberg. Ranney. 2002) and that driver education programmes need to be extensively revamped (Wilde. RHT research of this nature has been used to argue that most engineering interventions and roadway regulations have little or no benefit (Smiley. would perceive a level of risk above his target and would tend to reduce speed and increase vigilance. for example. performing more dangerous manouevers and driving with significantly shorter headway distances than those driving without ABS (Aschenbrenner & Biehl. 1997). 1989. Fosser & Sætermo. The central implication of RHT is that safety interventions need to be values-oriented and aimed at lowering the level of 32 . a driver motoring along a wide. at least until the target risk level was reached. 1994. Initially. given that human behaviour will continue to be motivated by internal homeostatic processes. Wilde’s theory was couched at a societal level.vehicles and warning flags. in turn. according to the theory. 14). postulating that the number of accidents in any given country would only depend on the accident rate which the population is willing to tolerate. Wilde. Conversely. and not on the specific measures taken in other sectors of the control system. McHugh & Pender. When others (Haight. That is. flat. In two separate studies. 2002). 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.” (Fuller. Michon. is if the level of target risk is reduced. 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. 2001. 1986. many of which have attempted to observe and comment on individual behavioural change after the risk variable is manipulated. 1988.
and not on the available technology” (Wilde. 1994. 2002). but that the RHT neither adequately explains nor predicts the circumstances under which it does. Evans 33 . Also. 2008. p. 53). “Costs and benefits are central to the model. however. In a review of research offered as support of the RHT. 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. Rothengatter. 1151). pay sufficient attention to risk. 1977). 223). More than any other driving theory. the community. or have the knowledge and ability to constantly adjust their behaviour to achieve so-called risk homeostasis is ludicrous in view of what is known about human limitations. or the nation” (Brown & Noy. “The extent of risk taking with respect to safety and health in a given society ultimately depends on values that prevail in that society. Wilde’s RHT has generated controversy and opposition (Keskinen et al. Corrigan & Coombs. Criticisms have been aimed at Wilde’s theory on empirical as well as conceptual grounds. Lichtenstein.” (Vaa. To the contrary. the notion of target risk implies that drivers are constant “comparers”. 2004). The notion that people have a constant point of acceptable risk. 1989. 2002). it has been argued people are not sufficiently sensitive to changes in low risk probabilities to react behaviourally as RHT predicts (Fuller et al. “It is unclear whether risk homeostasis occurs at the level of the individual. but they are not defined in psychological terms.target risk that people are willing to tolerate. General consensus is that behavioural adaptation to vehicle and environmental conditions often does occur (Rothengatter. 2001. p. Robertson and Pless (2002) made the case forcefully that: … some drivers may sometimes slow down in rain. (p... a tenet for which no convincing support has been yet generated (Michon. Considerable criticism revolves around the imprecise nature of the theory itself. psychologically weighing at every moment the perceived and targeted risk levels inherent in every environment. Slovic. 2004). Fischoff.
2 Zero Risk Theory Another risk-based theory. is a very basic human skill that can be carried out in the absence of extensive conscious processing. Only when the subjective risk reaches a level that was not anticipated will the drivers change their behaviour. 92). 1987.4. 2004. 2. drivers avoid ‘feeling fear’ (hence. zero-risk theory still retains some of its conceptual shortcomings. 81).(1986) concluded that “risk homeostasis theory should be rejected because there is no convincing evidence supporting it and much evidence refuting it” (p. Summala’s zero-risk model of driver behaviour (Summala & Näätänen. In addition. Summala. for example.3. Michon (1989) noted that most studies attempting to support the RHT deal with data only at the aggregate level. they experience uncomfortable feelings of fear and abruptly change behaviour. increasing safety margins” (Brown & Noy. At this point. 1988) proposed that drivers do not constantly assess risk while driving. While overcoming many of the criticisms levied at RHT with regard to the concepts of target risk and the risk discrepancy comparative process. and 34 . p. 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. Summala (1986) suggested that estimating time-to-collision. or expecting. In other words. 26). experience ‘zero-risk’) when they drive by anticipating. Fuller (2005) has argued that the theory’s premise that safe margins are learned creates an implausible requirement to recognise. 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. after a similar review. O’Neill and Williams (1998). Rather. some degree of risk during the performance of this task. Rothengatter (2002) has questioned how drivers can determine that a threshold has been exceeded if they do not constantly assess risk. a necessary and highly controversial assumption in Wilde’s theory. drivers compare the distance from hazards or time-tocollision to a subjective safety margin threshold and take action only when the threshold is exceeded.
1996. Keskinen. If behavioural adaptation were to take place in response to the presence of a supplementary restraint system (SRS). for instance. and specific driver actions. would vary depending on the combination of factors from the three dimensions. A major element in the zero risk theory was the influence of motivation. In an attempt to deal with this and to expand on the role of extrinsic and intrinsic motivators. Summala (1996. Meijman & Roghengatter. do appear to affect drivers’ willingness to accept risk levels that approach thresholds and. and when confronted with various environmental conditions or psychological processes.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. much of which arises from personality. their behaviour becomes less adaptive to prevailing circumstances (Delhomme & Meyer. level of psychological processing and a functional taxonomy of driving actions (see Figure 2.learn how to respond safety to. 35 . age and social variables.3. it may not manifest itself as a less cautious speed or headway choice but rather as a conscious. in which he introduced a “task cube” to explain the driving process. very little if any research has been carried out with respect to intrinsic motivation. The cube presented three dimensions of driver behaviour: a functional hierarchy. used to explain drivers’ tendencies to approach as closely as possible to the risk threshold. Summala argued that behavioural adaptation. 2002. On the other hand. what is a virtually infinite number of roads and traffic scenarios. such as time pressure. Reeder et al. A large number of studies show that external motives. Glad & Hernetkoskis. 1998.1). pre-meditated decision not to wear seatbelts. 1999). Hataaka. as a result. 1997) refined his earlier theory into a hierarchical model of driver behavioural adaptation. Van der Hulst. Gregersen. 2.
Automated) Navigation Speed and time control Guidance Vehicle control Lane keeping etc. (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.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. pointing out that a task hierarchy assumes that successful completion of the task at a lower level is required for successful performance of a higher-level task. criticised the model for being overly complicated and resembling “more a description or a list of important variables than a solid model” (p. Even though it is true that the performance on one task can bear consequences for the performance for the other. 1996) Keskinen et al. but that is not 36 . seemingly concurrently. for example. Rothengatter (2002) questioned the concept of a hierarchy.1: Task Cube (from Summala. this does not necessarily imply a hierarchy as this is as much true for “lower” level as for “higher” level tasks … Drivers do perform tasks such as route finding and manoeuvring. Headway control Obstacle avoidance Crossing management Passing and other maneuvers FUNCTIONAL TAXONOMY Figure 2. 15).
2005) integrated competing components of the RHT (Wilde.sufficient reason to presume they are two distinct levels of the same task rather than two different tasks (p. 2. Safety Compensatory action by others Crash! Capability (C) Loss of control C>D Control C<D Task Demands (D) Safety Figure 2. However.1).2: Task-Capability Theory (after Fuller.6 Task Capability Interface (TCI) Theory In perhaps the most ambitious of the leading driving behaviour theories. either by modifying task demand or by altering their capability. unexpected changes in task demand (decreased visibility. Fuller argued that loss of control occurs when task demands exceed drivers’ capabilities. 2000) 37 .3. Most of the time. Loss of control occurs at the point where capability is less than that required to carry out the task safely. 1982. 1988) and the zero risk theory (Näätänen & Summala. high speeds. Fuller (2000. 252). 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.g. affective states). 1976) by proposing that drivers attempt to match task demands with their capability to maintain control.. this becomes more difficult when factors external to the driving task (e.
1985.6. such that it is not capability but perceived capability that interfaces with task demand. Fishbein & Ajzen.3. Intention is determined by the summed effects of: (a) attitudes toward the behaviour. 126). 1975) and the subsequent theory of planned behaviour (TPB: Ajzen. institutions or issues (Chaplin.7 Attitude-behaviour Theories 2. Since 1985. 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. Two limitations have been noted. 2004. neither of which was originally intended as a way of explaining driver behaviour. 2. It generally refers to the thoughts and feelings that impel us to behave in one way and not in another” (Parker. Intention is the cognitive representation of an individual’s readiness to engage in a given behaviour. p. the notion of matching competence with task demand promises to be very useful in understanding driver behaviour. According to the TRA. (2004) have argued that it is deserving of more attention than it has received to date.3. Rothengatter (2002) has stressed that the perception of capability is often influenced by external factors (impairment. subjective norms and behavioural intentions can be used to predict behaviour. providing an account of the way in which attitudes. and Keskinen et al. 40). for the most part. traffic psychology has seen a resurgence of interest in the role played by attitudes. largely due to the focus that has been provided by the theory of reasoned action (TRA. however. Generally. objects. emotional state. been regarded as potentially more productive than earlier risk-based theories. people’s behaviour is determined by their intention to perform the behaviour. 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.Fuller’s theory has. time pressure). p.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. 1991). Langdridge (2004) describes the theory of reasoned action as one of the most important theories in attitude-behaviour research. 1985. and is considered to be the immediate antecedent of behaviour. generally referring to a positive or negative 38 .
2). behavioural intention is the result of attitudes (“do I feel like this is a good thing to do?”). 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”). 39 . however (Sharma & Kanekar. 2007). which can usually be performed (or not performed) at will. 1985. and perceived control (“do I really believe that I can do this?”).2 Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) Complications hindered the application of the TRA in circumstances where behaviours were not fully under volitional control. are sometimes subject to the influence of factors beyond one’s control. Ajzen and Fishbein (2000) argued that intention is the best predictor of behaviour. According to the TPB. This extended framework was introduced as the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB. “Even very mundane activities. subjective norms (“do others feel this is a good thing for me to do?”). see Figure 2. such that every intended behaviour is a goal whose attainment is subject to some degree of uncertainty. denoting the subjective degree of control which individuals perceive themselves having over the performance of a behaviour. p.7. 24). he incorporated the concept of “perceived behavioural control” (PBC).judgement with respect to behavioural performance (“accelerating to pass through a cross-junction against an amber light is bad/good”). and a meta-analysis carried out by Sheppard.3. Hartwick and Warshaw (1988) found that the theory had strong predictive utility. then. To deal with this uncertainty. 2.” (Azjen.
it will directly influence behaviour (Armitage & Christian.e. PBC is considered a determinant of both the individual’s intentions and the individual’s behaviour. 2002. 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. including driving and “it has to be admitted that the theory of planned behaviour has stood up well. In one study. A belief that the described violations were not all that serious (attitudes). creating a proxy effect that increases the likelihood that behaviour will be successfully performed. greater perceived control (i. 2003). stronger feelings that “I can do it”) will heighten an individual’s confidence level. The TPB has spawned a huge body of research. 1989) Within the theory. when intention is held constant. on the performance of a wide range of behaviours. p. Its inclusion as a predictor of behaviour is premised on the notion that.Behavioural beliefs and outcome evaluations Attitude toward the behaviour Normative beliefs and motivation to comply Subjective norm Intention Behaviour Control beliefs and perceived facilitation Perceived behavioural control Figure 2. to the extent to which PBC reflects an individual’s level of actual control. 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. or sense of self-efficacy. Further. speed on a major road or overtake dangerously.3: Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen. 40 . 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. 253)..
Scuffham (2003) used a different approach to model the changes in seasonal patterns of fatal crashes in New Zealand according to unemployment rate.1 Descriptive Models of Driver Behaviour Statistical Models If traffic psychology lacks a general unified theory of driving behaviour. This might be seen as evidence of the proxy effect earlier described by Armitage and Christian (2002). Austin and Carson (2002). vehicles. Edwards (1996) developed a spatial model.2). pedestrians and road environments in a range of 41 .4 2. based on data extracted from police record forms. subjective norms and PBC were all significant determinants of self-reported speeding. it was not significant (Scuffham & Langley. there has been no shortage of empirically-based models that show statistical relationships between specific variables related to given situations. while Rautela and Pant (2007) modelled crash risk on mountain roads in India using geographical information system (GIS) data.In another study. Gross Domestic Product per capita and alcohol consumption.2. to predict weather-related crashes in England and Wales.1. Attitude toward speeding. (2005) in their Malaysian study (see sect. they found that real GDP per capita was related to the number of crashes. A large number of studies have reported epidemiological characteristics of drivers. 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. 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. Similar to later findings by Law et al. but after controlling for distance travelled. roadway configuration and crossing design were weighted. for instance. 2.4. Wállen Warner and Åberg (2006) used structural equation modelling to predict drivers’ everyday speeding behaviour using the TPB as a frame of reference. 2002). used a negativebinomial regression technique to analyse highway-rail crash statistics within a sixstate radius in the USA and derived a predictive model in which the contribution of traffic characteristics.
some researchers have argued that the Haddon Matrix is limited by the way it considers each element independently. Law.4.4). Seow & Lim. the road (R) and the environment (E). Richardson & Downe. Koonchote & Tantiratna. concealing the interactions that underlie the behaviour of real traffic systems (Noy. This model has been instrumental in stimulating research designs and accident interventions for the last thirty yeasrs (Williams. R. Haddon (1970) proposed a framework in which each of these elements could be examined as part of an analytical matrix (see Figure 2.g. PRE-CRASH CRASH POST-CRASH BASIC ELEMENTS OF A HIGHWAY EVENT Human (H) Vehicle (V) Road (R) Environment (E) Figure 2. One way of accomplishing this may be through the creation of models that stress the mediational role played by certain V.locations and settings (e. however. the vehicle (V).2. 2. within specific situational contexts. 1999).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). 1998. Swaddiwudhipong. E and especially H factors.4.2 Process Models 2.4: The Haddon Matrix (Noy. 1994). Mahasakpan. 1997) 42 . 1997. More recently.. Nguntra. 2000). and have proposed expanding the matrix to better provide for the analysis of inter-relationships between each of the four basic elements.
sensation seeking. aggression). Therefore. when one observes a correlation between a behavioural measure and crash risk.g. Personality factors within the 43 . speeding. it may influence crash risk through some other. reckless lane transitions or overtaking. driving experience) and psychological characteristics (e. gender. the proximal context is made up of driver behaviours and attitudes (e.2 A Contextual Mediated Model of Personality and Behavioural Predictors of Motor Vehicle Crashes Elander et al. more proximal variable.2. or crash risk may influence the behavioural measure (p. there are four possible explanations: the behavioural measure may directly influence crash risk..g. Factors within the distal context include not only road. as well. Sümer (2003) argued that the contextual mediated model could explain the relatively weak associations between accident involvement and personality characteristics observed in many previous studies.5). By contrast. Within the generic model. (1993) discussed the problem of choosing predictor variables in studies of behavioural and personality influences on road-traffic crash risk. relevant factors are grouped as occurring within either the distal context or the proximal context of the accident (see Figure 2. on the other hand. age. arguing that: Correlational studies suffer from the inescapable problem that causality cannot be established.2. it may happen to correlate with some other factor that influences crash risk but play no role itself. contribute directly to crash outcomes.4. on one hand. 283).. extraversion.. vehicle and environmental conditions related to accident causation but a range of driver demographic (e.g. are affected by specific or collective factors from the distal context and. 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. substance abuse) that.
2003) 44 . As such. aggression Attributions regarding CRASH OUTCOMES accidents Fatalism Enforcement Figure 2. choice of preferred speed and dysfunctional drinking habits – and on the frequency of self-reported accidents. DISTAL CONTEXT Road and vehicle condition Demographic characteristics Culture-specific factors. 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. psychological symptoms. such that direct effects of distal factors would be most likely insignificant or weak. risk taking.distal context were assumed to be capable of creating generalized tendencies that increased risks of accidents within behavioural variables measured within the proximal context.g. hostility and psychoticism) – both on three proximal elements – aberrant driving behaviour. Behavioural Predictors and Motor Vehicle Crashes (from Sümer. aggression and psychological symptoms (anxiety. Sümer examined the effect of three distal elements – sensation seeking. cultural driving habits and beliefs Relatively stable personality characteristics. Variables within the distal context would be expected to affect accident frequency indirectly and through their relationships with measures of proximal behaviour factors.g. it would be expected that relationships between the distal and proximal contexts would be stronger than those between the proximal context and crash outcomes.5: Contextual Mediated Model of Personality. depression. e. sensation seeking. PROXIMAL CONTEXT Safety skills Aberrant driving behaviors Violations Errors Speeding Drinking and driving Dysfunctional drinking e.
while path a represents the effect of X on some mediator variable. In Figure 2. driver propensities to commit errors or violations. 2006). Regression analyses can be used to test these causal paths to the outcome variable. moderating or mediating effects.2. drivers’ safety skills were a mediator of the effects of personality or cultural background on crash frequency. such that path c′ is zero. If.6(ii) illustrates the basic causal chain involved in mediation. 1986). which in turn exerts an effect on Y through path b (Baron & Kenny. Mediation can be said to occur when some mechanism.4. driver impairment and so on) were hypothesised to mediate the effect of distal variables on the frequency or likelihood of crash outcomes. In Sümer’s (2003) generic contextual mediated model. 2004).6(i). mediators are variables that represent constructs proposed to explain the association between two variables (Hoyle & Robinson. Figure 2. called the outcome. then it can be concluded that complete mediation occurs.3 Core Concepts in the Contextual Mediated Model: Moderation and Mediation Inter-variable relationships within the contextual mediated model can have direct.2. 45 . process or transformation exists through which one variable influences another (Frazier. Tix and Barron. Heppner & Mallinckrodt. proximal variables (including safety skill levels. M. in which there are two causal paths feeding into the outcome variable: path c′ depicts the direct effect of X on Y. then the significance level of path c would be reduced to insignificance or a less significant level (path c’). the variable X is called the initial or predictor variable and it causes the variable Y. Also termed intervening variables. 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. 2003). In the case where X no longer affects Y after M has been controlled. for instance. 2004) and a distinction can be drawn between partial mediation and complete mediation (Wei.
(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. there are three causal paths that can effect the outcome. 2003). or independent variable (path a). 46 . can the moderator hypothesis be concluded as supported (Baron & Kenny. or testing the moderating effect. a moderating variable is one that has a strong contingent effect on the relationship between independent and dependent variable (Sekaran.7): the impact of a predictor.6: Inter-variable Relationships in Mediation Models In contrast. and the interaction or product of these two (path c). these are not directly relevant conceptually to testing the moderator hypothesis. or dependent. Baron and Kenny have further added that although the predictor and moderator can have significant effects on the outcome variable. the impact of a moderator (path b). 1986). Only if the interaction (path c) is significant. variable (see Figure 2.
he found that. more relevant to the model he proposed. However.7: Inter-variable Relationships in Moderation Model 2.Predictor Variable X a Moderator Z b Y Outcome Variable c Predictor X Moderator Figure 2. while psychological factors did not predict speed choice. a proximal variable significantly mediated the relationship between the three distal variables and the frequency of crashes. Further. Using structured equation modelling. dangerous drinking). they did have a significant association with both dysfunctional alcohol use and aberrant driving behaviours. verbal aggression. sensationseeking and risk-taking (novelty. A number of questions may be raised about Sümer’s (2003) analysis. In turn. hostility. Sümer (2003) identified three classes of distal variables: psychological symptoms (depression. mostly from taxi and heavy trucking. He examined their effects on three proximal variables: aberrant driving behaviour (violations. hostility. given wide 47 . errors). anger). psychoticism).2. anxiety.4. choice of speed and alcohol use (antisocial drinking. and non-professional students who were mostly students. intensity) and aggression (physical aggression. No attempt was made to differentiate between these two groups.4 Studies of Driving Behaviour Using the Contextual Mediated Model In his initial study. His sample of 321 participants combined both professional drivers. Sümer also find that aberrant driving behaviour. the effects of the proximal variables on the number of crashes experienced within a three-year period was examined.
in most cases. the distal factors were: neuroticism (a tendency to experience negative affect and anxiety). conscientiousness (dependability. lapses. sensation seeking patterns. Bell. 1919. a negative-binomial distribution (Greenwood & Woods. (1993) and others. Lajunen and Özkan (2005). Arthur. al. 1995. tends to fit a Poisson distribution or. applied the five factor. Sümer’s model construction might also be questioned. self-discipline) and openness (adventurousness. responsibility. agreeableness (helpfulness. 1920). as recommended by Elander et al. 1990) to a similar analysis. for high-λ individuals. 2005. Results indicated that all five of the personality factors had indirect effects on crash risk through their effects on 48 . Here. in that the standard multivariate correlation methods applied as part of his LISREL analysis assumed a normal distribution of crash frequency scores. broad-mindedness).739). Tubré & Tubré.variation in the number of kilometres driven annually by participants (SD = 14. Sümer’s decision to use self-report data is subject to the usual validity considerations raised by several authors (af Wahlberg. Greenwood & Yule. McRae &Costa. violations) and the outcome measure was expanded to include the self-reported number of crashes and traffic offences committed over a three-year period. personality model (Costa & McRae. The proximal factor was again aberrant driving behaviour (errors. Sümer. while it has been accepted since the early accident proneness studies of the IFRB that crash frequency. In a subsequent study. Finally. Day. 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. 1993). or “Big Five”. Watson. it was somewhat surprising that no attempt was made to control for differing levels of traffic exposure. 2002.. 1998). sensation seeking). Elander et. 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. extraversion (interpersonal warmth. 2003. It is questionable whether crash details can be recalled accurately for up to 36 months and requires the assumption that the psychological characteristics. Notwithstanding these methodological considerations. including the three-year time-frame over which drivers were asked to report crash occurrence. Edward. trust).
anxiety.aberrant driving behaviours. Sümer. Bilgic. using a similar research design. air force and gendarmerie. reported that driver anger. for instance used the concept to examine predictors of psychological distress following the 1999 earthquake in Turkey. optimism.4. including perceived control. for instance. 225). hostility. Iverson and Rundmo (2002).2. Sümer and Erol (2005) found that a contextual mediated model was successful in showing relationships between distal and proximal predictors of depression. material loss. In another study. proximal behavioural variables mediated personality factors.5 Use of the Contextual Mediated Model in Other Research Sümer’s model has been applied outside the traffic psychology domain. self esteem. but weaker significant effects on self-reported accident involvement. within Sümer’s contextual mediated model) had direct effects on measures of more proximal risky driving tendencies. perceived threat and gender on distress levels were partially or fully mediated by individuals’ feelings of coping self-efficacy. psychotic tendencies and psychosomatic complaints among a large sample of noncommissioned officers in the Turkish army. Both studies were concluded to have demonstrated support for the use of the contextual mediated model. phobia. some researchers have worked with models that are conceptually consistent with the contextual mediated model. prior to the present one. 49 . Berument and Gunes (2005). 2. Karanci. They found that the effect of proximal variables. The authors recommended that “the contextual model should be refined considering other potential mediators. 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. navy. Sümer. moderators and bidirectional associations between personality and accident involvement to better understand the underlying mechanisms” (p. Although no other studies of driving behaviour. have acted on those recommendations. yielding support for the contextual mediated model. In other words.
5. Distal factors Safety interventions knowledge transfer ergonomic design safety audits Proximal factors Safety climate worker attitude toward safe work perceived management priority employee empowerment and control over safety post-injury administration return-to-work policies operating policies & procedures Outcomes Organisational Impacts lower injury rates and lost time relative to labour input and output reduced accident severity reduced risk assessment standards compliance increased worker satisfaction Psychosocial variables locus of control risk acceptance/aversion impulsivity cultural factors (e. Retting.g. Type A. Odero et al.Downe (2007). 2002.8). 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. Not only are they the most likely age group to be involved in crashes. but young drivers are more likely to sustain crash-related injuries and to die in vehicular crashes (Massie.1. in a study of safety training methods and personality factors in Malaysian rubber and palm oil plantations. heterogeneity in group composition: Part of this may be due to 50 .1 Distal Variables in the Present Study Demographic Variables 2. proposed the use of a contextual mediated model for further research on agricultural safety (see Figure 2. Williams & Shabanova. Campbell & Williams. 2003.5 2. Yet. 2007) 2.8: Proposed Contextual Mediated Model for Safety Research in Agriculture (from Downe. 2003). 1997.g... Weinstein & Solomon.. 1995).1 Age Young drivers are significantly over-represented among those injured or killed in road traffic crashes (Ballesteros & Dischinger. uncertainty avoidance) temperamental factors (e. they have been less well studied than other groups and the general understanding of age effects is not clear.5.
Jehle. this is a reflection of lifestyle. in which they believed that they were better drivers and luckier in avoiding crashes. not all young new drivers are alike (Dewar. and by high levels of sensation-seeking. are more likely to engage in alcohol use when driving and are less likely to use seatbelts when compared to other drivers (Lerner. Ulleberg (2004) found that drivers reporting higher preference for risk-taking were also characterised by low levels of altruism and anxiety. comfort eating and time spent in non-organised activities with friends. 2002a. follow too closely. Graziano and Bonino (2006) have argued that. tobacco smoking. 1986). but there are a great many differences between a 17-year-old and a 23-year-old driver. Foster and O’Neill (2005) studied self-rated driving attributes of 16. Jonah. The former is less experienced at driving. 2001. The problems encountered by novice drivers are often attributed to age and inexperience together. less emotionally mature. In fact. However. 1997b. Moscati. irresponsibility and driving related aggression. at least in part.The “young” category typically ranges from 16 to 25. This was consistent with many other studies in which young drivers tended to overestimate their own skills and under-estimate crash risk (Dewar. Connery & Stiller. 221). less experienced with the use of alcohol and has different social and motivational needs that may contribute to risk taking on the road.. Bina. p. in many cases. Vassallo et al.to 29-year old drivers in New Zealand and found a marked crash-risk optimism. 2002a. Younger drivers tend to have a riskier driving style than others. 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. Harré. overtake dangerously. Billittier. the contrary appears to be true. drive while fatigued. for these difficulties. specifically more likely to drive too fast. 2007). The factors of driving style and driving skill may account. Several reasons have been proposed for high age-related crash risk levels. McDonald (1994) reported 51 . Matthews & Moran.
angry or sad (strong negative emotions). age was hypothesized to interact with emotional states such as hopelessness and aggression. In the present study. 2007). particularly under conditions of heightened emotionality. capable of distracting attention from driving and increasing crash occurrence. since safe driving among younger drivers has been shown to be more prone to the effects of emotional states. particularly with respect to controlling deviations. 76 per cent had seen peers drive while very upset stressed. Justification of age-related hypotheses. they have cognitive schemata that are inaccurate and relatively undetailed. Since many of the violations commonly committed by younger drivers – speeding. 74 per cent had seen tem drive while very happy or excited (strong positive emotions). Vissers & Jessurun. managing velocity and regulating acceleration. risky driving and crash frequency (Lourens. Similarly. In a nation-wide survey of American teens.39). behaviour in traffic would become less safe and crash occurrence would be more likely. as age decreased. Young drivers may also be more prone to drive under the influence of strong emotional states. This means that “young drivers must devote a greater proportion of their attentional resources to conscious decision making and monitoring their driving. 52 . age was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. on crash and injury occurrence. indirectly. it was hypothesised in the present study that. and that young drivers. They have generally lower skill levels in acquiring and integrating information. 2002). 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. Stevenson et al. and 55 per cent had seen them exhibit behaviour described as “road rage” (Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and State Farm Insurance. are like to perceive the driving task with overconfidence and inadequate attention to risk. so they have little spare attentional capacity” (p. and have poor information processing and attention-switching skills. Ulleberg.that young drivers are less skilful in vehicle control tasks than older drivers. 1999.
Kuhn and Layde (2001) found. as age decreased. male drivers incur their first crash earlier in their driving careers and are more likely to be held to blame for the incident. it was also hypothesised that. Monárrez-Espino. self-reported injury would also increase. that males were significantly more likely to be involved in a loss-of-control accident. and behaviours predictive of fatalities. This gender difference is most marked in the population under 25 years.2 Gender A large number of studies have found differences between males and females. found that men had twice as high a risk as women of being involved in a motor vehicle crash during the late night hours. Smiley and Lee-Gosselin (1992). “In all studies and analyses. for instance. but is also evident among older drivers” (Social Issues Research Centre [SIRC]. Laapotti and Keskinen (1998) showed that when male drivers lost control of their motorcar. for instance. men have been shown to have a higher rate of crashes than women.. However.5. 2004.g. MacGregor. p. Marked differences also occur between the genders in terms of the number of fatalities. Elliott. Åkerstedt and Kecklund (2001). Chipman.failure to use seat-belts. Tavris. 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. it 53 . and so on – were associated with greater risk of injury. Dewar (2002b) stated that “some of the reasons for this are obvious – men drive greater distances. Shope. more often at hazardous times (e. Raghunathan and Little (2001) noted that.g. in addition to having a higher number of crashes. Waller. as well.. 2.4). without exception. with respect to both driving behaviour and to crash involvement. Hasselberg and Laflamme (2006) analysed Swedish police records and found the same ratio. darkness)” (p. reported that crash incidence for men in the United States was nearly double that of women.1. rush hour) and in hazardous conditions (e. Williams and Shabanova (2003) found that young American males were significantly more likely than young females to be responsible for crash deaths. There appear to be differences in the types of crashes experienced. 129).
2001). in a sample taken in the U. Ball.usually led to a single-vehicle crash. they did not differ from female drivers in reported driving 54 . which typically took place during evenings and nights. Male drivers drove too fast and under the influence of alcohol more often in loss-of-control crashes. 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. While there is much of value in such an approach. state of Washington. but for female drivers the loss of control usually resulted in a collision with another car. At the same time. worldwide. (b) females drive increasingly more. Laapotti and Keskinen (2004a) indicated that. for instance. 525526). Brown. there is also a danger than concentrating on the differences between women and men drivers may obscure the identification of the major factors relevant to the safety of women drivers (pp. 1997. Female drivers’ loss-of-control crashes usually took place under slippery road conditions and were more likely due to deficient vehicle handling skills. Lonczak.S. and (c) female drivers are involved in more motor vehicle crashes than ever before. 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. as marked changes in the roles of women in society have profound implications for the design of transportation systems (Waller. Flyte & Garner. to date. This is important. Welsh. found that while male drivers. (a) the number of female drivers is increasing. Dobson. reported more traffic citations and injuries. Neighbors and Donovan (2007). Woodcock. 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. Lenard.
control of traffic situations. commenting that “despite the fact that there has been a massive shift in the population of women drivers. Justification of gender-related hypotheses. 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. indirectly.. crash frequency and risky or aggressive driving behaviour (Monárrez-Espino. were less frequently involved in crash situations. In a study of male and female drivers in Finland. involved in proportionally more crashes connected to speeding. Keskinen and Rajalin (2003) reported that Finnish females in 2001 drove less than males. just as they had in 1978. (1998) and Laapotti and Keskinen (2004). 55 . Since previous research had highlighted the association between males. Linderholm and Järmark (1998) reviewed studies dating from 1970 to 1984 and compared them to results obtained between 1985 and 1997. 2003). Female drivers. on the other hand. 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. In the present study. Turner & McClure. it was hypothesised that males and females would differ on measures of behaviour in traffic. In a subsequent report. committed fewer traffic offences and had a more positive attitude toward traffic safety and rules than males. Waylen and Burke (1998) disagreed. evaluated their driving skill lower.anger. In a study of Dutch drivers. as per the traditional pattern. Consistent with the findings of McKenna et al. though. showing that male drivers were. Laapotti and Keskinen (2004b) provided evidence in support of this view. gender was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. 2006. et al. In other research. (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. Laapotti. Lourens et al. on crash and injury occurrence. alcohol consumption and for risky driving. Forward. 11). there is little evidence that the sex difference in the pattern of accident involvement is changing over the years” (p. McKenna. had proportionally more crashes connected to inadequate vehicle manoeuvring. and loss-of-control incidents.
1. Haliburton.S. Summala and Hartley (1998). finding that the former group had higher fatality rates. Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS). Levine. Melinder (2007) compared 15 Western European countries with regard to the relation between different sociocultural factors. traffic safety regulations and traffic fatalities. Schlundt.2. Lajunen. Tippetts and Voas (2005) found no differences between African-American. Corry. Very little cross-cultural research related to traffic safety has been carried out in Southeast Asia. But. On the other hand.5. Melinder concluded that the type of religion and wealth were important distal factors. being a wealthy Catholic country was associated with more traffic fatalities than were wealthy. more frequent histories of speeding offences and more extreme alcohol use. White and Hispanic drivers regarding red light violations. lower rates of safety belt use. Harper. that expanded the standards for collection of data on race and ethnicity in 1999 (Briggs. this has been the result of a change in reporting protocols within the U. Conducting curb-side inspections of taxicabs in Kuala Lumpur. he found that 60% of drivers had positioned belts or shoulder straps in a manner that appeared to 56 . for instance.3 Ethnicity A growing number of studies have examined the effect of ethnic differences on driving behaviour and crash outcomes. A few studies have endeavoured to compare national driving cultures in terms of crash risk. Goldweig and Warren. Romano. In one of the few studies reported. Lezotte and Lowenstein (2000) compared Hispanic and non-Hispanic white motorists in the state of Colorado. nonCatholic countries. To a large degree. Despite the fact that countries’ regulatory frameworks were becoming increasingly similar. reported few differences between Australians and Finns. Marine. 2005). differences in fatalities persisted. Garrett. Hauswald (1999) studied the incidence of covert non-compliance with seat belt regulations among Malaysian taxi drivers. Being a non-wealthy Catholic country was associated with higher fatality rates than being a wealthy Catholic country.
Indirect communication. peace. hierarchical. 1999). 2000. family ties. religion. in fact. respect for knowledge. piety. respect for elders. prosperity and integrity. 2005). respect for elders.. In the present study. ethnic-Chinese and ethnic-Indian (Williamson. They concluded that there were. In a study of 324 employees sampled from a cross-section of Malaysian industries. Chinese-Malaysian Pre-determined future. indirectly.3: Key Value Clusters for Each Malaysian Ethnic Group Key Value Orientations Man’s relationship with God. Conscious of what other people say about us. While religious affiliation. polite behaviour.2). face saving. Abdullah and Peterson (2003) have outlined value orientations for each ethnic group (see Table 2. Based on studies that have demonstrated ethnic differences in driving behaviour (Harper et al. However. hard work. family honour. prosperity. regional distribution and socioeconomic status differs considerably between the three groups (Gomez.have them restrained but had not fastened the latch. Education. brotherhood/sisterhood. on crash and injury occurrence. there was no statistical differences between ethnic groups in the frequency of this practice. Table 2. The Malaysian population is comprised of three distinct ethnic groups: Malay. harmony with nature. Malay Differences have not always been consistent. Strong relationship orientation. Family centeredness.. Strong relationship orientation. gender was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. Roman et al. 1999). dependence on family for direction in social and career decisions. cooperation. Karma. Fontaine and Richardson (2005) found that 82% of values were shared by all three ethnic groups. it was hypothesised that ethnicity would have a significant effect on 57 . Spirituality. Indian-Malaysian Pre-determination. filial piety. cultural differences can be more subtle. Justification of ethnic difference hypotheses. courtesy. Fatalistic. shame-driven. respect for elders. few significant value differences between ethnic groups. humility.
1 Experience Driver experience makes a difference in crash risk. such as driving at different times of the day or days of the week.g. 2001). A useful way of conceptualising the experience effect is to draw on a cognitive framework proposed by Mikkonen and Keskinen (1983) and later extended 58 . in a given road and traffic scenario. and indicating that those recording higher mileage per year have fewer accidents per mile (Pelz & Schuman. journey lengths. inexperienced drivers may (a) not know the correct manoeuvre so they try a different manoeuvre which turns out to be unsafe. On the other hand.2. As experience grows.2 Driver Characteristics 2. or (d) not have had enough experience of dealing safety with the effects of human factors on their performance (Fuller. 1971). increased experience usually. the motorist is less likely to encounter situations very different from those they have encountered before (p. 2002). allows many otherwise incompatible tasks to be performed together. (b) not know how to carry out a particular manoeuvre correctly. Allied to this. Keskinen. implies the driver has had a broader variety of driving experiences. and as such. 2.5. 1995.behaviour in traffic. (c) not have had enough practice in carrying out the manoeuvre correctly. Hatakka and Katila. although not always. Laapotti. 166). etc. with different weather conditions. A large number of studies have shown that. passenger distractions different vehicles. Given the absence of relevant prior research on Malaysian cultural groups. they are less likely to make errors and commit violations that result in crashes (e. directionality of the effect was not predicted. Groeger (2000) reviewed the reasons for this: … the weight of practice more experienced drivers have makes much of what they do routine. as drivers become more experienced.5. Lajunen & Summala..
and can be organised in a hierarchy that reflects the key purposes. Experience can be gained through personal participation in traffic as a driver and through observing the behaviour of others. including start and destination point and corresponding visual scenes. When using those at the top of the hierarchy. GOALS FOR LIFE AND SKILLS FOR LIVING Importance of cars and driving for personal development Skills for self-control GOALS AND CONTEXT OF DRIVING Purpose. as well as knowledge of risk elements and a cognitive map of control equipment in the vehicle and how it behaves. or most important facets of driving at different levels (see Figure 2. as young drivers generally have less experience than their older counterparts. they take actions based on whether they are perceived to reflect lifestyle priorities and values. Internal models contain knowledge of route. direction and position Figure 2. they organise knowledge about the driving process within an internalised mental model that represents typical characteristics of the traffic environment and the flow of traffic events. 2004). 59 . When drivers tap into models at the base of cognitive hierarchy. social context company MASTERING TRAFFIC SITUATIONS Adapting to the demands of the present situation VEHICLE MANOEUVRING Controlling speed. 2000) The effects of driving experience and age are closely linked. and sometimes confounded by gender differences. they tend to priortise conscious control of the vehicle over other elements of the driving experience.by Keskinen. It assumes that. experience effects have not been controlled (Rothengatter. environment. Yet. in many studies of age and gender differences. 2001).9: Hierarchical Levels of Driving Behaviour (after Keskinen. 1996.9). but also through verbal and pictorial description or by imagining the course of traffic events (Keskinen et al. Hataaka and Katila (1992). Hatakka. Internal models have connections to motivational and emotional systems of the driver. as individuals acquire experience.
Ghiselli & Brown. showed more problems connected to showing off driving skills to peers.Laapotti et al. and that taxicab drivers are more likely to regard low.and medium-severity traffic violation penalties as unjust than are non-professional drivers (Rosenbloom & Shahar. One way to understand experience effects is to study occupations for which driving is an important work component. 1948.. Burns and Wilde (1995) found no relationship between collision history and personality when they studied sampled male taxi drivers in a small Canadian city. was used in this study. all of which were seen to reflect deficient self-control and lifestyle management abilities. 1954). age and gender on motor vehicle crash risk. such as problems in vehicle handling skills. was inversely correlated with driving experience and numbers of accidents witnessed. 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. frequently showing that they are lest frequently involved in motor vehicle crashes than other classes of drivers. Peltzer and Renner (2003). showed more problems than males connected to the lower cognitive levels of the driving hierarchy. Driving experience was considered a distal variable that would have an 60 . on the other hand. explained because adult identity is still under construction so life goals and living skills are still under development. A simple measure of driving experience. Brown & Ghiselli. While motivational and differing skill levels are also important predictors of professional drivers’ crash risk. and especially young male drivers. 2004). many studies have focused on the effects of experience. for instance. Studies of crash predictors among professional drivers have been undertaken for over fifty years (e. Justification of driver experience hypotheses. found that risk taking within a sample of 130 drivers of minibus taxis in the Pietersburg area of the Republic of South Africa.g. Mintz. 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. taking risks and consuming alcohol or drugs. Young novice drivers. Female novice drivers. 1949. 2007). (2001) used the cognitive framework to explain the differing effects of experience.
crash risk is affected greatly by the time of day when. showed that the risk of crash involvement is five to ten times higher during late night 61 . on crash and injury occurrence. 1993). Wilde. Elander et al. it is accepted that the more one travels. 1984). indirectly. 1971). the concept is much less well developed. 2001. and type of route where. but measuring exposure is not always as simple a matter as computing asking for an estimate of distance travelled per unit time (Evans. 1995.2. 2. Pelz & Schuman. Åkerstedt and Kecklund (2001).. driving occurs (Dewar. 282). Generally. there may be considerable random or systematic error in subjective reports about distance travelled (Elander et al. with greater experience associated with safer self-reported behaviour. 2002a). McKenna. 1984. 1986. Rothengatter. and the problem of taking adequate account of individuals’ exposure to risk is only beginning to be properly addressed (p. it was hypothesised that driving experience would have a significant effect on behaviour in traffic scores. Second. for instance.2 Driving Frequency and Traffic Exposure Many authors have discussed the effect of traffic exposure on crash risk and outcomes (Evans. All of these will affect the likelihood of crash involvement.effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. Duncan & Brown. Based on research indicating that more experienced drivers tend to have fewer crashes (Lajunen & Summala. (1993) noted that: People vary in the time they spend on the road.5. 1991). the more one is going to be exposed to traffic situations in which a crash could occur. the miles they drive. technical or legal changes relating to road safety. and the traffic conditions to which they are exposed. 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. First. In individual differences research.
however. (1999) have argued that. although much research does not (e. the resulting ‘driver records’ in combination with exposure data turn out to be the best predictors of future crashes.hours than during the forenoon. Cairns.. female drivers came out higher in number of crashes and in some types of traffic violations. Lourens et al. 2007. indirectly. Bina et al. 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. 2006. 62 . (1993). young male drivers were strongly over-presented in terms of both crash frequency and traffic-related fines. there is little evidence that drivers are capable of reporting different categories of time or route conditions. it was hypothesised that higher levels of driving frequency would result in less risky behaviour in traffic. In keeping with recommendations made by Elander et al. a simple measure of driving frequency was used as a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and.. In the present study. 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. Evans (1991) and others.. Christie. without correcting for annual mileage. Teoh & MCartt. 2003). After correcting for the number of kilometres driven. This was taken to be representative of traffic exposure. Because of earlier trends reported by Evans (1984) and McKenna et al. Williams & Shabanova. with the highest incidence being between 6:00 pm and midnight.g. as defined by Elander et al. Canada and Germany where a legal penalty point system is in place to track drivers’ violations and involvement in road crashes. nor are there valid category weightings that would allow the prediction of risk. on crash and injury occurrence. Justification of exposure hypotheses. and found that approximately one-third of all traffic injuries occurred during the night. (1997) reviewed published and unpublished reports on roadway crashes in developing countries from 1966 to 1994. Yet. 2007. Towner and Ward. Mercer (1989) showed that. Ferguson. (1986). in countries like the USA. 2007). Odero et al.
10). 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. she assumed that the three resulting dimensions were conceptually independent. Rotter’s (1966) original I-E conceptualisation of the locus of control construct viewed it as a unidimensional. according to the strength of their tendencies toward making attributions of internal or external control. she separated the externality dimension into two.3. such that it could be possible for an individual to score high on all three (see Figure 2. 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..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.1. 1990). 1975. 2006. 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. people are thought to vary on a continuum between the two extremes of external and internal locus of control. 1981) extended this concept in two ways: first. and second. In contrast. believe that very few events are outside the realm of human influence and that even cataclysmic situations may be altered through human action. or internals. 63 . view most events as dependent on chance or controlled by powers beyond human reach. people who attribute behaviour to an internal locus of control. Based on this multidimensional conceptualisation. Levenson (1975.1 Locus of Control 2.3 Psychological Variables 2. Levenson constructed a scale has been used widely in studies of locus of control (e. or externals . 1991.5.5. Holder & Levi. Hyman. 15).3. Originally conceptualised by Rotter (1966.g. Stanley & Burrows.2. one to reflect the influence of fate or chance (C) and the second to reflect the influence of powerful others (P). bipolar continuum along which individuals could be placed.5. 1999).
Multidimensional Model Low Internality High Low Externality .3. They found that subjects with high internal control seemed to prefer intermediate probability bets or extremely safe bets over so-called long shots. 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. 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.Chance High Low Externality – Powerful Others High Figure 2. luck.10: Contrast between Rotter’s Unidimensional and Levenson’s Multidimensional Conceptualisations of Locus of Control 2.2 Locus of Control and Driving Behaviour Very early studies examined a link between locus of control and risk taking. Sinha & Watson. 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.1. 64 .5. E Unidimensional Model I Externalizers Individuals believe that what happens is determined by fate.Luckner. 1989. According to Phares (1976).
however. On the other hand. however. 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. If an individual views herself or himself as being responsible for both positive and negative outcomes. According to Brown and Noy (2004). Serious methodological problems may have plagued this study. French & Chan. 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. Dixey (1999) found relationships between road crashes and fatalist attitudes in Nigeria.More recent studies have examined the relationship between an external locus of control and risky behaviour within driving or workplace behaviour. s/he will be more likely to take precautionary measures such as wearing a seat belt and being vigilant to roadway cues. as Cronbach’s alpha values for the scales of their transitional instrument were below accepted criteria and scale content. believing that fate will achieve its goals no matter what the individual does (p. Other authors explained an apparent link between external locus of control and crash risk on a motivational basis (Montag & Comrey. 65 . 1987). those who see themselves as playing little or no part in the unfolding of evens will act in a less cautious manner. 1999). which focused heavily on situational scenarios. In a subsequent study. Guastello and Guastello (1986) used the Rotter (1966) locus of control scale and their own transitional instrument in a study of American college students. but results have been inconsistent. 39). 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. only partially represented the original locus of control concept. A great many studies have investigated the effects of locus of control on driving behaviour. Iversen and Rundmo (2002) also failed to find an association with risky driving or crash involvement.
Gidron. rather than examining its interaction with other predictors. In a much earlier study. although scores on externality dimensions did not relate significantly to any of those dependent variables. In a similar study investigating personality attributes and driving behaviour. The same driving skill scores were positively correlated with an internal locus of control. In a meta-analysis of information-processing. (p. cognitive. (1991) argued that these equivocal results were due to overly simple research designs which tended to investigate direct effects of locus of control. when Lajunen and Summala (1995) gave Finnish university students a series of questionnaires that assessed driving abilities and personality. On the other hand. personality and demographic/biographical predictors of vehicular involvement. This study provided support for the view that the effects of personality traits on driving 66 . Arthur et al.Although externals reported more risk taking this trend was not significant. an internal locus of control was found to be associated with lower levels of crash involvement and with higher levels of cognitive ability. They found that. leading the authors to conclude that “if a relationship exists. Hoyt (1973) reported that internals reported wearing seat belts more often and experienced highway travel as more interesting and involving. offences. aggressive and ordinary traffic violations and driving errors. 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). hostility was associated with worse DDB to a greater extent among drivers scoring low on internality than among drivers scoring high on internality. That is. Özkan and Lajunen (2005) found that internals reported a higher number of total crashes. it strongly moderated the relationship between hostility and DDB. Verwey and Zaidel (2000) observed that people scoring high on measures of external locus of control made more road departure errors than those scoring high on measures of with an internal locus of control. although internality was unrelated to DDB. driving skills were negatively correlated with externality scores. 1260). In an important study. it may not be of sufficient magnitude to be of value.
Canada and Japan. Hsieh. after correction for differences in socioeconomic status. indicated that. This point had also been argued earlier by Arthur et al. Noy (1997). India. More recent research has continued to find differences in locus of control between cultures and between sub-groups within cultures. whereas Americans scored high on internal control and Chinese-Americans were somewhere in-between. Japan. which is considered to be full of ambiguity. France.1. 122). Germany. with situation-centred Confucian foundations. (1991).3. US-born Chinese and Caucasian Americans). Hong Kong Chinese students were more externally controlled on Rotter’s (1969) I-E scale. as hypothesised. Richardson and Downe (2000) and others.5. In very early research. Shybut and Lotsof (1969) sampled three groups of high school students (Hong Kong Chinese. Japanese students had significantly higher external scores than in all other countries. is based on the notion that … luck. Noting that Chinese culture. Their results. Crittendon (1991) found that female university students in Taiwan were more 67 .behaviour can be better understood by adopting a more holistic approach in which interactions. Italy. moderating and mediating relationships are investigated. Life situations may be viewed as being largely determined by circumstances outside personal control (p. Parsons and Schneider (1974) administered Rotter’s (1969) I-E scale to 120 male and female students in Canada. Israel.3 Locus of Control and Ethnicity Dyal (1984) argued that post-War geopolitical expansion and a growing interest in the role of attributions. and the USA. while externality scores for Indian students were significantly lower than those in France. reinforcement and sociocultural processes created fertile ground for cross-cultural studies using the locus of control construct. 2. complexity and unpredictability. chance and fate are taken for granted in life.
skill and ability. a finding Carment interpreted as reflecting greater dependency on and conformity within the somewhat indulgent and closely-connected Indian family structure. Indian students were more external than Canadians on personal control factors. To the author’s knowledge. He attributed this to the belief that dealing with widespread nepotism. Much more recent research by Sinha and Watson (2007) used Levenson’s (1984) multidimensional model to show that Indian university students are significantly more externally controlled by fate and chance than Canadian university students. although there were no differences in internality nor externality involving powerful others. but all three groups differed from the sample drawn in China. Chinese of Malay extraction. Carment (1974) found Indian university students to be significantly more internal than Canadian students on the full scale score for Rotter’s (1969) I-E instrument. Chinese and Indian ethnic groups were found. Using an English version of the Cross-Cultural Chinese Personality Assessment Inventory (CPAI-2). This was very true for the locus of control variable. 68 . No published accounts of research conducted in Malaysia with regard to locus of control differences among members of Malay. Cheung. Howard and Lim (2006) have offered research evidence related to cross-cultural differences in locus of control within Malay. only Cheung. 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. due largely to high scores on items measuring political ideology and social system control. ingratiation and bribery found in India requires effort. At the same time. Chinese and Indian populations. where no significant differences were found between those of Indian. they found that the three ethnic groups in Singapore had greater commonalities in the measured personality constructs than Singaporean-Chinese subjects had with the normative sample. In very early research.externally-controlled and more self-effacing than either American females or Taiwanese males. all internal characteristics.
anticipate a negative outcome to any attempts that may be made to attain the individual’s major objectives or goals (Beck.5. without objective basis. Based on the findings reported by Gidron et al. 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.Justification of hypotheses about locus of control. First. Montag & Comrey. 1975. Niméus. Özkan & Lajunen. 1991.3. 1975). Träskman-Bendz & Alsén. 1973). indirectly. (2003). 1995. it was hypothesised that Chinese participants would tend toward higher externality scores while Indian participants would tend toward higher internality. 2. Weissman. Fox & Klerman. while the two dimensions of externality would have positive associations. it was hypothesised that internality would have a negative association with unsafe behaviour in traffic. Beresford & Neilly. 1997. Gilbody. Cases usually 69 . 2005). 2007). Pentilla and Lonnqvist (1997) studied all fatal car crashes in Finland from 1987 to 1991 and found that 5. 2007. Finally. on crash and injury occurrence. Personality traits closely aligned with given mood states might well be expected to have an impact on the performance on driving tasks. hopelessness has been consistently shown to be a predictor of suicidal intent (Beck. Hopelessness has not been previously studied as a predictor either of driving behaviour or of crash risk. Kovacs and Weissman.9% could be classified as having an intentional suicidal component.2 Hopelessness Rothengatter (2002) and Groeger (1997) have both noted the paucity of research on affect and driver behaviour. McMillan. it was hypothesised that locus of control would moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic. Ohberg. given the large number of studies indicating ethnic differences in locus of control (Crittendon. Sinha & Watson. Given the strong research evidence suggesting an association between internal locus of control and less risky driving behaviour (Lajunen & Summala. 1987. locus of control was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. In the present study. et al. but there are two conceptual arguments for doing so.
in fact. including risky driving. it was 70 . and negatively predicted by extraversion. Henderson. 1962)..involved head-on collisions between two vehicles with a large weight disparity and victims had often suffered from life-event stress. Prociuk. whose crashes had resulted from extreme risks. Breen and Lussier (1976). Firestone & Seiden. Hernetkoski and Keskinen (1998). 1998. 1990. Mendel. for instance. 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. and crash risk (Ohberg et al. 1976. in which hopelessness plays a significant part. investigated the relationship between hopelessness. locus of control and depression with university students in western Canada. hopelessness was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. In the present study. hopelessness has been associated with personality and behavioural factors that have been shown to be good predictors of driver behaviour and crash risk. on crash and injury occurrence. Several authors. Justification of hopelessness hypotheses. 1997. chance or fate not only expressed greater pessimism about the future but were more likely to report depressive states. 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. found that the most commonly reported mental state among Finnish drivers dying in crashes classified as suicidal had been “depression” and “hopeless”. Second. in a more detailed study. luck. usually when impaired by alcohol or drug use. 1974). assertiveness and positive emotion. They also classified a group of drivers whose highly negligent actions. Selzer & Payne. Very early on. mental disorders and alcohol misuse. have proposed that potentially self-destructive behaviours. finding that persons who perceived reinforcements to be a function of powerful others. Based on earlier findings about the relationship between depressive-suicidal states. indirectly. 1962). Chioqueta and Stiles (2005) showed that hopelessness in Norwegian university students was positively predicted by high scores in neuroticism and depression.
2002. Richards. this concept became the basis for what is now known as the frustration-aggression hypothesis of aggressive driving. and deindividuation.3 Aggression Since the 1980s. It was hypothesised here that hopelessness would moderate the manner in which locus of control affected behaviour in traffic. 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. 2003. learned disinhibitory cues. Lynch & Oetting. Bakou. In a largely unrelated study.. Filetti.5. 2002).3. learned cognitive scripts. Chliaoutaks. Deffenbacher. 2. physiological arousal. Chapman. 1999) have argued that there has been a marked increase in the frequency of aggressive incidents and anger-related crashes. Demakakos. Underwood. Wells-Parker et al. While media reports and some authors (James & Nahl. Malta & Blanchard. Wright & Crundall. including subjective feelings of stress. Although uncertainty persists as to whether road aggression is actually increasing. 71 . 2006). 2000. which acts to counter the influence of normative moral codes and to increase people’s impulsive responses to stimuli as one such disinhibitory cue. attention to the issue of aggressive driving has grown exponentially. sparked by a number of highly publicised accounts of road rage and improved techniques for measuring anger and aggression in drivers. Novaco (1991) proposed that driver aggression is produced when environmental triggers interact with a variety of predisposing factors. 1999. Koumaki. Tzamalouka. Mizell. O’Connell (2002) has described the use of alcohol. there is no shortage of evidence to suggest a consistent and reliable association between aggressive driving and motor vehicle crashes (Blanchard. 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. 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. 2000. & Darviri. Barton and Malta.hypothesised that participants scoring high on a measure of hopelessness would be likely to engage in behaviour in traffic that was less cautious.
lack of control over events. Schwebel et al. 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. through the use of self-statements. such as TAPB. and frustration of goals that comprises the driving task in the modern world. raised the point that: It seems to me possible that the peculiar cocktail of personal challenge. Groeger (2000). They reported that trait aggressiveness and trait irritability influenced aggressive behaviour under both provoking and neutral conditions but that other personality variables. However. More recently. as another. the display of aggression (p. angry thinking and trait anger influenced aggressive behaviour only under conditions in which the individual was provoked. 163). 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. Houston. 1976. rather than a cause of. Talley. cultural driving norms and situational conditions. Benjamin and Valentine (2006) conducted a meta-analysis of studies assessing personality variables and aggressive behaviour. 1962). stress induced by time pressure. does indeed have all the ingredients that might give rise to increased levels of anger and hostility. Kurylo and Poirier (1997) created the Hostile Automatic Thoughts Scale to reflect the frequency 72 . it may equally be that the people involved would be aggressive in situations beyond driving – with driving being an opportunity for. Meichenbaum (1977) pioneered the use of cognitive restructuring.which creates a sense of anonymity and diminished personal responsibility. though. to better cope with stress and achieve behavioural change. but needed to be expanded to account for the influence of personality factors such as Type A personality behaviour (TAPB). Ellis. Shinar (1998) argued that the frustration-aggression hypothesis provided an appropriate model for aggressive driving. Bettencourt. Crowson.
aggression was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. 1999. (2003). and specific content. McKee. Sato. 1999). 1998. Deffenbacher. Petrilli. Lynch. that the total amount.with which individuals make cognitive statements reflecting aggressive sentiments. on crash and injury occurrence. impatience. insecurity about status. competitiveness. 2. Miyake.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. They found that perjorative labelling and vengeful or retaliatory thoughts correlated highly with self-reported aggressive driving. Kumashiro & Kume. Later still. Blumenthal. of hostile automatic thought would moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic. Magnavita. 2000. Frueh & Snyder. hostility and difficulty achieving states of relaxation (Ben-Zur.6 2. Rice. Kamada. 2001). 2006). Based on the extensive research on the association between aggression and unsafe driving behaviour (Galovski et. Carbone. 2006. Justification of aggression-related hypotheses. 1981. Thurman. Those authors used the instrument to assess hostility and negative affect within a population of veterans diagnosed with combat-related posttraumatic stress disorder (Crowson. 1985). Narda. Originally identified by Friedman and Rosenman (1974). indirectly. Oetting and Swaim (2003) used the same approach to examine angry cognitions made by drivers under varying conditions of provocation. It was also hypothesised.6. aggression. consistent with earlier research by Deffenbacher et al. TAPB is characterised by a sense of time urgency. 2002. it was hypothesised that aggression would have a negative effect on behaviour in traffic. Undén. In the present study. Williams & Haney. Dewar (2002b) noted that TAPB has been one of the variables most consistently linked to driving performance. Bettencourt et al. 1999.. 73 . James & Nahl. al. Karlberg. Sani. Elofsson & Krakau.
1979) and number of accidents.DeLorenzo and Sacco (1997). tested drivers on a TABP questionnaire in 1993 and then tracked their driving behaviour to record crash history from 1994 to 2001. Elander and French (1993) found that TAPB had a strong association with excessive driving speed. similarly. was driving frequency. 1989. studied police officers in Italy. did control for the effects of a range of potential confounding variables – annual mileage. (2003) with respect to data collection time periods. the Jenkins Activity Survey (Jenkins. Chastang. Nabi. Karlberg et al. 1990). Chiron.000 employees of a French oil and gas company. Other authors have examined which of the behavioural dimensions of TAPB has the strongest impact on driving outcomes. 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. 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. gender. Although their research design accounted for the influence of potential confounds. Perry (1986) fond significant simple correations between scores on a commonly used measure of TAPB. particularly in driving situations that require prudence. They found a robust association between scores on a measure of TAPB and later serious crashes. traffic exposure or driver gender controlled as variables. In a correlational study of British drivers. Zzanski & Rosenman. it may have been flawed by methodological deficiencies discussed by af Wählberg (2003) and by Elander et al. but not with accident risk.2 times more likely to have an accident than others. for instance. age. focused on the time urgency component 74 . Lafont and Lagarde (2005). and drivers’ attitudes toward traffic regulations – when examining the association between motor vehicle crashes and Type A scores in a prospective study of 20. driving style. (1998). alcohol consumption. In none of these studies. Consoli. Raikkonen. socio-professional category. Although there is some evidence as to the long-term stability of TAPB (Keltikangas-Jarninen. Nabi et al. where Type A drivers were 4. however. West. violations and self-reported driving impatience in a sample of 54 American students. however. category of vehicle.
At the same time. ethnicity. Using an instrument with items at extreme ends of the Type A/B continuum. Gender. If all four BIT factors contribute to accident proneness. then use of the Type A/B 75 .6. Papacostas and Synodinos concluded that: Type A/B behaviour is consistently related to only one of the four driving factors obtained by the BIT. Glass. Of the four BIT factors. externally-focused frustration (congestion irritation and hostility toward other drivers) and destination-activity orientation (inattention to the driving task related to journey motives or outcomes). 1977). freeway urgency (excessive speed choice). 2. all four BIT factors significantly predicted participants’ self-reported driving characteristics. In a subsequent study. specifically measuring the effects of drivers’ usurpation of right-of-way (lane violations and reluctance to yield). they examined the influence of TAPB on a number of driving outcomes. driving exposure and the place where they had learned to drive all had direct effects on Type A results. on the other hand. with higher BIT scores reflecting a stronger Type A orientation. as measured by the student version of the SJAS. Miles and Johnson (2003).of TAPB that had the most significant influence on driving risks. emphasising the four individual dimensions of behaviour in traffic rather than the composite BIT total score. The BIT scale was positively correlated with the student version of the Jenkins Activity Survey (SJAS. namely “externally-focused frustration”. Papacostas and Synodinos (1988) reported several further analyses of their original data. only externally-focused frustration was consistently correlated with Type A behaviour. 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.2 A Conceptual Shift from TAPB to Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) as a Variable Synodinos and Papacostas (1985) also attempted to examine the TAPB dimensions that related to driving behaviour in a sample of Hawaiian university students.
on the other hand. Justification of BIT-related hypotheses. on one hand would have an effect on crash and injury occurrence and. In neither of their studies. hopelessness. would be influenced by drivers’ psycho-social characteristics. They argued that it would be preferable. all that can be concluded about the BIT concept is that composite scores have been indicative of high Type A scores on the student version of the SJAS and that the SJAS was unable to predict three of the four component scores. no further use of BIT scale has been reported in studies of driving safety. aggression and the amount and content of 76 . thought to be critical in the relationship between TAPB and motor vehicle crashes. 1988) attempt to relate scores on their BIT scale to crash frequency or injury. though. 13). the extent to which other personality factors influence the four components comprising behaviour in traffic was not investigated. In the present study. Specifically. that are measured by the BIT scale.construct as the basis of further investigation into the question of highway safety will provide only an incomplete picture. To the author’s knowledge. 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. Similarly. “freeway urgency’’ which manifests itself in speeding and frequent lane changing. participants’ behaviour in traffic was considered a proximal variable that. At the present time. did Papacostas and Synodinos (1985. 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. gender and other demographic factors were shown to affect BIT subscales. driving experience. although ethnicity. ethnicity. locus of control. including gender.
since Papacostas and Synodinos (1988) found that all four component factors of BIT were related to driving characteristics. it was hypothesised that drivers’ scores on measures of usurpation of right-of-way.hostile automatic thought. 77 . since the composite BIT score has been shown to be an accurate reflection of over-all Type A behaviour (Synodinos & Papacostas. Many studies have suggested that drivers’ TABP is a factor in motor vehicle crashes (Perry. 1986. it was hypothesised here that BIT total scores would have a positive effect on both crash and injury occurrence. Nabi et al. externally-focused frustration. Further.. Miles & Johnson. 2003. 2005. 1985). West et al. 1993) and. freeway urgency and destination-activity orientation would each have positive effects on both crash and injury occurrence..
aggression (see Figure 3. 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.3). 78 .2). In Study 1B. 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. driving and psychological variables were linked to each other and to self-reported driving behaviour. Then. 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. each study explored the extent to which demographic. hostile automatic thoughts (see Figure 3. with the addition of a fourth psychological variable. using automobile drivers as the units of analysis.1). Study 1A investigated the effects of demographic (driver age.CHAPTER 3 METHOD OF INVESTIGATION 3. through their action on proximal variables (behaviour in traffic). the present research attempted to support the notion that variables in the distal context (psychological factors) contributed to crashes and injuries. 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. 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. 1B and 1C. the research model was developed and tested in studies 1A.1 Conceptualisation and the Research Framework Based on the discussion in the previous chapter. each of which sought to replicate and expand the previous one. In Study 1C. with the addition of a third psychological variable.
In Study 2, using motorcycle drivers as units of analysis, the research model was tested to investigate the effects of demographic (driver age, gender and ethnicity) and psychological factors (locus of control and hopelessness) in predicting self-reported BIT and then on self-reported crash and injury occurrence (see Figure 3.2).
In Study 3, using taxicab drivers as units of analysis, the research model was tested to study the effects of demographic (driver age, gender and ethnicity) and psychological factors (locus of control, hopelessness and aggression) in predicting self-reported BIT and then on self-reported crash and injury occurrence (see Figure 3.4).
DISTAL CONTEXT H2
Driver experience Driving frequency
Gender Ethnicity Age
Locus of Control
Internality Externality (chance) Externality (Powerful Other)
Behaviour in Traffic (BIT)
Usurpation of right-of-way Freeway urgency Externally-focused frustration Destination-activity orientation
Crash Occurrence Injury Occurrence
BHS x Locus of Control
Figure 3.1: Research Model (Study 1A and Study 2)
Driver experience Driving frequency
Gender Ethnicity Age
Physical aggression Verbal aggression Anger Hostility Indirect aggression
Behaviour in Traffic (BIT)
Usurpation of right-of-way Freeway urgency Externally-focused frustration Destination-activity orientation
Locus of Control
Internality Externality (chance) Externality (Powerful Other)
H7 H12 H9
Locus of Control x AQ
BHS x Locus of Control
Figure 3.2: Research Model (Study 1B)
Driver experience Driving frequency
Demographic Variables Gender, Ethnicity & Age
Hostile Automatic Thoughts (HAT)
Physical Aggression Derogation of Others Revenge
Behaviour in Traffic (BIT)
Usurpation of right-of-way Freeway urgency Externally-focused frustration Destination-activity orientation
Aggression Questionnaire (AQ) Locus of Control
Locus of Control x AQ
BHS x Locus of Control
HAT x AQ
Figure 3.3: Research Model (Study 1C)
Driver experience Taxicab experience
Ethnicity & Age
Physical Aggression Verbal Aggression Anger Hostility Indirect Aggression
Behaviour in Traffic (BIT)
Usurpation of right-of-way Freeway urgency Externally-focused frustration Destination-activity orientation
Locus of Control
Internality Externality (chance) Externality (Powerful Other)
Locus of Control x AQ
Figure 3.4: Research Model (Study 3)
Definition of the Variables This section identifies, classifies and provides an operational definition of each
of the variables used in the present research. Variables included (a) self-reported driving characteristics; (b) demographic variables; (c) locus of control; (d) hopelessness; (e) aggression; (f) hostile automatic thoughts; (g) self-reported behaviour in traffic; (h) selfreported crash occurrence; and (i) self-reported injury occurrence. Variables (a) through (f) were grouped within a super-ordinate class as distal variables. Variable (g) was considered as a proximal variable. Variables (h) and (i) were grouped within a superordinate class as outcome variables.
Driver Characteristics: Driver Experience and Driving Frequency Driver experience was defined as the length of time, in months, that participants
reported they had held a valid driving licence, consistent with the approach used in earlier research by Synodinos and Papacostas (1985). Frequency of travel was measured by asking participants to respond to the question, “how often do you travel in a car” as a driver, using a six-point Likert-type scale.
Demographic Variables: Age, Gender and Ethnicity Participants reported their age in years, their gender and chose a descriptor of
their “ethnic background” from a list including “Malay”, “Chinese-Malaysian”, “IndianMalaysian” and “Other, please specify”. The use of ethnic self-identification has been the most frequently used means of establishing cultural affiliation in previous studies of driving behaviour (Ey, Klesges, Patterson, Patterson, Hadley, Barnard & Alpert, 2000; Romano, Tippetts & Voas, 2005a, 2005b).
Locus of Control Locus of control refers to the extent to which individuals believe that they are in
control of the events that affect them (Rotter, 1966). The present research, adopted Levenson’s (1973) assumption that there are three independent dimensions to locus of control: internality; chance and powerful others. Within this model, one can endorse
consistent with the way the variable has been described by Beck (1987a) and Beck. cognitive.each of these dimensions independently and at the same time. It has been accepted for a long time that aggression finds its 85 . a separate score for internality (I). and a behavioural process in which the person attempts little or takes inappropriate action (p. overlapping and ambiguous.5 Aggression Spielberger et al (1995).4 Hopelessness Hopelessness has been defined as a cognitive or motivational state characterised by negative expectancies. aggression is regarded here as referring to the hostile behaviour that occurs as a result of it. hopelessness was measured as a unidimensional construct. motoric and verbal components (Sharkin.2. Weissman. but not chance. anger was defined as a negative internal state of physiological arousal and cognition that involves interactions between physiological. 1999). 25). externality related to chance (C) and externality related to the influence of powerful others (P) was obtained. While Beck (1999) and others have reserved the term anger for the feeling that accompanies such an internal state. 3. Galovski et al (2006) and others have noted that the definitions of anger. hostility and aggression are often inconsistent. 1994). For the purposes of the present research.2. 1988) and tends to manifest itself under antagonistic conditions (Novaco. In the present research. It functions as a feeling of despair and discouragement. Lester and Trexler (1974). According to Farran et al (1995): Hopelessness constitutes an essential experience of the human condition. a future directed information-processing bias or schema which functions to distort individuals’ subjective experience of external reality (Velting. affective. For each of the five studies undertaken. a thought process that expects nothing. 3. such that an individual might simultaneously believe that oneself and powerful others control an outcome.
3. emotional lability and temperamental gesturing.expression in a range of behavioural manifestations (Buss & Durkee. and. Bergeron & Vallerand. frustration. were also investigated. Oetting.6 Hostile Automatic Thoughts While the role of cognitive self-talk in directing behavioural responses has been accepted since the early work of Beck (1976). through fighting. The present research examined the effects of a set of cognitive statements – described as hostile automatic thoughts (Snyder et al. 1997) – on the behaviour in traffic of drivers in Study 1C. Ellis (1962) and Meichenbaum (1977). Specifically. social alienation and paranoia. Deffenbacher. (e) indirect aggression – the tendency to express aggressive impulses in actions that avoid direct confrontation. expressed through the presence of irritability. Vallières. Lynch & Morris. 1996). 1957. generally to the point where the needs or feelings of others cannot be taken into consideration. hitting or interpersonal violence.2. 2005). the following variables were examined: (a) physical aggression – the tendency to use physical force when expressing anger or aggression. (d) hostility – including attitudes of bitterness. 2003. the three forms of hostile automatic thoughts were defined as: 86 . (c) overt anger – the tendency to experience high levels of emotional arousal and a perceived loss of control. taken as a sum of measures of each of the foregoing. In the present research. (b) verbal aggression – the tendency to be unduly argumentative and to use quarrelsome and hostile speech in dealing with others in antagonistic situations. but it has only relatively recently been considered in light of driving aggression (Deffenbacher et al. The effects of participants’ total aggression.
2..g. (b) freeway urgency – including an expressed preference for freeway driving. characterised by excessive impatience. motorcyclists and taxicab drivers sampled in the five successive studies undertaken. frequent lane changing. (c) revenge – cognitive self-talk that contained content indicating an intent or desire to take some action against another individual to get even for a perceived wrong. degraded or wished to be rid of another individual.. 1998). the BIT score. and an expressed preference for operating powerful vehicles. was defined as indicative of Type A Behaviour Pattern (TABP). 3. competitiveness. hit or kill another individual.(a) physical aggression – cognitive self-talk that contained content indicating an intent or desire to violently attack. (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. being irritated by slow drivers) and of directive behaviours toward 87 . driving consistently in the fast lane and travelling above the speed limit. Four separate dimensions of BIT were examined: (a) usurpation of right-of-way – representing self-reported behaviours that took the form of evasive or uncooperative manoeuvres such as speeding to get away from others. not allowing others to merge or overtake. A global measure of selfreported driving tendencies. (c) externally-focused frustration – consisting of emotional reactions to the actions of other drivers on the road (e. and. hostility and time pressure (Karlberg et al.
9 Injury Occurrence Participants also indicated whether they had been forced to seek medical treatment for an injury incurred during the reported crash. In the resulting measure of this variable.8 Crash Occurrence Participants reported whether or not they had experienced a motor vehicle crash.2. and. to contemporaneous roadway and traffic 3. within the preceding twelve months and provided details about the nature of the crash.g. gender and ethnicity) and two psychological variables (locus of control and hopelessness) on BIT was tested.. 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.them (e. to the extent of inattention conditions. in Study 1A. 88 . Then. three demographic variables (driver age. 3. a “1” was scored if the participant reported that they had sought treatment at a medical clinic or had required hospitalisation as a result of physical injury sustained during the crash and a “0” was scored if the participant reported that the crash had resulted in no damage or only damage to the vehicle.3 3. In the resulting measure of this variable. the interrelationships between the demographic variables.2.3.1 Research Design of the Study Study 1A Specifically. travel frequency. (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. a “1” was scored if the participant reported a crash and a “0” was scored if the participant did not report a crash. while driving. urging others to move faster or out of the way by sounding the horn). the influence of driving experience. Then. 3.
2 illustrates the research design for Study 1B.3. In this study. and (b) the moderating effect of locus of control on the relation between aggression and BIT. the interrelationships between the demographic variables. Then. the extent to which self-reported BIT predicted crash and injury occurrence in automobile drivers was assessed. hopelessness. Finally. Then. 3.psychological variables (locus of control and hopelessness) and BIT were examined. three moderating effects were measured: (a) the moderating effect of hopelessness on the relationship between locus of control and BIT. Figure 3. Then. the moderating effect of hopelessness on the relationship between locus of control and BIT was tested. the influence of driving characteristics. the interrelationships between the demographic variables. gender and ethnicity) and three psychological variables (locus of control. the psychological variables and BIT were examined. three demographic variables (driver age. gender and ethnicity) and four psychological variables (locus of control. 3.1 illustrates the research design for Study 1A. 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. the psychological variables and BIT were examined. (b) the moderating effect of locus 89 . Finally. travel frequency. the influence of driving characteristics. In Study 1B. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) on BIT was tested. Figure 3. three demographic variables (driver age. the mediating effect of the BIT on the relations between psychological variables and crash occurrence and injury occurrence was tested.3. the mediating effect of BIT on the relationship between psychological factors and crash occurrence and injury occurrence was tested. In this study. hopelessness and aggression) on BIT was tested. Then.3 Study 1C In Study 1C. travel frequency. two moderating effects were tested: (a) the moderating effects of hopelessness on the relationship between locus of control and BIT.2 Study 1B While again controlling the effects of driving experience and drivers’ self- reported travel frequency.
Finally. Figure 3. It should be noted that certain of the variables examined with the automobile drivers in Study 1 and with the motorcycle drivers in Study 2 were not included when taxicab drivers were sampled in Study 3. First.4 illustrates the research design for Study 3. the mediating effect of the BIT on the relations between psychological variables and crash occurrence and injury occurrence was tested. Figure 3.3 illustrates the research design for Study 1C.4 Study 2 The research design for Study 1A was replicated. and (b) taxi experience. the moderating effect of locus of control on the relationship between aggression and BIT was assessed.5 Study 3 The final study used a sample of on-duty taxicab drivers. In Study 3. This was justified for three reasons. the psychological variables and BIT were examined.3. 90 . the interrelationships between the demographic variables. Variables and analyses in Study 2 were the same as those carried out in Study 1A. Figure 3. the mediating effect of the BIT on the relations between psychological variables and crash occurrence and injury occurrence was tested. Then. or the length of time they had held a valid automobile operator’s licence.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. or the length of time they had been licensed to operate a taxicab.1 illustrates the research design for Study 2. and (c) the moderating effect of hostile automatic thoughts on the relationship between aggression and BIT. In Study 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. using a sample that indicated motorcycles as their primary mode of transportation. Then. Finally. 3.3. 3. the influence of experience. Two measures of experience were included: (a) driving experience.
Second.4:Destination-Activity orientation will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H220.127.116.11: Travel frequency will have a negative influence on total BIT score H2.2.2 :Freeway urgency 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.1.2: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.1: Research Hypotheses STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 H1: Behaviour in traffic will have a positive influence on motor vehicle crash outcomes H1. a risk that would have been unethical to impose both on the drivers and on the research assistants who were collecting the data. Third.2.4: Destination-Activity orientation will have a positive influence on injury occurrence Y Y Y Y Y 3 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y H2: Driver characteristics will influence behaviour in traffic H2. limitations were imposed on administration time by driver willingness to participate and by research cost considerations.4 Formulation of Hypotheses Based on the conceptualisation and research framework.1: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.1: Driver experience will have a negative influence on total BIT score H2.given that data were collected during in situ interview and testing sessions with drivers during a rolling trip from point to point through Kuala Lumpur streets. potentially raising questions of reliability and validity.1: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.3: Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.2.2: Freeway urgency will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1. instruments employed to measure hopelessness and hostile automatic thoughts used language and response formats not conducive to verbal administration procedures.3:Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1. the following fifteen hypotheses and sixty sub-hypotheses were formulated: Table 3.2. Gender was not included as a demographic variable in Study 3 because all taxicab drivers in the sample were male.3: Taxicab experience will have a negative influence on total BIT score 91 .1: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1. 3.1.
1: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Usurpation of Right-of Way H7.3: Age will have a negative influence on total BIT score Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y H4: Demographic variables will influence locus of control H4.2: Ethnicity will influence Aggression H10.2: Externality-Chance will have a positive influence on Hopelessness H6.1: Hopelessness will moderate the Internality-BIT relationship H9.1: Internality will have a negative influence on Hopelessness H6.1.1: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Internality H4.3: Externality-Powerful-Others will have a positive influence on total BIT score H9: Hopelessness will moderate the locus of control-BIT Relationship H9.1 (continued) STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 3 H3: Demographic variables will influence behaviour in traffic H3.3.4: Hopelessness will have positive influence on Destination-Activity Orientation H8: Locus of Control will influence behaviour in traffic H8.2: Gender will influences Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.4: Aggression will have a positive influence on Destination-Activity Orientation 92 .1: Age will influence Locus of Control: Internality H4.3: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H4.2: Ethnicity will influence Hopelessness H18.104.22.168: Age will have a negative influence Aggression Y Y Y Y Y Y H11: Aggression will have a positive influence on behaviour in traffic H11.2.2: Hopelessness will moderate the Externality(Chance)-BIT relationship H9.2: Aggression will have a positive influence on Freeway Urgency H11.1.3: Ethnicity will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H4.3: Aggression will have a positive influence on Externally-focused Frustration H11.Table 3.3: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Externally-focused Frustration H7.3.3: Externality-Powerful-Others will have a positive influence on Hopelessness H7: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on behaviour in traffic H7.1: Ethnicity will influence Locus of Control: Internality H4.2: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Freeway Urgency H7.2: Externality-Chance will have a positive influence on total BIT score H8.3: Age will have a negative influence on Hopelessness H6.2: Ethnicity will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.1: Gender will influence Aggression H10.1: Gender will influence total BIT score H3.3: Age will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others Y Y Y Y Y Y H5: Demographic variables will influence hopelessness H5.3.1: Internality will have a negative influence on total BIT score H8.2.2: Age will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.2: Ethnicity will influence total BIT score H3.1: Aggression will have a positive influence on Usurpation of Right-of Way H11.3: Hopelessness will moderate the Externality(Powerful-Other)-BIT relationship H10: Demographic variables will influence aggression H10.1: Gender will influence Hopelessness H5.
Table 3.5 3.1 Methods of Data Collection and Analysis The Sample Participants in Study 1 were undergraduate students at a private university in peninsular Malaysia.2: Externality(Chance) will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12. and those from the third round of data collection were included in Study 1C. Participants in Study 2 were undergraduate students at the same private university.1: Thoughts of Physical aggression will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation H15. those from the second round of data collection were included in Study 1B. with psychological tests and inventories administered to groups of students during lecture sessions.1: Gender will have a positive influence on hostile automatic thoughts H13.3: Thoughts of Revenge will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation Note: Y=YES 3.1: Internality will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12.2: Thoughts of Derogation-of-Others will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation H15. using the same procedures as in Study 1. registered in a freshman course offered within the Faculty of Management. All participants had a valid driving licence but had indicated that a motorcycle was the mode of transportation most of the 93 . within a 14-month period.5. 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. Participants from the first round of data collection were included in Study 1A.1: Thoughts of Physical Aggression will have a positive influence on total BIT H14. Data were collected during three consecutive trimesters.1 (continued) STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 3 Y Y Y H12: Locus of control will moderate the aggression-BIT relationship H12.3: Thoughts of Revenge will have a positive influence on total BIT score H15: Hostile automatic thoughts will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H15.2: Ethnicity will influence hostile automatic thoughts H13.3: 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: 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 H13.2: Thoughts of the Derogation of Others will have a positive influence on BIT H14.
2. participation was voluntary and confidentiality was assured. during a point to point trip.5. Data collection took place within the taxicab. Participants were recruited during a curb-side introduction of the study by one of a group of four research assistants.5. Participants were provided with an opportunity to receive a debriefing report about the results of the study by e-mail and/or. by postal mail. Stokals & Campbell.g. 3. 1978). 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. Stokols. High total scores on the scale are considered to be indicative of Type A behaviour while low total scores were considered to be indicative of a type B approach to driving. although results were used to demonstrate teaching points related to the syllabus at a point later in the trimester. in the case of Study 3 participants.time when they travelled. Participants in Study 3 were taxicab drivers in the Kuala Lumpur area. Drawing from the earlier Driving Habits Questionnaire (DHQ. consistent with of a Type A Behaviour Pattern (TAPB) when driving (see Appendix A). For inclusion in the study. all of whom possessed a valid driving licence and a commercial permit for the operation of a taxicab..2 Research Instruments 3. Participants in Study 3 received the meter or negotiated fare for the trip. while participants were driving. I try to urge its driver to move 94 . “ When a traffic light turns green and the car in front of me doesn’t get going immediately. In all cases.1 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) Scale This 52-item measures time-urgent behaviour. Novaco. Synodinos and Papacostas (1985) developed 26 pairs of two-alternative items. Participants in Studies 1 and 2 were not remunerated. This sample was combined from all three rounds of classroom data collection. with one of the items in each pair written to measure a TABP response and the other a contradictory statement (e.
Destination-activity orientation 8 Total 52 95 .” “I get extremely irritated when I am travelling behind a slow moving vehicle. Externally-focused frustration 6 IV. 20 items are answered on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from “most like me” to “least like me”. as indicated in table 3.” “I usually get upset at drivers who do not signal their driving intentions.” “I often blow my horn at someone as a way of expressing my frustration. Freeway urgency 14 III. then the item of the pair representing the opposite end of the continuum was placed in Form B and vice versa. to school or to an appointment with someone.91) were found to be internally consistent. I usually think about what I have to do when I get there. based on a principal components analysis of earlier-reported data. In a later study. Six of the items are answered on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree”. I just wait for a while until it moves”) for a total of 52 item stems.” “When a motor vehicle cuts in front of me. Table 3. such that if the TABP alternative of an item pair was placed in Form A.” “I often find myself checking the time while driving to work. Usurpation of right-ofway No. of items 24 Sample items “When I am in a traffic jam and the lane next to mine starts to move. Synodinos and Papacostas reported that Form A and Form B (which correlated . Items in Form A and Form B are presented in random order. I try to move that lane as soon as possible. with a coefficient alpha of .80.” II. Papacostas and Synodinos (1988) provided additional psychometric parameters of the BIT scale.on” versus “When a traffic light turns green and the car in front of me doesn’t get going immediately.” “While travelling to work (or to school).2. On each form.2: Dimensions of the BIT scale Factor I. I usually feel like pushing them off the road. I usually drive a few kilometres above the speed limit. Their analysis revealed four dimensions.” “On a clear highway. Items were presented in two alternate forms (Form A and Form B).
ranging from +3 (“agree strongly”) to –3 (“disagree strongly”). References to “miles per hour” were changed to “kilometres per hour”. High scores on the externality-chance (C) scale indicate that respondents expect expect chance forces or luck to have control over their lives. 96 . High scores on the internality (I) scale indicate that respondents expect to have a high degree of control over their own lives. A sample item is “Although I might have good ability. 3. References to the faster. References to the “gas pedal” were replaced by “accelerator”. 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.2.5. The phrase “cross-junction” was added to items pertaining to behaviour at intersections.Certain items in the original American version were re-worded to make them relevant to the Malaysian context and driving jargon. I will not be given leadership responsibility without appealing to those in positions of power”. passing lane were changed from “left lane” to “right lane” and the word “pass” was replaced with “overtake”. Participants scored all 24 items on a 6-point scale. It contains three 8-item sub-scales that measure perceptions about the level of control exercised over the events and circumstances in their lives. Luckner (1989) noted that this instrument has among the highest reliability and validity of all locus of control tests and is particularly applicable when gearing instruments to broad linguistic structures and varying academic levels. A sample item is “I have often found that what is going to happen will happen”.2 Levenson Locus of Control Scale This widely-used questionnaire is based on Levenson’s (1981) multidimensional view of locus of control. it’s usually because I worked hard for it”. A sample item is “When I get what I want.
5. verbal aggression. Participants indicate a response on a five-point Likert-type scale (1 = “not at all like me”. Durham.” “I get into fights more than most people. 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”. Each of the 20 statements is scored 1.3). of items 8 5 7 8 6 34 Sample Items: “At times I can’t control the urge to hit someone. High scores are taken to indicate a generally pessimistic view of the future and a high degree of hopelessness. 1996). 9 are keyed false to indicate optimism about the future. 1993. Of the 20 true-false statements.” “When people annoy me.” “At times I feel I have gotten a raw deal out of life. Eleven items are keyed true to indicate pessimism about the future.” “I sometimes feel that people are laughing at me behind my back.” “I often find myself disagreeing with people.5. A total aggression score can be calculated from summed item responses. anger. 1982. 3.2. Table 3.” “I let my anger show when I do not get what I want. if not. High internal consistency has been reported across a range of samples (Benzein & Berg. 1974). a sample item of which is “I look forward to the future with hope and enthusiasm”. I might give him or her the silent treatment.2.4 Aggression Questionnaire (AQ) This questionnaire is a 34-item scale measuring constructs related to the expression of aggression. hostility and indirect aggression (see Table 3.” “If I’m angry enough. if endorsed. I may mess up someone’s work. and five subscales measure physical aggression. I may tell them what I think of them. Tanaka et al.” “When someone really irritates me.3. 5 = “completely like me”) that best represent how well the item describe them.3 Beck Hopelessness Scale (BHS) This 20-item scale contains true-false statements that assess the extent of negative expectancies about the immediate and long-range future (Beck & Steer.3: The Five Subscales of the Aggression Questionnaire Subscale Physical Aggression (PHY) Verbal Aggression (VER) Anger (ANG) Hostility (HOS) Indirect Aggression (IND) Total No. Beck et al.” 97 . Item scores are summed to yield a total score ranging from 0 to 20. or 0. 2005.” “At times I feel like a bomb ready to explode.
Three factors – physical aggression.5.94 for the total aggression scores and ranging from . 3. Previous studies have established high levels of concurrent validity (Harris.88 for the five subscales (Buss & Warren.2. Each item includes a statement expressing some hostile thought and respondents are asked to indicate “whether that thought (or one like it) has occurred to you about another driver when you have been driving. 5 = “all the time”).4).5. derogation of others and revenge respectively. ethnicity and history of motor vehicle crashes and injuries.” 3. Boyd. 1997.71 to .” Participants responded on a 5point Likert-type scale (1 = “not at all”. derogation of others and revenge – were identified and are included as subscales (see table 3. Snyder et al. Williams. with coefficient alpha values of . Table 3. 98 . (1997) reported high internal consistency for all three sub-scales.91 for physical aggression.88 and .5 Hostile Automatic Thoughts (HAT) This 30-item self-report index measures the frequency of recurring hostile thoughts. age. . I’d kill this person!” “I’d like to knock his/her teeth out” “What an idiot!” “This person is a loser.2.High internal consistency has been reported with a coefficient alpha of . Shapiro. 2000) and discriminant validity (Archer & Haigh. High scores on a sub-scale indicated that type of hostile thinking had occurred to the participant frequently. Questions included details about the participant’s licensing and driving background.4: The Three Subscales of the Hostile Automatic Thoughts (HAT) Scale Factor Physical aggression Derogation of others Revenge Total No. gender. 1996).6 Personal Information Form (PIF) Participants also completed a 4-page questionnaire recording personal information. 1997.92. 2000).” “I want to get back at this person. Cascardi & Pythress. of Items 11 10 9 30 Sample Items “If I could get away with it.” “I just want to hurt this person as bad as s/he hurt me.
BHS. (c) the last instrument in the package was the opposite for of the BIT from the one presented second. (e) put down the first response that came into their mind. BHS. Participants were assured of confidentiality and were de-briefed. and (f) not spend too much time on any one answer. between the two forms of the BIT. the instruments were presented in the following order: (a) the PIF was the first one in the package. 99 . with an e-mail summary of results.1 Procedure Studies 1 and 2 Data collection took place within a classroom or lecture hall during a regularly- scheduled class periods. Participants were provided with up to 60 minutes to complete the scales but in no cases did the average administration time exceed 45 minutes. (d) the remaining instruments used in that particular study were presented. (b) the second instrument was either Form A or Form B of the BIT scale. AQ and HAT. BIT scale. Levenson and BIT scale.3. (c) not discuss answers with others as they were completing the questionnaires.6 3. BIT scale and AQ. Levenson. Levenson. Instructions advised the participants to (a) answer all questions on each questionnaire. packages of research instruments were distributed as follows: Study 1A: PIF. upon request. (d) read instructions for each questionnaire very carefully and complete them in the order they were distributed. Study 1B: PIF. A brief written description of the purpose of the research and general instructions (see Appendix B) was distributed. in random order.6. Study 1C: PIF. After the briefing period. In studies 1 and 2. (b) give honest answers that described themselves rather than putting the “best things to say”. BHS. Participants were informed about the study and invited to participate on a voluntary basis.
each research assistant hired a taxicab to drive to some location elsewhere in the Kuala Lumpur area. At initial contact. 2002). BIT. provided assurance of confidentiality and secured participation.2 Study 3 For study 3. For safety reasons. 2004). AQ and HAT to determine validity using LInear Structural RElations software (LISREL. aged 22 to 24 years. Data collection took place in taxicabs. as well. with the team of research assistants meeting regularly three times each week to calibrate administration procedures. 100 . Two to four times daily. Specific statistical tests have been summarised in Table 3. 13.3. data collection was confined to times between 8:00 am and 9:00 pm. the research assistant informed the taxicab driver about the study.6. Structural equation models and path analyses were estimated using the same version of LISREL. Taxis were flagged down at roadside. four female final-year undergraduate students. Levenson Locus of Control scale. Single-word substitutions in items were made in English or the driver’s first language if comprehension difficulties arose. 3. Confirmatory Factor Analyses (CFA) were performed on the BIT. This section provides a brief example of each one and details its use in the present research. Independent-sample t-tests.5. Over the course of the trip. rel. with prior research experience were retained to assist in the study. All four research assistants spoke fluent English and Bahasa Malaysia. analyses of variance (ANOVA). as well as at least two additional Malaysian languages.5. Reliability coefficients of all instruments were calculated using SPSS. rel. linear and multiple regression analyses and logistic regression analyses were used to test the hypotheses. approached at a taxi stand or booked over the telephone.7 Analysis of the Data Data collected were entered and processed using Statistical Package for the Social Science (SPSS for Windows. AQ and Levenson scales. The PIF was always administered first. research assistants verbally administered the PIF. 8.0. with the remaining instruments administered in random order.
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: The level of BIT influence the crash occurrence H1.3: Age influence the Locus of Control Independent Sample tTest Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance The Direct Effect of Demographic Factors on Hopelessness H5.1: “Length of having driving licence” influence the level of BIT H2.1: Gender influence the level of BIT H3.5: Statistical Methods for Hypothesis Testing Data Analysis Methods The Direct Effect of BIT on Accident Involvement H1.2: Externality (Chance) is positively related to Hopelessness H6.2: Ethnicity background influence the level of Hopelessness H5.1: Internality is negatively related to hopelessness H6.Table 3.3: Age influence the level of Hopelessness Independent Sample t-Test Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance The Direct Effect of Locus of Control on Hopelessness H6.2: Ethnicity background influence the level of BIT H3.2: Hopelessness influence the level of Freeway Urgency H7.1: Hopelessness influence the level of Usurpation of Right-of Way H7.3: Externality (Powerful-Other) is positively related to Hopelessness Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression The Direct Effect of Hopelessness on BIT H7.3: 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: Ethnicity influence the Locus of Control H4.2: “Frequency of traveling” influence the level of BIT H2.1: Gender influence the level of Hopelessness H5.3: Hopelessness influence the level of Externally-focused Frustration H7.2: 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 Locus of Control H4.4: Hopelessness influence the level of Destination-activity Orientation Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression 101 .
2: Ethnicity influences hostile automatic thoughts H13.3: Age has a negative influence on hostile automatic thoughts Independent Sample t-Test Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance 102 .1: Internality moderates the Aggression-BIT relation H12. the lower the BIT level H8.2: Hopelessness moderates the Externality(Chance)-BIT relation H9.1: Gender has a positive influence on hostile automatic thoughts H13.3: Hopelessness moderates the Externality (Powerful-Other)-BIT relation Multiple Linear Regression The Direct Effect of Demographic Factors on Aggression H10.1: The higher the Internality.1: Hopelessness moderates the Internality-BIT relation Multiple Linear Regression H9.2: Externality(Chance) moderates the Aggression-BIT relation H12.3: 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 H13.2: Ethnicity background influences the level of Aggression H10. 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 H9.3: Age influences the level of Aggression Independent Sample t-Test Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance The Direct Effect of Aggression on BIT H11.3: The higher Externality (Powerful-Other).1: Gender influences the level of Aggression H10. the higher the BIT level H8.Table 3.1: Aggression influence the level of Usurpation of Right-of Way H11.5 (continued) Data Analysis Methods The Direct Effect of Locus of Control on BIT H8.2: Aggression influence the level of Freeway Urgency H11.2: The higher Externality (Chance).4: Aggression influence the level of Destination-activity Orientation Additional Analysis: Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression The Interaction Effect of Ethnicity and Aggression on BIT GLM Univariate Analysis of Variance The Moderating Effect of Locus of Control on AggressionBIT Relation H12.3: Aggression influence the level of Externally-focused Frustration H11.
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 3.3: 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. In the present study.7.1 Independent-sample t-tests Generally. hopelessness.7.1: Thoughts of Physical Aggression have a positive influence on BIT H14. post hoc analyses were carried out using the Scheffé method (Klockars & Hancock. t-tests were used to determine whether participants’ scores on psychological variables (BIT. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) differed for male and female drivers. In the present research. ANOVA was used to determine whether participants’ scores on psychological variables (BIT.2 One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) ANOVA is used to compare means for more than two groups.2: Thoughts of Derogation-of-Others have a positive influence on BIT H14. 2000). 3. hopelessness. t-tests are used to compare the means of two groups. locus of control.1: Thoughts of Physical Aggression will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation H15. 103 . locus of control.5 (continued) Data Analysis Methods The Direct Effect of HAT on BIT H14. When significant differences were observed. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) differed for drivers with different ethnic backgrounds.Table 3.
first P scores were entered into the regression equation. linear regression was applied to examine the relationship between psychological variables (locus of control. the moderating effects of the variables were tested using hierarchical regression methods. 104 . 3. For instance. hopelessness.7.7. to test whether hopelessness moderated the P-BIT relationship. multiple regression analysis was used to test whether internality (I). 3.7. R-square and coefficient values were then estimated to determine the significance of the moderating effect of hopelessness.3 The General Linear Model (GLM) Univariate Analysis This procedure allows a factorial analysis of variance by comparing means of a dependent variable for groups defined by factor variables. Application of multiple regression analysis involves more than one single independent variable. hopelessness.5 Multiple Regression Analysis This analysis aims to examine if there is a relationship between the dependent variable and independent variables. GLM univariate analysis of variance was used to determine whether there was an interaction effect between ethnic background and psychological factors (locus of control. In the present research. the products of P x hopelessness scores were added into the regression equation. Also. In the present research. It is useful for analysis of variance models with one or more factor variables or covariates and a single dependent variable. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) and behaviour in traffic (BIT). if so.3.4 Linear Regression Analysis This analysis is used to determine if a relationship exists between a dependent variable and an independent variable and. externality-chance (C) and externalitypowerful-others (P) have an effect on hopelessness. second. the direction of the relationship (positive or negative). aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) on behaviour in traffic (BIT). In the present research.
7. each of the two outcome variables (crash occurrence and injury occurrence) was framed as a binary variable. 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. Since driver experience and travel frequency were expected to have an influence on the outcome variables. That is. the purpose of which was to distinguish the distal and proximal contextual factors related to crash outcomes. The validity of this measurement model was dependent on its goodness-of-fit and on the construct validity of its component variables. 3. seeks to determine the odds that an event will or will not occur. on the other hand. In the present research.7 Structural Equation Modelling. these variables were controlled as covariates in the logistic regression equation. “1” was scored if a crash had occurred and “0” if no crash had occurred. using LISREL. as well as between several latent constructs” (p.3. SEM was carried out. Hair et al (2006) has defined structural equation modelling (SEM) as a “multivariate technique combining aspects of factor analysis and multiple regression that enables the research to simultaneously examine a series of interrelated dependent relationships among the measured variables and latent constructs (variates). Path coefficients were calculated to demonstrate correlates of unsafe driving according to their contextual proximity to crash and injury occurrence.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. logistic regression. and (b) examine the interrelationships among variables included in the research design. “1” was scored if a crash injury had occurred and “0” if no crash injury had occurred. In the present research. 710). to (a) assess the validity of the instruments. The result was a measurement model described as a contextual-mediated model. Goodness-of-fit indicates how 105 . Linear or multiple regression seek to measure the degree of influence that variables will have on a dependent variable.
these can be classified as absolute fit indexes and relative or incremental fit indexes. in fact. If a researcher’s theory were perfect. the model fit compares the theory to reality as represented by the data. the χ2/df ratio the goodness-of-fit index (GFI). For Study 1C. the estimated covariance matrix is compared mathematically to the actual observed covariance matrix to provide an estimate of model fit.well the measurement model reproduces the covariance matrix among indicator items That is. the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) and the root mean square residual (RMR). Once a researcher’s theory is used to specify a model from which the parameters are estimated. the estimated covariance matrix (∑k) and the actual covariance matrix (S) would be the same. Thus. 2006. the better the model is said to fit. The closer the values of these two matrices are to each other. Incremental fit measures included the comparative fit index (CFI). additional measures were used to compare the relative fit of two models under consideration. including: (1) two absolute indexes. The fundamental measure of fit is the chi-square (χ2) statistic (Byrne. Absolute fit measures are a direct measure of how well the model specified by the researcher reproduces the researcher’s data. 1998). (Hair et al. Incremental fit measures assess how well a specified model fits relative to some alternative baseline model. the absolute fit measures included the χ2 statistic. than anyone would want to report” (Maryuma.. 1998) – presently exists. (1988). but a wide array of tests of the overall fit of SEM models – “more. p. In the present research. the adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI) and the expected cross- 106 . 745). According to Marsh et al.
107 . Carmines and McIver (1981) have noted that. 1998).7. the higher the probability associated with χ2. an insignificant p-value can result in good fit.7. and a measure of parsimony fit. 112). 3.00 in which values greater than . fit the population covariance matrix if it were available” (Byrne. the parsimony goodness-of-fit index (PGFI). 2006).7. 3..validation index (ECVI). RMSEA values can range from zero to 1.7. one incremental index.7. the ratio indicates a good fit. Thus.7. The probability value associated with χ2 indicates the likelihood of obtaining a χ2 value that exceeds the χ2 value when null hypothesis (specific matrices for the model under study is valid) is true (Byrne.1 Chi-Square (χ2). the closer the fit between the hypothesized model (established under the null hypothesis). 3. p-Value and χ2/df Ratio χ2 is the fundamental measure used in SEM to quantify the differences between the observed and estimated covariance matrices (Hair et al. pp. 1998. an insignificant p-value is expected.0.3 Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) and Root Mean Square Residual (RMR) This index measures the error of approximation in the population and to question “how well would the model. the normed fit index (NFI). (2006) have highlighted that for sample size greater than 250 (with a number of observed variables less than 12).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. However. when the ratio of χ2 to df yields a value of less than 3. with unknown but optimally chosen parameter values. Hair et al.10 indicate poor fit. 2006). For a sample size less than 250 (and with number of observed variables that is less than 12).
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.7.7.7. CFI is an improved version of the normed fit index.00.00.6 Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index (AGFI) An adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI. Since the CFI is insensitive to model complexity.Root mean square residual (RMR) is another badness-of-fit measure.00. and a model with perfect fit would produce an NFI of 1.7. Values range from zero to 1. 2006).90 is usually associated with a model that fits well.00 with value closes to 1.00 with value more than . The index can range from zero to 1. 3. The AGFI penalises more complex models and favours those with a minimum number of free paths. with higher values indicating better fit.10 usually suggests a poor fit of the data for the model. 108 . The index ranges between zero and 1.. Thus.7.4 Normed Fit Index (NFI) One of the original incremental measures of fit. Tanaka & Huba. it is known as one of the most widely used indices (Hair et al. but AGFI values are typically lower than GFI values in proportion to model complexity.00 being indicative of good fit. the normed fit index (NFI. 3.5 Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) and Comparative Fit Index (CFI) The GFI can range from zero to 1. Bentler & Bonnet. 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. an RMR greater than . 3.7.
7. p.. it is most commonly used when comparing the performance of one model to another. The ECVI also takes into account the number of estimated parameters for a given model.00. designed specifically to provide information about which model among a competing set of models is best. 2006). Mulaik & Brett. a PGFI value is meant only to be used in comparing it to another model’s PGFI value” (Hair et al. 750).7. 109 ..7 Expected Cross-Validation Index (ECVI) The expected cross-validation index (ECVI. 1994). Values range between zero and 1. 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. Like other parsimony fit indices. based on the combination of fit and parsimony represented by the index. James. 2006.3. In such cases.8 Parsimony Goodness-of-Fit Index (PGFI) A third class of measures is sometimes recognised as the parsimony indices. It should be noted that.7. Although values range from zero to 1. “a PGFI taken alone is not a useful indicator of a single model’s fit. 1982) uses the parsimony ratio to adjust the GFI in order to compare two models. in this case. 3.7. and the model with the higher PGFI is considered preferable. 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. means a model with fewer estimated parameter paths (Hair et al. A parsimony fit measure is improved by a better fit and/or a simpler model which. Browne & Cudeck. The parsimony ratio is calculated as the ratio of degrees of freedom used by a model to the total degrees of freedom available (Marsh & Balla. the model with the higher ECVI value is generally regarded as presenting a better fit.00. considering its fit relative to its complexity.
The normal distribution is spoken of as mesokurtic. It determines whether the scores in the sample can reasonably thought to have come from a population having the theoretical distribution (Siegel.7. Many parametric statistics assume that variables are distributed approximately normally and SPSS calculates values for skewness and kurtosis to assist in determing 110 . then it is possible to conclude the the data do not violate the normality assumption (Carver & Nash.05. If a distribution is assymetrical and the larger frequencies tend to be concentrated toward the low end of the variable and the smaller frequencies toward the high end. 1956). 37). which means that it falls between leptokurtic and platykurtic distributions” (Ferguson.9 Skewness and Kurtosis Skewness refers to the symmetry or asymmetry of a frequency distribution. 2000). p. Kurtosis refers to the flatness or peakedness of one distribution in relation to another.3. When p-values for the Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic are greater than our α=. the distribution is said to be negatively skewed (Ferguson. the distribution of test scores to the normal distribution. 3. it is said to be positively skewed. If the opposite holds. the larger frequencies being concentrated toward the high end of the variable and the smaller frequencies toward the low end. In this case. 1976. the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to assess whether there was a significant departure from normality in the distribution of variable scores.7. and platykurtic if it is less peaked.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. in this case. “It is conventional to speak of a distribution as leptokurtic if is more peaked than … the normal distribution. 1976).
1997). if skewness and kurtosis less than ±1. 2005. Barrett & Morgan. 111 . the variable is at least approximately normal (Leech. Marcoulides & Hershberger. A commonly used guideline is that.normality of variable distributions.
5% 6.6% 15. 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. Table 4.55).CHAPTER 4 ANALYSIS OF THE DATA This chapter presents the results of the research.3% 8.1 4. Ages of participants ranged from 18 to 29 years.13 years (SD = 1. 4.5% 27.4% 269 27.9% 23. The contextual mediated model was tested using (1) regression analysis (SPPS) and (2) structural equation modelling (LISREL). with a mean age of 20.5% 57.4% 146 14.9% 14. Then.1: Gender and Ethnicity of the Sample for Studies 1 and 2 Malay Gender Male Count % within Gender % of Total Count % within Gender % of Total Count % within Gender % of Total 148 33.9% Total 441 100% 45.6% 12. A contextual mediated model showing interrelationships between variables is introduced.1). Gender and Ethnicity Participants were 992 undergraduate students at an English-language Malaysian university. descriptive statistics are presented and the results of hypothesis testing are reported. Thus 977 participants were included in the analysis.1% 34.9% 977 100% 100% Female Total 112 .5% Ethnicity MalaysianChinese 229 51. It begins with a discussion of reliability and validity tests of the instruments.1 Description of the Samples Age.5% MalaysianIndian 64 14.4% 333 62. Thirteen of the participants did not complete all the questionnaires and two participants completing questionnaires reported that they did not have driving licences.1.1% 536 100% 54.1% 121 22.6% 82 15. with results of these tests reported in this chapter.
Malaysian-Chinese represented the highest number of participants (57. 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.89 years (SD = 1. with a mean age of 20.43 years (SD = 1. Thus.35. In Study 2. range from 18 to 29).9 per cent).53. 149 taxicab drivers participated. 301 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode of transportation to be the automobile comprised the sample.01 years (SD = 1.1) showed that most of the drivers were female Malaysian-Chinese. range from 18 to 25). with a mean age of 20. followed by Malay (27. 252 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode of transportation to be the automobile comprised the sample. range of 18 to 26). with a mean age of 20.25 years (SD = 1. range from 18 to 27).68. 113 . 122 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode of transportation to be the motorcycle comprised the sample.Female participants (approximately 55 per cent) slightly out-numbered males. In Study 1B. with a mean age of 19. In Study 1A.5 per cent). 302 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode of transportation to be the automobile comprised the sample. In Study 1C.63. A crosstabulation between gender and ethnicity (see Table 4. In Study 3.5 per cent) and Malaysian-Indian (14.
19 years (SD = 11. Descriptive data for each sample are provided in Table 4.89 20. 2 and 3 Gender STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 3 N 301 302 252 122 133 Mean Age 20. 1.4% of the sample. they hailed from across the country (see table 4.68 1.53 1.3 11.3% of the sample.65.9 2.63 11. SD = standard deviation 4.1.3). Johor or Perak made up 53.7 4.25 43. Participants from East Malaysia comprised 5. Participants who had received their driving licenses in Selangor.2 7. Table 4.01 20. Table 4.5 114 . 1B and 1C were all students at a single Malaysian university.19 S.responses from 133 taxicab drivers were included in data analysis. Kuala Lumpur.1 6.3: 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 % 12.35 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 . The mean age was 43.2.43 19.2 Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 1 Although participants in Studies 1A.2: Age.5 8.D. range from 23 to 73). Gender and Ethnicity of Participants in Studies 1.
1% of the sample.8 5.4 4. Table 4.8 11.Penang Perak Perlis Sabah Sarawak Selangor Terengganu 67 102 6 27 19 147 31 855 7.7 3.9 0.9% of the sample.8 9.4 0.4). Participants who had received their driving licenses in Selangor.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 % 13.5 14. Perak or Penang made up 50.6 100 4. As the sample was 115 .2 3.2 2.1.7 11.1.4 Geographic Distribution of the Sample in Study 3 Participants in Study 3 were all professional taxicab operators who had been licensed to drive their vehicles commercially within Kuala Lumpur.0 10. but again they held licenses from various states (see table 4.7 100 4. Participants from East Malaysia comprised 4.9 7.2 17.0 7.1 9.6 1.6 2.5 1.3 Geographic Distribution of the Sample in Study 2 Participants in Study 2 were all students at a single Malaysian university.
2. 4. 2000).5). reliability was measured using Cronbach’s coefficient alpha. 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. A Cronbach’s Alpha of . no attempt was made to determine the geographic location in which drivers had originally received noncommercial drivers’ licenses.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. 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. This statistic reflects the consistency of respondents’ answers compared to all the items in a measure (Sekaran.2 4. 1978). 116 . the higher is the internal consistency of the measure. 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. In the present research. The closer Cronbach’s Alpha is to 1.intended to be representative of Kuala Lumpur taxicab drivers.
782 .747 .715 .711 .714 .707 .786 .749 .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 .772 α .703 .734 .738 .768 Not Applicable Not Applicable .726 Not Applicable Not Applicable α .701 Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable 117 .824 .735 .756 .827 .737 .788 .740 .720 .730 .774 .811 .727 .740 .910 .904 .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.783 .733 .720 .718 .784 . of Item α Study 2 (N=122) Motorcycle Drivers (student sample) Study 3 (N=133) Taxicab Drivers α .742 .798 .808 .727 .Table 4.781 .890 .783 .701 .715 .817 .702 .754 .887 .881 α .830 .906 .741 .739 .782 .808 .810 .
1998).811 .804 .800 .807 Study 1B .953 .804 Study 1C .929 .6: Parallel-Form Reliability for Form A and Form B (BIT) Form A & Form B BIT Usurpation of right-of way Freeway Urgency Externally-Focused Frustration Destination-Activity Orientation Study 1A .805 .857 . with unknown but optimally chosen parameter values. The root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) index measures the error of approximation in the population and determines whether the model.2 Parallel-Form Reliability In the case of the BIT scale. 1985).05 indicate good fit.958 . 118 . we may be fairly certain that the measures are reasonably reliable.876 .08 to . The results of parallel-form reliability for the BIT instrument in different studies are shown in Table 4. Byrne. 2002) was used to establish evidence of construct validity for various measures. In Study 3. more than . confirmatory factor analyses using LISREL (Jöreskog & Sörbom.10 indicate poor fit (MacCallum et al. 1998).903 . with minimal error variance caused by wording.807 .916 . ordering or other test construction factors” (p.801 .80 or above). RMSEA values less than .80. values ranging from .4. only Form A was used.3 Validity Test Results In the present research. and those greater than .803 .2. 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.802 4. Sekaran (2003) notes that “if two comparable forms are highly correlated (. 1998.10 indicate a mediocre fit. 1998). Table 4.808 Study 2 .806 .804 . Reliability coefficients in all studies where both forms were used are acceptable since Form A and Form B were highly correlated.2. fits the population correlation matrix or covariance matrix. depending on which is used (Byrne. 205). it was also possible to measure reliability as a coefficient of correlation between Form A and Form B (Synodinos &Papacostas.6.
97 1.92 .000 . parameter values for all four of these factors were within acceptable ranges.00 1.024 . 1992).00 .000 .97 1.99 .91 .00 1. RMSEA values in each case were less than .098 . it is possible to have negative GFI.00 1. If the value of CFI exceeds .000 .097 .99 .7. GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index.089 .074 .92 .96 . freeway urgency. Table 4.99 .054 .00 1.90.3. indicating good fits.097 .100.98 1.00. CFI= Comparative Fit Index 119 .97 .000 .070 .000 . 4. the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) is estimated to indicate whether complete covariation in the data is achieved.98 1.91 .96 .00 1. externally-focused frustration.99 .00 .00 Study 2 RMSEA Study 3 CFI RMSEA GFI GFI CFI Behaviour In Traffic (BIT) Usurpation of right-of-way Freeway Urgency Externally-Focused Frustration Destination-Activity Orientation .00 1. drivers’ behaviour in traffic was measured by the four component factors of the BIT scale: usurpation of right-of-way.96 .00 1. A third statistic.047 .92 1.96 1.98 .048 .98 . and both GFI and CFI were more than .00 .2.00 1.000 . it is generally considered an acceptable fit to the data (Bentler.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 .98 Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation.00 .93 .00 .061 . although the GFI index ranges from zero to 1.95 1.99 .00 1.000 . the higher the goodness-of-fit).000 .1 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the BIT Scale In the present research.077 . As shown in Table 4. and destination-activity orientation.90.Jöreskog and Sörbom (1993) reported that.00 (the closer to 1.00 . This reflects that the model fits worse than no model at all.
2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Levenson Locus of Control Scale Locus of control was measured across three dimensions: internality (I).98 .95 .92 .98 Study 2 RMSEA Study 3 CFI RMSEA GFI GFI CFI Locus of Control Internality Externality (Chance) Externality (Powerful-Other) . indicating good fits (See Table 4.081 .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). externality-chance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P).058 . under the assumption that locus of control is a multidimensional phenomenon.083 .96 .98 .99 .91 .085 .3.93 .98 .091 .91 . verbal aggression (VER).096 .96 .98 Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation. CFA revealed that parameter values for I.90. hostility (HOS) and indirect aggression 120 .063 . RMSEA values were less than .95 1.085 . Table 4.071 .030 .92 .4.97 .93 .99 .96 .8.081 .92 .000 .052 .00 .3.100. Five component factors of aggression were measured: physical aggression (PHY).97 .073 .93 .2.91 . anger (ANG).96 .95 .2.8: 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) .93 . GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index. and both GFI and CFI were more than .93 . C and P scales were all within acceptable ranges.059 .93 .93 . Each component of the locus of control was measured separately. CFI= Comparative Fit Index 4.
97 Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation.98 . CFI= Comparative Fit Index 4.088 .97 .3.98 .047 . Three classes of hostile automatic thoughts were measured: physical aggression.98 .97 .098 . RMSEA values were less than . A total aggression score was arrived at by summing the five subscale scores.055 .089 .97 .94 .97 .98 . CFI= Comparative Fit Index 121 . and both GFI and CFI were more than .90.10: Summary of LISREL Results on Validity for HAT (Study 1C) RMSEA Hostile Automatic Thought (HAT) Physical Aggression Derogation of Others Revenge GFI CFI .10).070 .99 .9).96 .98 .070 .96 Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation.97 .081 .2.088 .92 .081 .93 .98 .92 .96 .090 .073 . CFA revealed that parameter values for all three measurement scales were within acceptable ranges. indicating good fits (See Table 4.95 .058 .98 .97 .95 .100.92 .98 .083 . RMSEA values were less than .96 . CFA revealed that parameter values for all five aggression subscales were within acceptable ranges.096 .098 .90.095 . GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index.97 .025 .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 . and both GFI and CFI were more than . Table 4.94 .97 .100. indicating good fit (see Table 4.98 . GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index.97 . derogation of others and revenge.98 .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 .(IND). Table 4.97 .98 .
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 .179(.656(..241(.280) .280) . 2006).280) .239 (.154(.064(.183) 1.323 (.226 (.140) .140) -.105 (.140) .582(.140) -.280) -. Marcoulides & Hershberger.11: Normality Tests.140) -.099) 1.280) -.256 (.280) .278(.278(.410(..280) -.875(.099(. 1997).332 (.102) 1.057) 1. indicating that the distribution of scores did not depart from normality.140) .085 (.428) .140) -. Table 4.353(.409(.195 (.022 (.297 (.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 1.140) .140) .091) 1.034 (.219 (.280) .280) -.140) .409(. values for the Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic were non-significant (p>. Table 4.805(.280) -. In all cases.297(.280) -.453(.146(.719(.331(.203(.126(.280) .064) 1.408(.560(.188(.140) -.069) 1.192) 1. Normality can also be assessed by examining sknewness and kurtosis values (Hair et al.085) 1.4.099(.280) -.560(.080(.05).020 (.379(.280) .091(.204(.085 (.120) 1.280) -.140) -.140) -. but with a non-signficant platykurtic tendency for the locus of control data.140) .140) -.351 (.010 (.183) 1.280) .192(.190) 1.140) -.107) 1.920(.140) -.099) 1.140) -.037(.280) .297(.082 (.280) .064(.052) 1.179(.962 (.107 (.246(.280) .094 (.091(.3 Normality.11 indicates that variable distribution fell within these limits.356 (.126(.280) -. Skewness and kurtosis values of ± 1 are acceptable (Leech et al.260) .186) 1.106) 1.511(.403(. Skewness and Kurtosis Data were studied to determine whether they were normally distributed and therefore capable of satisfying parametric assumptions.140) .280) .085) 1. 2005.191) 1.
Table 4.153) .219) .360) -.030(.719(.354 (.051) 1.952(.001 (.210) .366(.153) .540(.417) .153) .913 (.884(.128) .852(.370(.007(.417) -.271(.306) -.300(.503(.713(.359 (.417) .948(.417) -.681(.214) 1.070 (.360) .110 (.295(.978(.022 (.153) .913(.463(.847 (.104) 1.264) .266 (.153) 983(.219) .306) .135) 1.084) 1.417) -.940(.153) .841(.153) .219) .417) .979(.153) .426) .435) -.256(.098) 1.006(.417) -.435) -.279 (.195 (.219) -.157) .259) .210) .306) .147(.187) 1.064) 1.022 (.210) -.807 (.338 (.244(.362(.972(.153) .210) .640(.812(.567(.186(.994(.160 (.142(.138(.417) -.435) -.919 (.451(.317) 1.210) .210) -.911 (305) 1.327 (.435) -.088 (.153) -.159(.024 (.417) -.392(.497(.128 (.106(.062(.959 (.106 (.359 (.467(.053(.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 .567(.247) 1.100) .852(.113 (.130(.501(.223 (.417) .147(.435) .822 (.414(.120(.306) .265) 1.435) -.360) .435) -.962 (.366) 1.131(.306) -.209(.153) .306) .210) -.048(.423(.306) -.102) .306) -.052) 1.098) 1.306) -.324(.360) .435) -.478(.805 (.277(.153) -.052) 1.306) .469) 1.247) .153) .537(.986 (.024 (.236(.915(.443(.510) 1.11 (continued) KolmogorovSmirnov Z (Significance Level) Kurtosis Statistic (Standard Error) Skewness Statistic (Standard Error) Study 1C Internality Externality (Chance) Externality (Powerful Other) Hopelessness BIT Usurpation right-of-way Freeway Urgency Externally Focused Frustration Destination-activity Orientation AQ Physical Aggression Verbal Aggression Anger Hostility Indirect Aggression HAT Physical Aggression Degrerotion Revenge 1.106(.153) .138) 1.198(.417) -.306) -.270) 1.219) .210) .219) -.154) -.293 (.267) .153) .101) 1.003 (.297 (.321) 1.210) .629(.219) .210) .973(306) .276 (.375) 1.715(.051) .417) -.011 (.276(.156(.099) 1.533) .053(.057) 1.219) -.210) .962(.799(.
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.3 per cent being hospitalised.4. Between 10 and 13 per cent of all automobile drivers in Study 1 sought medical treatment at a hospital in the preceding year as a result of motor vehicle crashes. 124 .12. However. males were more than twice as likely to report involvement in two or three automobile crashes. column c).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. Male and female automobile drivers reported involvement in one crash with almost the same frequency. whether the accident had resulted in (1) no injuries or injuries insufficiently severe to seek medical attention (see Table 4. Table 4. (3) injuries requiring hospitalisation (see Table 4. with 44. column b). For motorcycle drivers. 1B and 1C selfreported that they had been involved in at least one motor vehicle crash over the preceding year (see Table 4. if so.12. column a).12. (2) injuries severe enough to require out-patient treatment at a medical clinic (see Table 4.13). injury occurrence was much higher.
involved in one crash Total Ethnicity No.14: Crash Occurrence Frequency.13: Crash Occurrence Frequency. male motorcycle drivers reported higher crash occurrence than female motorcycle drivers. involved in one crash Total Ethnicity No. involved in two crashes Total Ethnicity No. Table 4. Gender and Ethnicity in Study 2 (N=122) Motorcycle drivers Ethnicity No.Table 4. Gender and Ethnicity in Study 1 (N=855) Automobile Drivers Ethnicity No. involved in two crash Total Ethnicity No.14) Regardless of ethnic background. involved in three crashes Total Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Gender Male Female 20 8 25 13 16 1 61 22 17 4 15 4 11 0 43 8 10 1 6 1 3 0 19 2 Total 28 38 17 83 21 19 11 51 11 7 3 21 125 . involved in three crashes Total Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Gender Male Female 80 57 119 103 33 44 232 204 24 9 19 7 7 2 50 18 12 5 9 3 1 2 22 10 Total 137 222 77 436 33 26 9 68 17 12 3 32 More than half of the motorcycle drivers sampled in Study 2 reported that they had been involved in at least one motor vehicle crash over the preceding year (see Table 4.
freeway urgency. Table 4.05).05). it was not correlated with injury occurrence. and destination-activity orientation.5 4. BHS was not significantly correlated with verbal aggression (VER). I was significantly correlated with all variables except with VER and hostility. proximal and outcome variables within the sample of automobile drivers. However. proximal and outcome variables within the sample of automobile drivers. in Study 1B.15 shows means.5. Hopelessness (BHS) was the only independent variable that was not significantly correlated with crash occurrence and injury occurrence. Most of these correlations were significant (p<. standard deviations and relationships between distal.1 Distal and Proximal Variable Data Results of Study 1 Study 1A. crash occurrence and crash injury. Table 4. Most of these correlations were significant (p<. All these correlations were significant (p<. VER was not correlated with the total score for behaviour in traffic (BIT) nor with any of the BIT subscales: usurpation of right-of-way. All distal and proximal variables were positively correlated except I which was negatively corrected with other variables. Table 4. All distal and proximal variables were positively correlated except I which was negatively corrected with other variables. standard deviations and relationships between distal.05). proximal and outcome variables within the sample of automobile drivers.16 shows means. standard deviations and relationships between distal. Study 1B. Also.17 shows means. Although VER was significantly correlated with crash occurrence. Study 1C. 126 .4. All distal and proximal variables were positively correlated except internality (I) which was negatively corrected with other variables. 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. externally-focused frustration.
88 7.01 level (2-tailed) 127 .129* .3455 .201** .218** .08 2.05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .23 2.476 .435** .625** .78 .5 5.45 6.Table 4.376** .191** .749** . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 9.901** .036 .211** .533** .231** .442 1 -.306** .280** .57 4.391** -.516** 1 -.388** .434** .22 3.376** . 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.804** .396** .2691 6.04 26.662** 1 .942** 1 .97 43.52 34.513** .544** -.186** .44 4.340** .69 24.342** -.345** 1 -.027 1 .566** 1 -.147* -.152** .331** 1 * Correlation is significant at .D.58 .147* .247** .482** .239** .339** .316** .405** .76 3.553** -.209** 1 .471** .246** .64 7.416** 1 .381** .562** -.155** .818** 1 .00 165.15: Means.278** .96 19.371** .716** .202** .
3079 .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 .324** .103 -.84 7.414** .45 5 87.25 8 18.298** .540** .489**.491** .5 6 17.22 4.41 3.268** .276** .84 5.347** 1 -.225** .337** .103 -.003 .279** .4624 1 -.400** .921** .461** .338** .393** .D.5695 .071 .69 8.213** .440**.521** .369** .342** .542** .505** .051 .200** .178** .140* .401** .254** .153** .688**.173* .331** .463** .358** .430** .00 14 19.964** 1 .491** .97 4 4.408** .319** .366** .06 3 2.343** .509** .9 13 46.518** .4960 17 .82 7 13. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1B (n=302) Mean S.254** .294** 1 .380** .363** .236** .779** 1 -.587** 1 -.531** .602** 1 .089 -.162** .515** .028 -.150** .411** .496** .444** .816** .9 28.14 4.334** .310** .159 -.855** .418** .97 Outcome Variables2 16 .85 9.48 5.275** .514** .382** 1 -.380** .331** .278** 1 -.028 .271** .312** 1 -.05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .272** .55 9 21.445** .697** 1 .48 3.099 .481** .213** .240** .335** .86 6.176* .355** .01 level (2-tailed) 128 .372** .407** 1 -.403** .550** .9 12 71.376** .91 15 27.172** .448** .669** 1 -.172** .067 -.157** .847** .Table 4.443** .555** .53 19.586** .763** .43 12.438** 1 .254** .65 Proximal Variables1 11 170.013 1 .523** .434** .147** . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Distal Variables1 1 9.341** .386** .343** .148* .520** .50 5.167** .452** .66 3.355** .195** .516** .462** .353** .584** -.816** .213** .039 .16: Means.56 2 4.731** .762** .378** .842** 1 .286* .355** .60 10 16.
448** .103** .308** .402** .148** .051 .251** .296** .313** .166** .311** .296** .202** .506** .167** .67 7.216** .97 -.69 -.183** .235** .082 .192** .451** .119* 1 21 .095 .05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .254** .343** .424** 1 12 18.428** .057 .395** 1 11 65.412** .377** .00 -.383** .278** .139** .37 6.016 .268**.186** .183** .294** .183** .323** .151* .508** .189** .304** .278** .7 -.246** .392** .192**.209** .7 28.191** .465** .856** 1 17 43.252** .80 17.261** .320** .03 5.193**.230** .364**.747** .185** .079 1 Outcome Variables2 20 .390** .306** .324** .545** .42 3.296** .286** .343** .483** .150* .292** .230 .229** .305** .641** 1 4 4.404** .306** .131* .181** .501 .219** .281** .615** .235** .64 -.356** .31 -.277** .191** 1 3 .221** .109 .345** .05 -.141* .17: Means.385** .422** 1 9 22.166** .199** .530** 1 Note: (1) Internality (2) Externality-Chance (3) Externality-Powerful-Other (4) Hopelessness (5) Total Aggression (6) Physical Aggression (7) Verbal Aggression (8) Anger (9) Hostility (10) Indirect Aggression (11) Hostile Automatic Thoughts (12) HAT-Physical Aggression (13) HAT-Derogation of others (14) HAT-Revenge (15) Behaviour in Traffic (16) Usurpation of right-of-way (17) Freeway Urgency (18) Externally-Focused Frustration (19) Destination-activity Orientation (20) Crash Occurrence (21) Injury Occurrence * Correlation is significant at .423** .446** .224** .307**.033 .31 3.91 -.481** .52 7.106 .379** .38 5.476** .298** .174** .265** 1 19 25.254** .9 -.178** .81 -.895** 1 13 26.456** .210** .227** .151* .270** .354** 1 5 88.01 level (2-tailed) S 129 .9 -.314** .370** .271** .069 .199**.196** .212** .137* .58 9.413** .226** .549** 1 Proximal Variables1 15 161.202** .230** .401** .49 6.288** .98 4.11 12.224**.203** .36 -.258** .245** .531** 1 10 16.367** .387** .-181** .378** .130** .275** .189** .221** .78 8.210**.342** .349** 1 16 67.302** .218** .270** .516 .366** .338** .075 .263** .484** .03 -.110 .17 -.228** .038 .264** .275** .150* .518** .81 5.259** .454** .340** .526** .228** .85 19.502** .749** .277**.804** .70 3.70 8.081 .355** .259** .291** .368** .222** .725** .277** 1 8 19.592** .434** .109 .241** .534** 1 18 19.101**. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Distal Variables1 1 10.838** .D. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1C (n=252) Mean S.310** .745** 1 7 13.241** .Table 4.862** .17 -.89 5.86 -.8 -.095 .735** .281** .292** .158** .402** .70 1 2 4.18 -.373** .530** .293** .357** .162**.348** 1 6 16.304** .565** .364** .003 .250** .588** 1 14 20.076 .422 -.120 .
However.5. it was not correlated with crash occurrence or with crash injury. Hostility (HOS) was significantly correlated with all other variables except with crash occurrence and crash injury. The BIT subscale measuring destinationactivity orientation was significantly correlated to crash occurrence but not to injury occurrence. crash occurrence and injury occurrence.2 Results of Study 2 Table 4. externally-focused frustration.BHS was significantly correlated to the total BIT score and to BIT subscales: usurpation of right-of-way. and destination-activity orientation. All distal and proximal variables were positively correlated except internality (I) which was negatively corrected with the BIT total score. 130 . but it was not correlated with crash occurrence or injury occurrence. 4. proximal and outcome variables within the sample of motorcycle drivers in Study 2. BHS was significantly correlated with total BIT score and with all of the BIT subscales. Similar to observed results in study 1A. standard deviations and relationships between distal. 1B and 1C.18 shows means. Of these negative the BIT subscales measuring freeway urgency and externally-focused frustration were significant. all BIT subscales. freeway urgency.
325** .4683 .630** .232** .139 .212* .48 5.043 .314** .876** .76 48.18: Means.179 7.941** 1 .291** .418** . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 3.251** .30 .264** .201* .317** .Table 4.485 11.200* -.025 -. 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.356** .122 7.614** .150 -.182* -.50 73.323 23.D.165 .413** .917 3.6803 .06 20.795** 1 * Correlation is significant at .880 .081 8.240** .383** .5738 8.219** .313** 1 .562** 1 .376** .14 27.428** .535** 1 .374** .66 1.367** .167 .415** .028 1 .758** 1 .371** -.05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .01 level (2-tailed) 131 .413** 1 .259** .580** 1 .334** .750** .072 .409** .226** .55 175.111 -.233** .183* 1 .66 5.349** .290** .035 3.621 3.4966 1 .269** .500** .192* -.
19. AQ subscales were significantly and positively correlated with each other. Differing from Studies 1A. neither an observed weak positive correlation between I and C.5. proximal and outcome variables within the sample of taxicab drivers in Study 3. In general. nor a weak negative correlation between I and P achieved significance. However. As indicated in Table 4. verbal aggression (VER) and anger (ANG) were significantly correlated only with crash occurrence. 1C and 2. In this study. but remaining I correlations with BIT and AQ subscales did not achieve significance. 1B. proximal or outcome variables in Study 3 were weaker than those observed in Studies 1 and 2. standard deviations and relationships between distal. BIT total scores had a significant positive correlation with crash occurrence but not with injury occurrence.4.3 Results of Study 3 Table 4. correlations between I and distal. significant negative correlations were observed between the internality (I) variable and with physical aggression (PHY) subscale scores on the AQ and with BIT total scores. While physical aggression (PHY) and hostility (HOS) were significantly correlated with crash occurrence and injury occurrence. Externality-chance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P) scores were significantly and positively correlated with crash occurrence and injury occurrence.19 shows means. 132 .
528** 1 .204* .229** .271** .816** .114 .10 1.150** .225** .117 .117 .82 11.246** .54 11.521** .193* -.173* .17 20.646** .060 .604** .643** .149 .01 level (2-tailed) 133 .218* .245** .32 7.74 15.292** .023 .156 .373** .31 8.275** .018 -.88 1 .443** 1 .257** .12 4.235** .061 .807** .234** .197* .171 .152 .091 -.853** .636** .658** .289** 1 .418** .028 .240** .121 .072 -.151 -.622** .32 3. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 3 (n=133) Mean S.19: Means.213** .08 15.3 6.401** -.255** .235** .092** . 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 12.338** 1 .576** .025 -.070 -.117 .067 .240** .194* 1 .091 .148* .013 .864** 1 .200* .261** .42 66.0301 .15 32.032 1 .060 -.05 3.254** -.172** .11 15.109 -.222* .872** .371** .167** .147** .020 .2000 .43 8.103 .D.45 19.121 .51 3.07 8.071 .030 .180** .153** 1 .286* 1 .82 5.276** .106 .165 .263** .99 10.048 .166 .128 .13 3.4 5.618** 1 .156 .378** 1 .178** .Table 4.023 -.749** .182* -.05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .120 .236** .177 1 .141 .021 1 * Correlation is significant at .161 -.35 11.040 .268** .095 .072 .054 .324** .213** .116 .404 .454** .194* .561** 1 .149 .721** .65 75.06 2.84 2.039 .112 -.588** 1 .
120.01). These results supported H1. freeway urgency. These results supported H1.01 B=. p<. p<.01 B=.01 Study 1B B=. p<. For the destination-activity factor. p<. p<.01 Study 1C B=. but not destination-activity orientation.01 B=. p<.080.20). When the relationships between the four component factors of the BIT scale and the likelihood of a crash outcome were tested. Study 1B: B=. p<.063. 4.01 B=.01 Study 3 B=.180.172.090.238. p<. analyses were conducted to test whether BIT scores influenced crash occurrence.01 B=. p<. p<.6 Hypothesis Testing This section reports the results of analyses to test the hypotheses formulated in chapter 3 (see Table 3.1. p<.01 and Study 3: B=. p<.1.034.04.3 inclusive.1.1 through H1.01 134 .041. p<. p<.01 B=.125.4 was not supported.01 B=.01 B=.1 Hypothesis 1: Behaviour in Traffic Influences Motor Vehicle Crash Outcomes First.102. Study 1C: B=. were significantly related to crash occurrence (see Table 4.01 B=.01 B=.202. results of logistic regression analyses indicated that usurpation of right-of way. p<.048.088 p<. p<.6.063.278.146.20: 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<.01 B=.1).01.117. that behaviour in traffic influences crash occurrence.01.135.095.01. p<. Study 2: B=. H1.095.01 Not Significant Study 2 B=.4. p<.01 B=.1. p<.229. and externally-focused frustration. p<. p<.01 B=.315. Table 4. 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=.01 B=. While controlling driver experience and driving frequency.
2.165. p<. p<.054.095. respectively).01 B=.01 B=.120.21).01 B=. 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 Study 3 Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant 4.01 B=. p<. p<. Table 4. 135 . p<.01 and Study 2: B=.Behaviour in traffic also influenced injury occurrence in all studies except Study 3. Study 1C: B=.24.23 and Table 4.01.01 B=. p<.01 B=.01 Study 1C B=. p<.091.064. p<.21: Results of Logistic Regression Analyses Showing the Effects of BIT Component Factors on Injury Occurrence Study 1A Usurpation of Right-of Way Freeway Urgency Externally-focused Frustration Destination-activity Orientation B=. p<.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. When the relationships between the likelihood of injury occurrence and the four component factors of the BIT scale were tested.033 p<. that behaviour in traffic would influence injury occurrence.01 B=.038. freeway urgency. Table 4.087.019.074.01.059.035. p<.158. p<.035. p<.118. p<.01 B=. These results supported H1.01). p<. 1B and 1C (see Table 4. p<.075 p<.01 B=.22.6.01 B=.01 B=. p<. When driver experience and travel frequency were controlled. externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation were significantly related to traffic crash injury in all studies except Study 3 (See Table 4.05 Study 1B B=. logistic regression analyses indicated that usurpation of right-of way.01 Not Significant Study 2 B=.069. Study 1B: B=. p<.140.
77 165.32 147.64 26.074* 110 81 37 45 29 181.35 33.56 175.35 4.32 28.92 157.82 33.06 19.184** 136 .16 3.77 8.82 168.88 28.29 21. N M SD F 221 60 19 2 168.01 N M SD F 186 88 18 9 161.48 171.98 171.30 22. * p<.68 26.64 27.15 161.600** Table 4.35 155.50 28.01.98 33.41 167.22: 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<.03 25.43 20.89 21.05.25 25.23: 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<.44 178.Table 4.35 24.31 161.73 170.52 25.25 5.320** 64 110 41 17 69 173.60 185.
motorcycle drivers’ experience was not significantly related to total BIT scores (see Table 4. 137 .345* 67 69 33 45 38 170. In Study 2.61 165.52 3.01. On the other hand.53 17. * p<.14 15.24: 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<.81 167. about once every two weeks (p<. and those who almost never travelled (p<.05.05). the effect of travel frequency on total BIT score was significant.73 24.12 161.00 16.77 16.29 15. N M SD F 187 46 16 3 159. Drivers who travelled every day had significantly higher total BIT scores when compared to those who travelled several times a week (p<.06 160.05). Drivers who travelled everyday had significantly higher total BIT scores when compared to those who almost never travelled (p<. drivers with 3 years of licensed driving experience had significantly lower total BIT scores when compared with drivers that had 3 years experience but less than 5 years of licensed driving experience (p<.25).01).00 14. Drivers who travelled about once or twice a week had significantly higher total BIT when compared to those who almost never travelled (p<.06 8.73 157. In Study 1B. In Study 1C.05).01).01).060** In Study 1A.39 19.88 167.01).01 14.Table 4. post hoc analyses indicated that drivers with 3 years or less of licensed driving experience had significantly lower total BIT scores when compared with drivers that had 3 years experience but less than 5 years of licensed driving experience (p<.05) and about once every two weeks (p<.12 154.01). drivers who travelled everyday had significantly higher total BIT scores when compared to those who travelled several times a week (p<.
It was found that the driver experience was statistically related to total BIT score (see Table 4.33 78. Not significant N M SD F 77 31 10 4 174.82 162.09 15.920 (N.27 14. Table 4.74 77.50 184.26 10.80 22. that drivers’ demographic characteristics would significantly influence total BIT scores was supported in studies of automobile drivers.47 5.Table 4. In other words. * p<.316 1.528** In Study 3.S) Therefore.58 188. N.60 72.64 24.62 10.37 9. the direction of the difference was opposite to what had 138 .S) 52 32 7 17 14 182.81 22.81 175.01. Not significant N M SD F 3 16 23 91 82.05.31 2. However.859 11. it is concluded that Hypothesis 2.437 (N.381 10. 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.71 168.S. However.56 3.55 10. * p<.63 1.68 20.52 172. both driver experience and taxicab experience were tested.65 73. N. taxicab driver experience was not statistically related to total BIT score.55 73.05.S.94 20.50 24.89 20.01.31 78.753* 38 48 27 20 77.26).26: The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores in Study 3 (N=133) Variable Driver Experience 5 years or less >5 years but < 10 years 10 to 15 years More than 15 years Taxicab Driving Experience 5 years or less >5 years but < 10 years 10 to 15 years More than 15 years Note: ** p<.81 161.25: 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<.97 8.
139 . only H2. For ethnicity. 1B. ethnicity and age – were investigated.1 was confirmed.6. Contrary to the two sub-hypotheses.1 and H2. the direction of the effect was consistent with the hypothesised relationship between driver experience and total BIT score. driver experience and travel frequency actually increased total BIT scores. though.2 was supported in that travel frequency significantly influenced total BIT score but driver experience had no statistically significant effect. in that driver experience significantly influenced total BIT score but taxicab experience had no statistically significant effect.3 Hypothesis 3: Demographic Variables Influence Behaviour in Traffic The direct effects on total BIT scores of three demographic variables – gender. the longer the taxicab operator had been driving. 1C and 2 differed between different ethnic groups (see Table 4. Hypothesis 2 was partially supported in the study of motorcycle drivers.been predicted by H2. 1C and 2. In this case. Hypothesis 2 was partially supported in the study of taxicab drivers. the lower was the total BIT score. In Study 2. indicated no significant differences in mean total BIT scores.2. In Studies 1A. only H2. ANOVA results for age. Again. t-tests indicated that mean total BIT scores differed significantly between male and female participants. the observed effect was opposite to what had been predicted by H2. ANOVA indicated that mean total BIT scores in Studies 1A. Contrary to the subhypothesis. however. where male automobile and motorcycle drivers scored significantly higher than female drivers. 1B. travel frequency actually increased total BIT scores. In Study 3. 4.2.27).
p<. Study 1B t=2. so the null hypothesis could not be rejected and H3.62. N. Malaysian-Indian taxicab drivers had significantly lower total BIT scores than either Malaysian-Chinese taxicab drivers (p<.2 were confirmed.66. In Study 1B. p<.56.53. In Study 3. 4.01 F=1.6. results showed that gender had no influence on the three dimensions of locus of control: Internality (I). Study 2 t=3. Study 1C t=3.01 F=1.05. p<. 1C and Study 2.68.9. N.2 was confirmed.05). In all studies.05. p<. p<. male 140 .05 F=4. H3.44. post hoc analyses indicated that MalaysianChinese automobile drivers and motorcyclists scored significantly lower total BIT scores than either Malaysian-Indian or Malay drivers (p<.01). in that gender and ethnicity significantly influenced total BIT scores.81.98.00.01 F=. age had no statistically significant direct effect on total BIT scores. Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers scored significantly higher total BIT scores than Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers (p<. p<. N.S.05). H3. and Externality-Powerful-Others (P).562. For taxicab drivers studied in Study 3. In Study 1B.27: Effects of Demographic Factors on total BIT Scores Study 1A Gender Ethnicity Age t=2. Therefore. Note: Not significant In Study 1A. In Study 1A and Study 2. N. it was found that female automobile drivers scored significantly higher levels on the I dimension when compared to male automobile drivers.S. p<.01 F=9.05 F=11.01 F=2.S Study 3 Not Applicable F=3.S.12. In Study 1C. t(250) = 2.Table 4. N.01 F=19.01 F=8.99.74. however.3 was not supported. p<. it is concluded that Hypothesis 3 was partially supported in studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers. Externality-Chance (C). p<.1 and H3. p<.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. in that ethnicity significantly influenced total BIT scores.S.
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.01. 299) = 3.941. F(2. t(299) = 2. t(120) = 2.01). Malaysian-Indian drivers had significantly higher scores on the C dimension than did Malay drivers (p<. p<. In Study 2.05 and F(2. all ethnic groups had significantly different mean I. E and P scores.041.527. In Study 1C. ethnic group differences were significant only with respect to mean C and P subscale scores.05. F(2. 298) = 6. p<. ethnic group differences were significant only with respect to I subscale scores.05 and p<.05 respectively.462. 298) = 3.05). F(2. p<.01 respectively). In Study 1B. Consistent with findings in Study 1A. 249) = 3. 298) = 3.05.05 and F(2. 119) = 5. p<. p<. F(2.370.476. For Studies 1A.566. Post hoc analyses showed that Malaysian-Indian motorcycle drivers scored significantly lower than all other ethnicity groups on the I dimension (p<. 299) = 5. p<. ethnic group differences were significant only with respect to P subscale scores.05 respectively. Post hoc analyses indicated that Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers had significantly lower I scores than did either Malaysian-Chinese or Malay drivers (p<. F(2. 1B. post hoc analyses showed that Malaysian-Indian drivers scored significantly higher on the C and P dimensions than did Malaysian-Chinese drivers (p<.503.05) and Malaysian-Indian drivers scored significantly higher on the P dimension than did drivers in all other ethnic groups (p<.01 respectively. 141 .490. p<. p<. 2 and 3 the age variable had no significant direct effects on any of the three dimensions of locus of control.01). 1C.05). In Study 1A.
3. ethnicity and age on hopelessness were investigated. ANOVA results found no significant differences in mean BHS scores between ethnic groups or different age groups among automobile drivers in Studies 1A. H4. H5. externality-chance and externality-powerfulothers. Female motorcycle drivers scored significantly lower than male motorcycle drivers. it was found that the gender and ethnicity of motorcycle drivers did have a significant direct effect on hopelessness. that gender and ethnicity influence hopelessness. that ethnicity significantly influenced internality. Therefore. H4. In Study 1.3. were supported. Age was found to have no influence on BHS scores with the sample of motorcycle drivers in Study 2. However. based on the results of t-tests and ANOVA. so H4.2 and H4. H4.079.1. externality-chance and externality-powerful-others.Therefore.3 was supported. 4.01).3 were supported. it was observed that age had no significant effect on any of internality. was not supported in either Study 1 or Study 2. H5.1.3 were not supported.1 and H5. In addition. 1B or 1C. that age influences hopelessness.1. in that gender was observed to significantly influence the externalitypowerful-others scores. Hypothesis 5 was partially supported in Study 2 with the sample of motorcycle drivers. Malay motorcycle drivers had a significantly higher BHS score when compared to Malaysian-Chinese motorcycle drivers (p<. In Studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers.3.2. Hypothesis 5 was not supported with respect to automobile drivers in Study 1. Hypothesis 4 was partially supported in studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers.6. 1B and 1C found no significant differences in mean scores of hopelessness (BHS) between male and female automobile drivers.05. 142 .5 Hypothesis 5: Demographic Variables Influence Hopelessness The direct effects of gender. H4.2 and H4.2.2. p<.2. in Study 2. t(120) = 2.3. Independent sample t-tests on data from Studies 1A.
6.371.186. was not supported.01 and B = .01.2 and H6. p<. were supported.354.01 and B = . 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 4.239.01) but C and P had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = .28).4.341. In Study 2. p<.342.1. with the sample of motorcycle drivers. Therefore.7 Hypothesis 7: Hopelessness Influences Behaviour in Traffic In studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers. p<.306.6 Hypothesis 6: Locus of Control Influences Hopelessness In Study 1A. Hypothesis 6 was partially supported in Study 2. no significant effects were observed between I and BHS scores in the sample of motorcycle drivers.2 and H6.3. internality (I) had a significant negative effect on hopelessness (BHS) (B = -. H6. p<.01) but externality-chance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P) had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = . respectively). that the three locus of control dimensions influence hopelessness. I was found to have a significant negative effect on BHS scores (B = -. respectively). H6. 143 .1. p<. I had a significant negative effect on BHS scores (B = -.01 respectively). p<.01.290. p<.01 and B = . that internality would influence hopelessness.3. p<. that externality-chance and externality-powerful-others would influence hopelessness.254. p<. with higher levels of internality related to lower levels of hopelessness and higher levels of both externality dimensions associated with higher hopelessness.01. were supported. In Study 1C. respectively). p<. it is concluded that Hypothesis 6 was supported in studies of automobile drivers.312. 4.6. In Study 1B.254. H6.01) but C and P had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = .01 and (B = . H6. p<. but C and P had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = .
01 B=. externally-focused frustration (B = .01).349.05). the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = . p<.4. H7. p<.232.05 B=.01 B=.05) and destination-activity orientation (B = . p<.05) but not for freeway urgency.01) and destination-activity orientation (B = . 1C and 2. H7. p<. p<.05 B=. p<.01 B=. externally-focused frustration (B = . p<. p<. B=.05). p<. p<. externallyfocused frustration and destination-activity were supported in both Studies 1 and 2.278.S.232. p<. it was observed that the higher the hopelessness scores. p<. In Study 2. Therefore.01 B=. the higher the hopelessness scores. the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = .157. p<.275.151. that hopelessness would have a significant positive influence on total BIT scores. was supported in Studies 1A. 144 . freeway urgency (B =. p<.01). p<.317.141.280.3 and H7. p<.141. In Study 1B. N.01 B=. p<.01). p<.05) and destinationactivity orientation (B = .01 Study 1B B=. that hopelessness would have a significant positive direct effect on usurpation of right-of-way.05 Study 1C B=. externally-focused frustration (B = .01 B=. p<. it is concluded that Hypothesis 7.01 B=.151.153. p<. p<.05 Study 2 B=.05). p<.Table 4.254. the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = .247.415.280.151.01 B=. externally-focused frustration (B = .191.153.200. p<.157. p<. it was observed that the higher the hopelessness (BHS) scores.349. p<.275.247.01). freeway urgency (B = .05 In Study 1A.418. p<. freeway urgency (B = .01). the higher the hopelessness scores. H7. that hopelessness would have a significant positive effect on freeway urgency was not supported in Study 1B.01 B=.01 B=.01 B=.254. In Study 1C.099.151.287. p<. meaning that H7 was only partially supported for that study. p<.01 B=.01 B=. p<. p<.317. with both automobile and motorcycle drivers.01).287.1.415.2.28: 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=. p<. p<. p<. p<.191.288. the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = .01).01) and destination-activity orientation (B = .
p<.S.05 B=.336.208.01 B=. p<. Therefore.315.01 B=.01 B=. that internality and externality-chance would influence total BIT scores were supported.178. With regard to H8. p<. p<. With regard to H8. results indicated that the higher were subscale scores for P. H8. N.01 B=.29: Direct Effects of Locus of Control on Total BIT Scores Study 1A I C P Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 Study 3 B=-. but not H8.388. B=. H8. where only H8.1.3. it is concluded that Hypothesis 8 was supported for automobile drivers in Study 1.339.01 B=. H8. Results of multiple regression analyses (in studies of car. Hypothesis 8 was partially supported for taxicab drivers in Study 3. 145 . p<.6. p<.01 B=-.077. p<. p<. N.239.625. the higher were mean total BIT scores of automobile and motorcycle drivers in Studies 1 and 2. the lower were mean total BIT scores.4.044. provided support for hypothesis H8. B=. N.3.01 B=.2 and H8.1 and H8.01 B=-. motorcycle and taxicab drivers).753. that locus of control would influence total BIT scores were supported in Study 1. the higher were mean total BIT scores automobile drivers in Study 1. results indicated that the higher were subscale scores for C.29).297.3 that externality-powerful-others would influence total BIT scores. that the higher the subscale score for I. but not of the sample of taxicab drivers in Study 3.1.168. p<.8 Hypothesis 8: Locus of Control Influences Behaviour in Traffic It was hypothesised that internality (I) would have a negative influence on total BIT scores while both externality-chance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P) would have a positive influence on total BIT scores. p<.2.S. p<.01 B=.01 B=-.1.229.01 B=-. Table 4. p<.S. with internality observed to exert a positive effect on BIT and the two externality dimensions to exert negative effects.2. Hypothesis 8 was partially supported for motorcycle drivers in Study 2. but not of the motorcycle and taxicab drivers in Studies 2 and 3 (See Table 4.006. that internality would negatively influence total BIT scores was supported.
272. =8. 146 . 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.710. p<. Scores for the three locus of control dimensions – internality.05.1: Interaction Effects between Ethnicity and Internality on BIT In Study 1C.01 (see Figure 4. results revealed that Malay automobile drivers with high internal control had significantly lower scores on BIT subscales measuring usurpation of right-of-way. freeway urgency and externally-focused frustration than did Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers with high internal control. p<.704.Additional analysis: Interaction of ethnicity and locus of control on BIT.909. F=4. Further.01 respectively (see Figure 4. In Study 1C.1). Mean Score on Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) 175 Ethnicty Malay MalaysianChinese 170 MalaysianIndian 165 160 155 150 low high Internality Figure 4. F=4.1). p<. 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. 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. p<.01 (see Figure 4.01 and F=8. p<. F=7.2).581.
033. 1B and 1C. the results of hierarchical regression indicated that the R2 value changed after the internality x hopelessness interaction was added in the regression model (R2=.3). B = . in Study 2. Kurtosis=-.05.327.00 64.2: Interaction Effect between Ethnicity and Externality-Chance on Usurpation of Right-of Way 4.282. However. 147 . This means that motorcycle drivers with high internality scores and high hopelessness scores tended to have higher total BIT scores when compared to motorcycle drivers with high internality scores but low hopelessness scores (see Figure 4.00 62.05. hopelessness did not moderate the relationship between locus of control and BIT.9 Hypothesis 9: Hopelessness Moderates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Behaviour in Traffic For Studies 1A. multiple regression showed mixed results. Hopelessness moderated the relationship between internality and the total BIT score and between externality-chance and to total BIT score.034.00 MalaysianIndian 70.444. First.Mean Score on Usurpation of Right-of Way Ethnicty 74.6. p<.00 68.537) and the moderator (hopelessness) showed a significant result. R2=. F=4. Residuals Normality: Skewness=.00 Malay MalaysianChinese 72.00 66.00 low high Externality (Chance) Figure 4. p<.
01. p<.4). Kurtosis=-. Effect for drivers with high hopelessness score BIT Level Effect for drivers with low hopelessness score Externality (Chance) Figure 4. p<.167. B = . and the moderator (hopelessness) showed a significant result.463.070.4: Moderating Effect of BHS on the Externality (Chance) -BIT Relationship 148 . F=18. 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 4.01. R2=. Residuals Normality: Skewness=.BIT Level Effect for drivers with high hopelessness score Effect for drivers with low hopelessness score Internality Figure 4.3: Moderating Effect of BHS on the Internality-BIT Relationship The R2 value also changed after the externality-chance x hopelessness interaction was added in the regression model (R2=.608.459.371).
Mean total AQ scores differed significantly between male and female participants in Studies 1B and 1C. Hopelessness did not moderate the locus of control-BIT relation for automobile drivers.210.05 respectively.603.298. ethnicity and age exerted direct effects on drivers’ Aggression Questionnaire (AQ) scores. that hopelessness would moderate the relationship between externalitychance and total BIT scores.820. p<.690. 4.6. p<. and t(250) = 2. However. p<.1. p<.2. p<.S t=2. that hopelessness would moderate the relationship between internality and total BIT scores. In Study 1B and Study 3. p<.01 t=2. mean total AQ scores differed significantly between ethnic groups. N.01 (see table 4.01. male automobile drivers had significantly higher total AQ scores than did female automobile drivers.S.30).521. Table 4.Therefore. t= .01 The relationship between ethnic background and aggression was tested for automobile drivers in Studies 1B. N. ANOVA revealed no significant differences between ethnic groups in mean total AQ scores. p<. Hypothesis 9 was partially supported in Study 2.10 Hypothesis 10: Demographic Factors Influence Aggression Analyses tested whether gender.S t=1.01 t=4.603. 249) = 5. p<.05 Study 1C t=2. 1C and 3. the H9.05 t=4. F(2. verbal aggression and indirect aggression (see Table 4. and H9. p<.S t=2.05 t=.480.30: 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=2.187. In both studies.690. N. p<. results indicated that male automobile drivers scored significantly higher than female drivers on measures of physical aggression.032.780. it is concluded that Hypothesis 9 was not supported in Study 1. t(300) = 2. were supported.677.31). When mean subscale scores for the five AQ component factors were tested.467. p<. however.01 t=-. N.164. Post hoc analysis showed that Malaysian-Chinese 149 .01 t=2. With motorcycle drivers. In Study 1C.
57. In Study 1B. Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers had significantly lower IND scores than drivers from other ethnic groups (p<. p<. F=1. p<.561.S.01 F=.S.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. F=2. F=1. N.S. F=2.077.564.S.521.041. When AQ subscale scores were tested for Study 1B and Study 1C.S.01). N. N. p<. F(2. N. F(2.763.01. 299) = 4.432. 299) = 5. mixed results were found. Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers had significantly lower IND scores than drivers from other ethnic groups (p<. 249) = 10.398.021. N. N. ANOVA revealed no significant differences between ethnic groups in mean scores in any of the AQ subscale scores.182.567. F(2. F=2.01).S. N.05 Study 1C F=5.S F=10.155. Malaysian-Chinese and Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers were significantly different.S. F=4. N. Malaysian-Chinese and Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers were also significantly different. p<. Similar to the findings in Study 1B.S.629. F=1.automobile drivers in Study 1C had significantly lower total AQ scores than did Malay or Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers (p<. N. N.S.526.S.01 Study 3 F=1. F=1. p<.632. N. N. Table 4. F=2. F=1. In Study 3. The mean indirect aggression (IND) scores of Malay.432. mean IND scores of Malay. 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.S. 150 .01). N. In Study 1C. F=5. Malay automobile drivers scored significantly higher VER scores than drivers from other ethnic groups (p<.01 F=2. N.S.904. the mean verbal aggression (VER) scores of Malay.804. Malaysian-Chinese and Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers were significantly different.041.422. F=.01.01). p<.05. p<.
freeway urgency.2. were all supported. in studies of both automobile drivers and taxicab drivers.1. that aggression would have a direct positive effect on externally-focused frustration and on destination-activity orientation.6. respectively.3 and H11. VER and IND) of five component factors among automobile drivers sampled in both Studies 1B and 1C. 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.2 (that ethnicity would influence aggression level) was supported only in Study 1C and only with respect to total AQ. externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation. The higher the total aggression scores. H10.1 (that gender would influence aggression) was supported with respect to measures of total aggression and to the same three (PHY. freeway urgency.3 (that age would negatively influence aggression) was not supported. In Studies 1B and 1C. This means that when taxicab drivers’ aggression scores were higher.3 and H11. however. it is concluded that Hypothesis 10 was partially supported.29). VER and IND subscale scores. H11. were supported. H11. total BIT scores and scores on usurpation of right-of way and freeway urgency subscales were higher. 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. it is concluded that Hypothesis 11.4. the higher were automobile drivers’ total BIT scores and scores on the four components.32). was supported.11 Hypothesis 11: Aggression Influences Behaviour in Traffic In Study 1B and Study 1C. externally-focused frustration. that aggression would have a direct positive effect on the usurpation of right-of way. 4.4. only H11. However. In Study 3. Therefore. 151 . with regard to the taxicab drivers sampled in Study 3. H10. and destination-activity orientation (see Table 4. that aggression would have a positive influence on total BIT scores. H10. H11.Therefore.
01 B=. Study 2 and Study 3. respectively.S. no interaction effects were found in all studies – Study 1A. p<. Similarly. respectively.S.01 B=. N.01.229. B = .01 B=. p<.263.01. B = .370. 1C. B=. their total BIT scores tend to be higher. When the interaction effect of ethnicity and hopelessness was tested on the BIT and its four component factors. p<. p<. Results of regression analyses also showed that anger (ANG) had a significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1B and Study 1C. p<.01 B=.Table 4. B = . N. p<. This implies that when automobile drivers have higher levels of ANG and IND.01 and B = . Study 1C and Study 3.216.370. B = .01 B=. p<.881. 1B.438. B = . p<.01 respectively.01.235.491.01 Study 1C B=.048.263. Malay automobile drivers with high VER scores tended to score 152 . Linear regression analyses indicated that physical aggression (PHY) had a significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1B. and B = . hostility (HOS) was found to have a significant positive influence on BIT in Study 1B. it was found that there was an interaction effect between ethnicity and verbal aggression (VER) on freeway urgency. p<. and B = . p<.183.204. p<. p<.01 B=.01.540.483. With both automobile and taxicab drivers.01 Study 3 B=.324. p<. p<.461.505. p<. p<. but not in Study 3.387.121.01 B=. However.385. p<.05 (see Figure 4. 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. Additional analysis: Interaction effects of ethnicity and aggression on BIT. p<.01.01 B=.5). p<.428. p<.01 and B = . the higher the levels of PHY and HOS. indirect aggression (IND) was also found to have significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1B and Study 1C.32: Effect of Aggression on Total BIT Scores and on BIT Component Factors Study 1B B=. B = .01 respectively. Verbal aggression (VER) was found to have no significant influence on total BIT scores. p<. Also. p<. p<. F=3.01 B=.01.565.545. but that this does not apply to taxi drivers.05 B=.380. p<. Study 1C and Study 3.520. the higher were total BIT scores. but not in Study 3.05 B=.
for Study 1B.516. p<.6. R2=.961. respectively. p<. aggressive drivers with low internal locus of control would 153 .00 42.131.00 Low High Verbal Aggression Figure 4. p<.12. Kurtosis=-.05.01.01. 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. In other words.significantly higher on freeway urgency than did Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers with high VER scores.645.12 Hypothesis 12: Locus of Control Moderates the Relationship between Aggression and Behaviour in Traffic 4.00 Malay ChineseMalaysian 50. F=81. Residuals Normality: Skewness=. p<. p<.5: Interaction of Ethnicity and Verbal Aggression on Freeway Urgency 4.6.00 46. Study 1C and Study 3. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-.271.316. The moderating effect of I was significant.929.100. and B=-.297. F=100. Kurtosis=-.362.01.172.076.00 IndianMalaysian 48.1 Internality as a Moderator Hierarchical regression analyses revealed that internality (I) moderated the relationship between aggression and total BIT score. R2=.01. and R2 values changed after the I x AQ interaction was added in the regression models (R2=. Mean Score on Freeway Urgency Ethnicty 52. B=-.00 44. B=-. R2=.003.
have higher BIT scores compared to drivers with high internal locus of control (see figure 4.01. Residuals Normality: Skewness= -.01. p<.606.12.01 respectively.088. and the moderating effects of C and P were 154 .015.360. F=91. Kurtosis=-. In Study 1B. 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=. Kurtosis=-. respectively). R2=. F=78. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-. Kurtosis=. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-463. p<.431.897. respectively).109.297. and the moderating effects of C and P were significant.6). This applied to both automobile drivers and taxicab drivers.01 and B = . R2=.01. R2=.794. Kurtosis=.297.015. F=94. R2 values changed after both the C x AQ and P x AQ interactions were added in the respective regression models (R2=.01.271. Effect for aggressive drivers with low internality score BIT Level Effect for aggressive drivers with high internality score Aggression Level Figure 4. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-. the hierarchical regression revealed that externalitychance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P) moderated the relationship between aggression and total BIT score.271. p<.117.757.369. p<.387. B = . Consistent with the findings from Study 1B. p<. R2=.2 Externality-chance and Externality-powerful-others as Moderators In Study 1B and Study 1C. p<.507.069. R2=. F=71.694.6: Moderating Effect of Internality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship 4. R2=.704.6.
R2 values did not change after either the C x AQ or P x AQ interactions were added in the regression models.1. and H12.7).01 and B = .302. 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. it is concluded that the Hypothesis 12 was supported in Studies 1B and 1C. and the moderation effect was not significant. B = .3.significant.2.01 respectively. that the internality. Effect for aggressive drivers with high externality scores BIT Level Effect for aggressive drivers with low externality scores Aggression Level Figure 4. 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. with the samples of automobile drivers study for student car drivers. H12.7: Moderating Effects of Externality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship However. p<.332. externality-chance and externality-powerful-others 155 . Therefore. H12. p<. hierarchical regression results showed that neither C nor P moderated the relationship between aggression and total BIT scores for taxicab drivers in Study 3.
01). p<. 249) = 5.01 but not on about the derogation of others. There were also significant differences between ethnic groups on subscale scores measuring statements about physical aggression F(2.314.01 and revenge: t(249) = 3.343.05. Chinese-Malaysian automobile drivers had significantly lower scores than IndianMalaysian automobile drivers (p<. ANOVA results showed that ethnic groups differed significantly with respect to mean total HAT scores. and about revenge F(2.05).737. Also. that externality-chance and externality-powerful-others moderates the relationship between aggression and BIT scores were not supported. However. 4. t(249)=2.6. Post hoc analysis indicated that Chinese-Malaysian automobile drivers had significantly lower total HAT scores than either Malay or Indian-Malaysian automobile drivers (p<.1. p<.05) or Indian-Malaysian automobile drivers (p<. There were no significant differences between ethnic groups with respect to hostile statements about the derogation of others.05. t(250) = 3. H122 and H12.13 Hypothesis 13: Demographic Factors Influence Hostile Automatic Thoughts Male automobile drivers in Study 1C scored significantly higher total HAT scores than did female automobile drivers. Only H12.01. p<. On the subscale measuring statements about revenge. 248) = 3. p<. F(2.263. with the sample of taxicab drivers.279. 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<.dimensions of locus of control moderate the relationship between aggression and total BIT scores were supported.05). that internality moderates the relationship between aggression and total BIT scores was supported.01. Hypothesis 12 was only partially supported in Study 3. p<. p<.885. 156 . male automobile drivers scored significantly higher on HAT subscales measuring statements about physical aggression.3. 249) = 4. No significant differences were observed between age groups with respect to total HAT scores or to scores on any of the three HAT subscales.
linear regression analyses indicated that total HAT scores predicted total BIT scores.01. p<. p<. This means that. p<. the higher the scores on the three classes of hostile automatic thought.2 and H14.01 and B = . that hostile automatic thoughts would influence behaviour in traffic.394. and also scores measuring the four BIT component factors: usurpation of right-of-way. derogation of others and revenge had a significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1C B =.01. 157 . p<. that age would influence hostile automatic thoughts. H13. H14.14 Hypothesis 14: Hostile Automatic Thoughts Influence Behaviour in Traffic In Study 1C. it is concluded that the Hypothesis 13.1. the higher were automobile drivers’ total BIT scores and scores on the four components. the higher were total BIT scores. B = . B = .01. were supported. it is concluded that the Hypothesis 14. p<. was not supported.3. Linear regression analyses indicated that subscales measuring thoughts about physical aggression. This means that.01. B = . (that thoughts about physical aggression.413. freeway urgency. derogation of others and revenge) positively influence total BIT scores. p<. p<. respectively. Therefore. B = .364.01. on total BIT score were also tested.01. externally-focused frustration. with the sample of automobile drivers studied.192. 4. H13. was partially supported.277.01 and destination-activity orientation. B = .3. H14. was supported.307.379. B = .2. The effects of HAT subscales measuring the three classes of hostile automatic thoughts.224. were supported.6.Therefore.1 and H13. that gender and ethnicity respectively would have significant direct effects on hostile automatic thoughts. the higher the total HAT scores. that demographic variables would influence hostile automatic thoughts. p<.
809. B = .01.002. F=57.4. R2 values changed after the HAT x AQ interaction was added in the regression model (R2=. also moderated the relationship between aggression and BIT.085). and the moderating effect of HAT was significant. R2=. Kurtosis=. R2=. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-.297.05.188.297. p<. The R2 value changed after the HAT-Physical Aggression x AQ interaction was added in the regression model (R2=. 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: Moderating Effect of Externality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship It was observed that two of the HAT subscales.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.565. In other words. Kurtosis=.013.6.-554.8). p<.911. F=55. Effect for aggressive drivers with high HAT score BIT Level Effect for aggressive drivers with low HAT score Aggression Level Figure 4. aggressive drivers who frequently entertained hostile automatic thoughts about others would have higher total BIT scores compared to drivers who seldom entertained hostile automatic thoughts about others (see Figure 4. p<.072). Physical Aggression and Revenge. Normality Residuals: Skewness=.01. and the moderating effect of HAT-Physical 158 .
Aggression was significant. 4. The HAT subscale measuring thoughts about the derogation of others did not moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic. 159 .246. R2=.207. p<. were supported.01.01. B = . it is concluded that Hypothesis 15. and the moderating effect of HAT-Revenge was significant. Therefore. However. The R2 value also changed after the HATRevenge x AQ interaction was added in the regression model (R2=.16 Summary of Hypothesis Testing The following table provides summarised results for the hypotheses and subhypotheses in this study (see Table 4. that hostile statements about physical aggression and revenge respectively moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic.1 and H15. was not supported.475. p<. F=59. was supported. that total HAT score would moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic. p<. Kurtosis=.3.092). H15. B = . that hostile statements about the derogation of others moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic.2.01.33).026. H15.294. Normality Residuals: Skewness=.6.297.
S S N.1.3.S S S S S N.3: Ethnicity influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H4.1: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.S 1C P.S 1B S S S S S S S S S S S S S S P.2.1: Ethnicity will influence the Locus of Control: Internality H4.S S N.S N.S N.S P.4:Destination-activity orientation will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.S N.S S N.4: Destination-activity orientation will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H2: Driver characteristics will influence behaviour in traffic H2.2.S S S N.2.S S S S P.S N.1: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.2.S.S N.2: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.S S S N.1: Gender will influence total BIT score H3.S 160 .1: Age will influence the Locus of Control: Internality S S S S S S S S S S S S S S P.2.2: Freeway urgency will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.S 3 P.2.S P.1.S S S N.2.S S S N.2: Ethnicity will influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.S S S S S N.S S S S S N.33: Summarised Results of the Hypotheses and Sub-hypotheses STUDY 1A H1: BIT will have a positive influence on motor vehicle crash outcomes H1.Table 4.S S S S S S N.S S N.3: Age will have a negative influence on total BIT score H4: Demographic variables will influence the Locus of Control H4.2 :Freeway urgency will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.S N.2: Traveling frequency will have a negative influence on total BIT score H2.S N.S P.S 2 S S S S S S S S S S S P.S N.S N.S P.S N.S P.1.S N.S S S N.S N.S S S N.S N.S N.S N.2: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1. S N.2: Ethnicity will influence total BIT score H3.1: Driver experience will have a negative influence on total BIT score H2.S N.3: Gender will influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H4.S P.1.3: Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H22.214.171.124: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.S N.S N.2: Taxicab experience will have a negative influence on total BIT score H3: Demographic variables will influence behaviour in traffic H3.S N.S N.1: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Internality H4.S N.S S P.1.3:Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.
S P.S N.S N.3: Age will have a negative influence on Aggression S=Supported.S S S N.S P.S N.1: Hopelessness will moderate the Internality-BIT relation H9.S N.S N.S P.S N.1: Gender will influence Aggression H10.S N.S N.S N.S N.4: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Destination-activity Orientation H8: Locus of Control will influence behaviour in traffic H8.2: Externality-Chance will have a positive influence on Hopelessness H6.S N.S N.2: Ethnic background will influence Aggression H10.S N.Table 4.2: Externality-Chance will have a positive influence on total BIT H8.S S N.S N.S P.S N.S S S S S S S N.S S S S S S S S S S S S S S N.S N.S N.S STUDY 1C N.S S N. blank=Not Applicable N.S S S N.S= Not Supported.2: Ethnic background will influence of Hopelessness H5.3: Age will influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H5: Demographic variables will influence Hopelessness H5.S N.33 (Continued) 1A H4.3.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 3 N. P.S N.S N.S N.S N.S 1B N.3: Hopelessness will moderate the Externality-Powerful-Others--BIT relationship H10: Demographic variables will influence aggression H10.1: Internality will have a negative influence on total BIT score H8.2: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Freeway urgency H7.1: Gender will influence Hopelessness H5.2: Hopelessness will moderate the Externality-Chance--BIT relationship H9.S S S S S S S S S S S S S S N.S P.S S S N.3: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Externally-focused frustration H7.S= Partially Supported.1: Internality will have a negative influence on Hopelessness H6.2: Age will influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.S N.S N.S S S S S S S S P.3: Externality-Powerful-Others will have a positive influence on Hopelessness H7: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on behaviour in traffic H7.3: Age will influence Hopelessness H6: Locus of Control will influence Hopelessness H6.S S N.S 161 .S N.S P.S N.S N.S N.1: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Usurpation of right-of way H7.S N.S N.S S S S S P. N.S 2 N.3.S S S N.
2: Thoughts about the Derogation of Others will have a positive influence on total BIT score H14.S S N.3: Externality-Powerful-Others will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H13: Demographic variables will influence Hostile Automatic Thought s H13.S S S S S P.S 162 .S= Not Supported.S N.1: Thoughts about Physical Aggression will have a positive influence on total BIT score H14.33 (Continued) 1A H11: Aggression will have a positive influence on behaviour in traffic H11.S S S N.2: Aggression will have a positive influence on Freeway urgency H11.2: Externality-Chance will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12.4: Aggression will have a positive influence on Destination-activity orientation H12: Locus of Control will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12.2: Ethnic background will influence hostile automatic thoughts H13.S= Partially Supported.3: Age will have a negative influence on hostile automatic thoughts H14: Hostile Automatic Thoughts will have a positive influence on behaviour in traffic H14.S N.Table 4. P.S P.2: Thoughts about the Derogation-of-Others will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H15.3: Thoughts about Revenge will have a positive influence on total BIT score H15: Hostile Automatic Thoughts will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H15.1: Thoughts about Physical Aggression will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H15.1: Aggression will have a positive influence on usurpation of right-of way H11.3: Aggression will have a positive influence on Externally-focused frustration H11.S S 2 3 P.1: Internality will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12.S S N.1: Gender will have a positive influence on hostile automatic thoughts H13. blank=Not Applicable 1B S S S S S S S S S STUDY 1C S S S S S S S S S P.S S S N.3: Thoughts about Revenge will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship S=Supported. N.
F4 F1. AQ and Hostile Automatic Thought (HAT). F4 χ2 49.80 104. F4 F1. freeway urgency (F2). 163 . P I. 23 28 33 38 24 33 p-value GFI . F2. F2.g. P. F3 F1.93 .00000 . All proposed models measured: (1) internality.f.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. Hostile Automatic Thought (HAT). Externality Powerful-Other (P).02 d. F2. (2) usurpation of right-of-way. AQ I. F2.093 . P. and Study 3: professional taxicab driver) with different sample data were used to determine whether proximal context factors mediated the relationship between distal context factors and the outcome. F3. externality (Chance) and externality (Powerful-Other) as distal context factors.90 110. C. P. 4. HAT I. freeway urgency. These models were re-specified by adding different proximal context factors. F3.068 . F4 F1.96 RMSEA . HAT Proximal Factors F1. P. This contextual mediated model was tested six times and the goodness-of-fit indices for these models are indicated in Table 4. Externality Chance (C). AQ. HAT I.58 35. P. C. externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation as proximal context factors. F2. Usurpation of right-of-way (F1).045 .7. C. F2. BHS I. C.060 Note: Internality (I). externally-focused frustration (F3) and destination-activity orientation (F4) Of the six models tested.97 .00126 . C.52 (Jöreskog and Sörbom. BHS. e.1 Study 1C The contextual mediated model in this study was tested with four distal factors – Locus of Control.34: SEM Comparison (Study 1C) Distal Factors 1C1 1C2 1C3 1C4 1C5 1C6 I. F3. Hopelessness (BHS). Aggression (AQ).4.00000 .102 . and (3) crash occurrence and injury occurrence as outcome.38 100. F4 F1. Hopelessness.97 63. F3. Study 2: motorcycle driver. AQ. BHS. Table 4. Model 1C5 had better fit but necessitated dropping one of the component factors. hopelessness or subtracting the latent variables in order to obtain the optimal goodness-of-fit index. 2002).00000 .05522 .93 . AQ.00111 .087 . F3. two were worthy of further examination.96 .93 . Three studies (Study 1C: automobile driver. C.34.
goodness-of-fit was characterised as very good (χ2=63.=24.5.26. subsequent additional analysis was carried out to calculate a range of comparative fit indices.92) on accident involvement.f.29 and . CFI=. ECVI=.96.043.48. and PGFI=. GFI=.13. . RMR=. Externality (Powerful-Other). . RMSEA=.97. The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that all possible paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant: Internality.97. Externality (Powerful-Other).22 respectively (see Figure 4. d. . For Model C5. C6.51 and PGFI=. . An alternate model. To aid this discussion.14. AGFI=.42. For Model C5.10).96. The five distal variables accounted for 67% of the variance in BIT scores. which are detailed in sect.28 and .32.destination-activity orientation (F4). but not as good as for C5. The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that all possible paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant: Internality. Making a decision to select one of these models over the other raised a number of interesting points.043. CFI=. RMR=.02. For Model C6. Externality (Chance). RMSEA=. AGFI=. GFI=.99) and constituted the best fit of all six of the tested models. For Model C6.42. .92) on accident involvement.23 respectively (see Figure 4.97.91. 5. Externality (Chance). retained all four of the BIT component factors and fit indices were acceptable.3. 164 . of the BIT score.94.045. The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=. values for these additional indices were: NFI=.98). The five distal variables accounted for 70% of the variance in BIT scores.10).f. goodness-of-fit was characterised as excellent (χ2=35. with path coefficients = -. Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thought had effects on BIT. Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thought had effects on BIT.26.=33. d. ECVI=. values were: NFI=.060. The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=. with path coefficients = -.35. .
045 RMR=.05 BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way.99 P-value = .29* Aggression (AQ) .043 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.97 GFI=.63* . BITF2=Freeway Urgency. BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration.13* Externality (Powerful Other) BIT1 BIT2 BIT3 . BITF4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4.92* Accident Involvement .22* Hostile Automatic Thought Model Statistics χ2=35.f =24 CFI=.97 d.9: Contextual Mediated Model 1C5 (Three BIT Factors) 165 .32* Externality (Chance) .51* . *p<.Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome Internality -.57* Injury Occurrence .79* .26* Crash Occurrence Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) .58* .005522 N=252 RMSEA=.
05 BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way.92* Accident Involvement .13* Externality (Powerful Other) BIT1 BIT2 BIT3 BIT4 . BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration.26* Crash Occurrence Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) .98 P-value = .Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome Internality -.58* Injury Occurrence .043 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.50* .02 GFI=.29* Aggression (AQ) .77* .060 RMR=.22* Hostile Automatic Thought Model Statistics χ2=63. BITF4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4. *p<.96 d.39* . BITF2=Freeway Urgency.00126 N=252 RMSEA=.10: Contextual Mediated Model 1C6 (Four BIT Factors) 166 .f =33 CFI=.56* .31* Externality (Chance) .63* .
F4 χ2 108. Usurpation of right-of-way (F1). ANG. F2. HOS. VER.66 131. F4 F1.93 .f.084 . HAT-R PHY. HAT-R PHY. HOS.92 . HOS. Aggression (AQ). HOS. 42 61 50 61 61 p-value . 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).91. F3. Hostility (HOS).00000 .078 Note: Physical aggression (PHY).91 . externally-focused frustration (F3) and destination-activity orientation (F4) As depicted in Figure 4. path coefficients = .081 . HAT-P. Hostile Automatic Thought-Physical aggression (HAT-P). Hostile Automatic Thought-Derogation of others (HAT-D).=61. IND. IND PHY. IND.94 169. ANG. HAT-P.00000 GFI RMSEA . The results for the goodness-offit indexes are shown as follows: Table 4.35: Different Contextual Models (Study 1C) Distal Factors PHY.080 . HAT-D. GFI=. F3 F1. HAT-R Proximal Factors F1.00000 . F3. F3. ANG. CFI=.66 153. Angry (ANG). Hostile Automatic Thought-Revenge(HAT-R). HAT-P. ANG.00000 .66).f.00111 .13 respectively. Verbal aggression (VER).91 .41. IND.10.91 . VER. using automobile drivers sampled in Study 1C.35). HAT-R PHY.73 169. VER.65 and . freeway urgency (F2).078.084 . HAT-D. F2.41 d. F2. 167 . F4 F1. RMSEA=. IND. HAT-D. the final model has provided a reasonable fit to the data (χ2=153.95). F2. F2.In addition. HAT-D. ANG. Hostile Automatic Thought was found to have a direct effect on the AQ (path coefficient=. The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=. F3 F1. The proposed contextual mediated model was tested five times (see Table 4.80) on the accident involvement. d. Indirect aggression (IND). the contextual mediated model was tested using Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thoughts and their latent variables (component factors) as distal context factors. HAT-P. HOS.
000 N=252 RMSEA=.90* Derogation of Other Hostile Automatic Thought . BIT2=Freeway Urgency. *p<.69* Anger .95 P-value = .61* .66* .f =61 CFI=.65* .29* Hostility .58* .13* Model Statistics χ2=153.63* Indirect Aggression .62* .Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome Physical Aggression .058 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.82* Revenge BIT1=Usurpation of Right-of way.078 RMR=. BIT3=Externally-Focused Frustration.11: Contextual Mediated Model Study 1C (Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thoughts) 168 .83* .72* .05 .60* Injury Occurrence Physical Aggression . BIT4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4.41 GFI=.65* Crash Occurrence Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) .80* Accident Involvement .68* Aggression (AQ) BIT1 BIT2 BIT3 BIT4 .91 d.
Internality and Externality (Chance) the Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) but not Externality (PowerfulOther).94 . Externality Powerful-Other (P). path coefficients = -.66) on the accident involvement. F2. F2.12 d.06722 .36: Different Contextual Models (Study 2) Distal Factors Proximal Factors χ2 29. the final model for the student motorcycle drivers did not include hopelessness.=28. F3.94 . the participants were motorcycle drivers.98). Compared to the Study 1 for student car drivers.86 23 28 23 . F3.07580 .f. P. CFI=. 169 . The proposed contextual mediated model was tested three times (see Table 4. P. Hopelessness (BHS).80 respectively (see Figure 4. F4 39. freeway urgency (F2).36).17631 . d. Externality Chance (C).062 Note: Internality (I).2 Study 2 In Study 2. F4 F1.33 33. The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=. F2. BHS F1.65 and .7.047 . RMSEA=.4. p-value GFI RMSEA I.12). The four distal variables accounted for 49% of the variance in BIT.058 .f. P I. The goodness-of-fit indexes for these models are shown as follow: Table 4. Usurpation of right-of-way (F1).047. 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=29.12. GFI=. C. The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that three paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant. BHS I. C.95 . The contextual mediated model was tested using locus of control and hopelessness as distal context factors.94. F3 F1. C.
BIT3=Externally-Focused Frustration.05 Injury Occurrence Model Statistics χ2=29.88* Crash Occurrence .65* Externality (Chance) .57* Internality -.047 RMR=.17631 N=122 RMSEA=.80* Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) .f =23 CFI=.89* .99 P-value = .12: Contextual Mediated Model Study 2 170 .66* Accident Involvement Externality (Powerful Other) . BIT4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4.Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome BIT1 BIT2 .12 GFI=. BIT2=Freeway Urgency.78* .05 BIT1=Usurpation of Right-of way.70* BIT4 .83* BIT3 .046 Note: Values showed are path coefficients. *p<.95 d.
Hopelessness (H).40) on the accident involvement. The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=.f.f. RMSEA=. d.22 23 .13). The goodness-of-fit indexes for these models are shown as follow: Table 4. 37.95 .95. F2. Usurpation of right-of-way (F1). Externality Chance (ExC).068 Injury Occurrence Crash Occurrence. I. AQ F1. 171 . freeway urgency (F2).4.97 . P.079 Injury Occurrence I. AQ F1.39. P Proximal Factors F1.3 Study 3 In Study 3. P. This contextual mediated model was tested four times (see Table 4. GFI=. Internality and AQ. F4 Crash Occurrence 31. F3.93 . F4 50. the participants were taxi drivers.95). The four distal variables accounted for 12% of the variance in BIT. F4 Crash Occurrence 18. F3. The contextual mediated model was tested using locus of control and hopelessness as distal context factors. AQ and only crash occurrence as outcome has provided the best goodness-of-fit to the data (χ2=31.=21.7.37: Different Contextual Models (Study 3) Distal Factors I. AQ F1. F3.20 and . p-value GFI RMSEA Crash Occurrence. F4 Outcomes χ2 d.061. C.027 I. C.20 respectively (see Figure 4. path coefficients = -. have effects on the Behaviour in Traffic (BIT). C. but not Externality.35265 . The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that two out of four possible paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant. F2.94 .00524 .59 17 . F2. F2. Externality Powerful-Other (ExPo). CFI=. externally-focused frustration (F3) and destination-activity orientation (F4) Model included locus of control.39 21 .06743 .37).03084 . F3. C.061 Note: Internality (I).82 28 .
BIT2=Freeway Urgency.20* Aggression (AQ) Model Statistics χ2=31.13: Contextual Mediated Model Study 3 172 .63* BIT3 . BIT3=Externally-Focused Frustration.Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome BIT1 BIT2 .39 GFI=.74* -.40* Crash Occurrence Externality (Powerful Other) .061 RMR=.03 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) .95 d.20* Externality (Chance) .95 P-value = .61* BIT4 . BIT4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4.13 .39* Internality -.06743 N=133 RMSEA=.05 BIT1=Usurpation of Right-of way.f =21 CFI=. *p<.053 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.
Step2=independent variable has a significant effect on the dependent variable. 173 .1 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hopelessness and Crash Outcomes In all studies. (2) the relationship between locus of control and accident involvement.39). Table 4. Step 3=mediator has a significant effect on the dependent variable.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. 4.38). Not applicable = mediating effect could only be tested when conditions in Step1. 2 and 3 are satisfied. hopelessness did not significantly influence the crash outcomes (see Table 4. Step4=Significance level of the relationship between independent variable and dependent variable is reduced indicating a partial mediating effect – or – independent variable does have a significant effect on the dependent variable indicating a complete mediating effect. 4.8.4. Therefore. BIT was a complete mediator for the relationship between AQ total score and crash occurrence. (3) the relationship between aggression and accident involvement. consistent with path analysis results. and. the mediating effect of BIT on hopelessness and crash outcomes relationship could not be estimated.2 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Aggression and Crash Outcomes The four-step regression analysis showed that BIT strongly mediated the relationship between aggression and crash outcomes (see table 4.8 Testing Mediational Relationships Using SPSS The mediating effects of BIT on: (1) the relationship between hopelessness and accident involvement.8. (4) the relationship between hostile automatic thoughts and accident involvement were tested using the four-step procedure proposed by Baron and Kenny (1986).
Externality-Chance (C) and Externality-PowerfulOthers – and crash outcomes (See Table 4. where the 174 . 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. Exceptions to this were found only with respect to the relationship between P and both crash outcomes in Study 1A. Table 4.4 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Crash Outcomes For automobile drivers.40: BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hostile Automatic Thought and Crash Outcomes BIT mediates Hostile Automatic Thought-Crash Occurrence Relation Study 1C BIT mediates Hostile Automatic Thought-Injury Occurrence Relation Study 1C Step 1 Significant Step 1 Significant Step 2 Significant Step 2 Significant Step 3 Significant Step 3 Significant Step 4 Partial Mediator Step 4 Partial Mediator 4. behaviour in traffic (BIT) had complete or partial mediating effects on the relationship between the three locus of control dimensions – Internality (I).8.8.41).BIT was a partial mediator for the relationship between aggression and injury occurrence. in Studies 1A. 1B and 1C.40).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.
BIT had a complete mediating effect on the relationship between C and both crash outcomes. With respect to the relationship between I and the crash outcomes and the relationship between P and the crash outcomes. no mediating effect of BIT could be estimated since requisite conditions in the second step of the analysis were not satisfied. BIT had no mediating effects on the relationship between I. 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. Table 4. 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.
663.1 Differences between Automobile Drivers and Motorcycle Drivers In a subsequent analysis.9 Comparison of Automobile Drivers.Table 4. automobile drivers scored higher than motorcycle drivers on I.442.41: BIT Mediates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Crash Outcomes (Continued) BIT mediates P-Crash Occurrence Relation Study 1A Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 Study 3 BIT mediates P-Injury Occurrence Relation Study 1A Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 Study 3 Step 1 Significant Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Step 1 Significant Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Step 2 Not Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Significant Step 2 Not Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Step 4 Not Applicable Partial Mediator Partial Mediator Not Applicable Not Applicable Step 4 Not Applicable Partial Mediator Partial Mediator Not Applicable Not Applicable 4. Study 2: t(421)= -4. Motorcycle Drivers and Taxicab Drivers 4.01. Study 1C vs.993.837.665. p <. p <. Automobile drivers in Studies 1A. p <. Study 2: t(422)= 8. proximal variables (behaviour in traffic) and crash outcomes (crash occurrence and injury occurrence) were compared between automobile drivers from Study 1 and motorcycle drivers from Study 2.05. It was found that there were significant differences in scores for hopelessness. p <.9. p <. Study 1C vs. Study 1A vs. Study 2: t(372)= 8.01. Study 2: t(421)= 7.426. Automobile drivers also scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers on C. p <. Study 2: t(372)= -3.162. With respect to the three dimensions of locus of control. Study 1A vs.01. Study 2: t(422)= -2. scores for distal variables (locus of control and hopelessness). There was no significant difference in scores on the P dimension between automobile drivers and motorcycle drivers.01. Study 1A vs. p <. Study 1B vs.01. Study 1B vs. Study 2: t(421)= -3. 1B and 1C scored significantly lower on hopelessness than did motorcycle drivers.01. 176 .
Automobile drivers scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers with respect to the total BIT score.926. t(986)= 5.261. Study 2: t(421)= -3. p <.01.837. 4.704.861. p <.01. 4. taxicab drivers scored higher than automobile drivers on the I dimension. Study 1A vs. p <.977.01. t(986)= 3.01. Automobile drivers scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers in injury occurrence. p <.01.614. p <. p <. t(986)= 30. Study 1A vs. Study 2: t(372)= -7. p <. and to injury occurrence.01.211. Automobile drivers scored higher that taxicab drivers on total BIT scores.01. Study 1A vs.484. Study 2: t(421)= -7.01.577.01. Study 2: t(421)= -8. and on all four BIT subscales: “usurpation of right-of way”. “externally-focused frustration” and “destination-activity orientation”. Study 1C vs.01. Study 2: t(372)= -6. 177 . p <.747. t(253)= 8.9. p <. p <. t(986)= 34.200. p <.402. p <. t(986)= 6. respectively. Study 2: t(422)= -6. t(253) = 2. There were no differences between motorcycle drivers and taxicab drivers on the P dimension. Study 1C vs. p <. p <. p <.775. t(986)= 37. Study 2: t(422)= -4.01.01.801. t(986)= 7. Study 1C vs.2 Differences between Automobile Drivers and Taxicab Drivers With respect to locus of control. There were no significant differences scores on either C or P between the automobile drivers and taxicab drivers. p <.01. Also.687.01.3 Differences between Motorcycle Drivers and Taxicab Drivers Taxicab drivers scored higher than motorcycle drivers on the I locus of control dimension.01.01.433. automobile drivers scored higher than taxicab drivers with respect to crash occurrence.01. Study 1B vs. p <. Study 1B vs. Motorcycle drivers scored higher than taxicab drivers on C.9. p <. “freeway urgency”. and t(986)= 35. Study 2: t(372)= -5. Automobile drivers scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers in crash occurrence.186.01.
“externally-focused frustration” and “destination-activity orientation”. Also. p <.01.01.01. t(253)= 11. t(253)= 31.982. p <. 178 .946. t(253)= 39.01.01and to injury occurrence. drivers scored higher with respect to crash occurrence.Motorcycle drivers had higher total BIT scores than taxicab drivers.016. p <. “freeway urgency”.881. p <. t(253)= 8. p <.01. and all four BIT subscales: “usurpation of right-of way”. p <.567.737. respectively. p <.977. t(253)= 8. and t(253)= 37. t(253)= 35.01.
al. including gender.2. human factors that conceptually might be expected to have a strong influence over driving behaviour and crash occurrence end up.CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION 5. (1993).. in which the roles played by variables in mediating and moderating effects of personality factors are more closely examined than in the past. in which a set of personality and demographic factors are thought to exert effects. Elander et al. 1995. Often. Composite BIT scores were comprised of measures of usurpation of right-ofway. Elander et. 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. upon examination. 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.4. Evans. In an earlier study. externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation.1 A Contextual Mediated Model for Understanding Factors Influencing Unsafe Driving Traffic psychologists. They found gender. 1991). Papacostas and Synodinos (1988) investigated four dimensions of driving behaviour conceptually related to the Type A behaviour pattern (TABP). researchers have been frequently frustrated when attempting to quantify the effects of psycho-social variables on either driving behaviour or crash outcomes. While it has been generally assumed and frequently stated that driver characteristics.1). age and personality may be the most important factors in crash causation (Bridger. not directly on driving behaviour and crash outcomes but rather on some intervening variable located more proximally to the event (see sect. freeway urgency. multi-factorial perspective. 2. 2002b). The present research applied Sümer’s concept of a contextual mediated model. exerting weaker influence or more equivocal results than anticipated (Dewar.
alter the outcome or probability of occurrence of crashes and these have been classified into broad categories using different schemes (Evans. hopelessness. BIT scores are considered proximal to the crash event. 1991). BIT. except with taxicab drivers. A rich variety of individual factors exists which. is that factors interact with each other. were significantly more likely to have been injured while driving. This was true with respect to both the composite BIT score and individual scores of each of the four component factors. As a result. Every aspect of the traffic system is in some way connected to every other aspect. which somewhat complicates our attempt to stay true to our title: “Cause and Prevention of Roadway Crashes”. though. All too often. But findings were more complex than that. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts on crash and injury occurrence. 180 . In other words. significantly predicted selfreported crash occurrence in all replications and with all classes of drivers studied. In the contextual mediated model. but did not examine the effects of BIT scores on crash outcomes. and did so in all cases but hopelessness. The matrix proposed by Haddon (1972) is one example. particularly between psychological variables and crash outcomes. Results reported here suggest an elaborate relationship. if different. the term “cause” conveys the notion of a single causative element. BIT composite scores are also expected to mediate the effects of locus of control. in the deterministic sense in which it is used in the physical sciences or engineering. Further. for automobile drivers and motorcyclists. Type A individuals were significantly more likely to have found themselves involved in traffic crashes and. In the present research. Since high BIT scores indicated driving behaviour consistent with TABP.total BIT score and component scores. it predicted self-reported injury occurrence in all cases. the proximal variable. One recurrent complexity that arises when trying to understand traffic safety.
… the word cause has largely disappeared from the technical literature on safety, and for good reasons. Suppose that on a dark rainy morning a young man argues with his wife about the purchase of a sofa, leaves the house late for work in a rage, drives his poorly-maintained car too fast on a badly-designed, poorly-lit curve. Suppose further that he skids, and is killed in a crash with a truck driven by an older driver. It is of little value to say that the death was caused by the car driver’s youth or maleness, the truck driver’s old age, the car’s bald tires, the high cost of sofas, emotional stress, the non-use of a safety belt, inadequate police enforcement, rain or any other of the many factors which, if different on this particular occasion, would have prevented the death (Evans, 1991; p. 60)
Causative factors, then, are difficult to partial out and, it might be argued, cannot really be studied in isolation. For this reason, the use of a model based on interactive relationships between personality or demographic characteristics of drivers and the components making up a particular pattern of driving behaviour, in this case a Type A behaviour pattern, makes good sense. The model proved useful in describing and
explaining the relationship between distal and proximal variables involved in crash and injury occurrence. Personality and demographic variables had significant effects on a measure of behaviour in traffic which, in turn, had a robust association with selfreported crash and injury occurrence. What may have resulted here is less an identification of causes and their prevention and more a framework in which to consider the complex interactions of several factors that contribute to motor vehicle crashes.
Within the contextual mediated model used here, a significant relationship was observed between the BIT construct and outcome measures, suggesting that the contention of Papacostas and Synodinos (1988), that it may be preferable to existing measures of TABP, is supported. As has been already noted, a range of personality and
demographic variables were observed to interact with BIT scores and the remainder of this discussion is devoted to a consideration of these findings.
Hopelessness It has been noted by several authors that little attention has been paid to affective
characteristics of drivers (Rothengatter, 1998; 2002; Elander et al., 1993). It is widely accepted that emotions alter attention, thought patterns, decision making and memory (Groeger, 1997). Hopelessness is a personality trait with strong affective and cognitive components, characterised by a sense of despair, pessimism about the future, chronic exhaustion and a deep personal orientation that nothing one can do to bring meaning, zest or enthusiasm to life (Farran et al., 1995). Hopeless individuals tend to believe that nothing will turn out right for them, that they will never succeed at what they attempt to do, that their important goals can never be attained, and that their worst problems will never be solved (Beck & Steer, 1993). They score high on scales measuring
neuroticism and low on extraversion, feel as though they lack physical fitness and selfconfidence and are often dissatisfied with their accommodation, marital state and workplace (Tanaka, Sakamoto, Ono, Fujihara & Kitamura, 1996; 1998). Often people with a high degree of hopelessness feel compelled to do more and more as a way of compensating, feeling as though “they must climb a mountain that has no top and that there is no way to end the necessity of climbing” (LeShan, 1989; p.108). Often these efforts are seen as impulsive, irrational and generally without an apparent goal, and are just as frequently prone to premature termination.
Certainly, it is not difficult to see that internal states arising from this interplay of despondency, perceived fatigue and sense of slowing down while feeling compelled to do more, have a strong potential to influence driving behaviour negatively. In the present research, hopelessness was associated with less cautious self-reported behaviour in traffic. The higher were participants’ scores on a measure of hopelessness, the more they indicated they would be likely to engage in BIT that was unsafe. Specifically, persons reporting a high degree of hopelessness had a tendency to disrespect others’
right-of-way, to engage in risky lane deviations and to commit lapses or violations at intersections or stoplights. Generally, very little is known about demographic and
personality characteristics of drivers who fail to halt at stop signs or pedestrian crossings, commit red light violations or make risky lane deviation manoeuvres (Brodsky, 2001; Romano et al., 2005a; 2005b). The finding that hopelessness is
associated with risky right-of-way behaviour may be consistent with the attention deficiencies, impulsivity and lack of caring thought to characterise persons with this trait (Farran et al., 1995).
When it comes to the relationship between hopelessness and driving behaviour, motorcyclists present some unique differences. Motorcycle drivers had higher
hopelessness scores than either automobile or taxicab drivers. Among motorcyclists, males were significantly higher than females in hopelessness and Malay motorcycle drivers had higher hopelessness levels than their Chinese-Malaysian or IndianMalaysian counterparts. Motorcyclists generally have a high frequency of right-of-way crashes at three-legged junctions, crossroads and roundabouts where the driving manoeuvres tend to be fairly complex, requiring vehicle control skills and focused attention to avoid conflicting movements with other road users (Pai & Saleh, 2008). Clarke, Ward, Bartle and Truman (2007) have also noted that, because of their configuration, motorcycles are particularly prone to ‘right of way crashes’ and those involving loss of control on curves or bends. With the likelihood of this type of crash already fairly high for motorcyclists, the finding in the present study that hopelessness was strongly associated with driver behaviour involving the usurpation of right of way may signal an exacerbated level of danger that needs to be explored in future research.
For motorcyclists, also, hopelessness moderates the relationship between both I and C locus of control dimensions, such that motorcyclists with a strong internal locus of control who score high on the hopelessness trait tend to report that they engage in less safe behaviour in traffic than do motorcycling internals who score low on the hopelessness trait. On the other hand, motorcyclists with a strong belief that their life is
determined by chance or fate and that their future is coloured by feelings of hopelessness tend to report more dangerous driving than do fatalistically-directed externals who are not feeling hopeless.
The relationship between hopelessness and locus of control is complex, in that logically either a high or a low sense of internal control can be a component of hopelessness. Often persons who feel hopeless have a low sense of personal control. They have lost faith in their own ability to achieve some goal and therefore have an image of themselves that they feel has been devalued both by themselves and by other people (Engel, 1968; Isani, 1963; Prociuk et al., 1976). In other cases, however, persons have a high but unrealistic sense of internality. They may feel very responsible for their own fate and may feel that no other help is available to them (Engel, 1971). “In this situation, even though individuals are making some attempt at maintaining control, their goals may be inappropriate or their resources may not be adequate to meet the desired outcome” (Farran et al, 1995; p. 33).
Similarly, either a high or a low sense of external control can also be a component of hopelessness. A person with a high external locus of control may
unrealistically anticipate that help from others or from the external environment will resolve the dilemma (Engel, 1968), thus assuming little or no personal control. However, persons who are feeling hopeless may also have a low sense of external control simply because they believe that others have so frequently failed or frustrated them (Engel, 1971). Farran et al. (1995) called for further studies to explore the nature of hopelessness and other moderating variables like self-esteem, locus of control and self-efficacy. Future research investigating the process through which locus of control interacts with hopelessness in influencing driver behaviour are needed in particular.
Locus of Control Internal and External Locus of Control as Determinants of Driving Behaviour Previous studies investigating the effects of locus of control on driving behaviour
arrived at inconsistent results. For example, Guastello and Guastello (1986) found that internals had been involved in fewer crashes than externals on their transitional scale but that there was no such relation between crashes and scores on the Rotter (1996) I-E scale. Özkan and Lajunen (2005) found that internals reported a higher number of total crashes, ordinary traffic violations and driving errors, although scores on externality dimensions had no effect. In the present study, locus of control was found to play a significant role in influencing driving behaviour. Drivers who had a strong internal locus of control regardless of automobile, motorcycle or taxicab drivers, reported engaging in behaviour in traffic that was relatively safe. This observation was true for all three groups studied: automobile drivers, motorcyclists and taxicab drivers. On the other hand, those who believed life events to be determined by chance or fate reported engaging in behaviour that was far more consistent with a less safe TAPB pattern. This was true for the samples of automobile and motorcycle drivers, all of whom were university students, but not for professional taxicab drivers.
In short, all participants in this study who were internals reported driving more safely than those who were not; and university students who were strongly externally controlled reported driving less safely than those who were not. This finding is exactly what the general body of thought about locus of control and driving would predict it to be. It has been generally assumed that, because externals believe that they have little personal control over what happens to them, they tend to consciously focus less on the driving task (Elander et al., 1993). In cognitive ergonomic terms, it is as if they are willing to cede responsibility for shouldering the mental workload (de Waard, 2002) associated with the driving task because they consider it to be under the control of external forces.
It might be expected, though, that this effect would be become less pronounced as drivers become more experienced. Groeger (2002) has pointed out that, with more
experienced drivers, more of what they do becomes routine and, as a result, not under direct conscious control. With increasing automatisation of the driving process, the influence of externality over specific decisions and actions that the driver must make would be diminished. Shiffrin and Schneider (1977) described how automaticity
develops as a function of consistent reactions to a particular stimulus, even to the point where there is little recollection of specific elements of the task (Underwood & Everatt, 1996). Of course, there will always be “black events”, or risk-predisposing circumstances, in which the driver switches from automatic to personally controlled processes but, even at those times, drivers with more experience will have better knowledge and quicker reactions due to their broader exposure to prior stimuli (Brown, 1982).
Because more of the driving task is performed automatically by experienced drivers, cognitive attributions about an internal or external locus of control become less important, unless one makes a basically untestable assumption about sub-conscious factors operating on what is generally described as an open-loop control system (Groeger & Clegg, 1997). Given that this sort of system involves sequences of actions which do not rely on feedback from the results of preceding actions before subsequent actions are performed (Bridger, 1995), even if attributional cognitions could theoretically operate at the sub-conscious level, it is hard to envision the sort of mechanism through which they could influence automaticized driving behaviour.
Further, Laapotti et al. (2001) have argued that novice drivers make errors in applying knowledge models at both the lower (vehicle manoeuvring) and upper dimensions (incorporating lifestyle goals and skills) within the driving process (see Figure 2.8; sect. 126.96.36.199). 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
5.63. 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. This would be an error more likely to be made by younger novice or less experienced drivers. respectively).53. the extent to which an individual is connected to others through interpersonal networks. They were also more experienced (266. Of course. there are other possible influences.2 years. traffic exposure and other variables on the effects that internality and externality exert on driving behaviour. 20.hierarchy.1 months.01years.1.16. For taxicab drivers.5. By virtue of their age and occupation. SD=1. taxicab drivers were considerably older (43. SD=1. social trust and norms that promote coordination and cooperation.6 months as licensed drivers.7 months. Inclán. affected driving behaviour and decisions about the use of public roads. Because of occupational demands. as well. SD=22. SD=131.3. the continued operation of their vehicle is fundamental to their livelihood so motivational factors may take precedence over attributions of external control.66) than the automobile drivers and motorcyclists (20. Malaysian-Indian automobile 187 . Hijar and Tovar (2005) have noted that social capital. and 36. as it did with the less experienced university students in the other groups. SD=11. SD=.10) than the automobile drivers and motorcyclists (28. although driving frequency was not measured for taxicab drivers. In the present study.2 Locus of Control and Ethnicity: Indian-Malaysian Drivers The present research also compared differences in locus of control among three ethnic groups in the culturally diverse Malaysian society. internals reported that they engaged in safer behaviour in traffic. it might also be assumed that their traffic exposure was greater than that of the students. respectively). Further research is needed to examine the influence of driving experience. but the externality-chance dimension had no significant effect. For taxicab drivers. it might be assumed that taxicab drivers could well have a broader social network.25 years.
Carment (1974) also found. Devashayam. along with selfpromotion skills. were necessary to succeed. when compared to Canadian students. to cultural values of intra-family dependency and parental influence that have persisted within the Tamil and other Indian communities in Malaysia (Abdullah & Peterson. spousal selection. He attributed this to the socio-political environment of the time. In an environment where career choice. perhaps due as argued earlier. which would have led young Indians to perceive that skills in overcoming systemic barriers. He explained this by pointing to the close and interdependent Indian family structure. influence peddling and status-related privileges. findings with regard to locus of control differed from Carment’s (1974) earlier results. that the Indian students were strongly external with respect to matters in their personal life. 2005). or at least strongly influenced by outside forces. Research completed some thirty years earlier by Carment (1974) found that university students in India were strongly internally-controlled. The finding that Indian- 188 . it is easy to see how expectancies for the external control of life outcomes can develop. financial matters and social affiliations are made. There were no significant differences between Malay and Malaysian-Chinese participants on any of the three locus of control dimensions. individuals would be more likely to develop attributions of internal control.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). for support in effecting the life outcomes that are important to them. Participants scored high in terms of attributions about the controlling nature of fate and powerful others. rife with bureaucracy. corrupt practices. in which members look to each other and especially to maternal figures within the home. in terms of political ideology and interaction with the social system. 2003. With the Indian-Malaysian sample studied in the present research. however. Since perceived success under such circumstances might be expected to be largely due to personal proficiency in such areas.
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. have been largely limited from participation in social and political processes that would necessitate that sort of social skill development and. 1999). This is consistent with recent findings among Malay and Chinese ethnic groups in Singapore. In reference to Carment’s explanation of the earlier results. including locus of control.3. Armstrong (1987) argued that urbanisation has affected 189 .7 in 1996. It is also consistent with the results of a study by Fontaine and Richardson (2003) which found differences in cultural values within the workplace were not significant among the three Malaysian ethnic groups. 5. Willford (2003) concluded that Indian-Malaysians. 1999. 1998. the reasons for this commonality in outlook are probably multi-factorial. 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. by extension. Gomez. as a group. an internal locus of control.5% annually from 9. Nandy. (2006) found greater commonalities in personality traits. 1999) where one’s skills at manipulating the system may have fostered a need for greater internal control. 2002. 1966. 1981). Sendut. 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. where Cheung et al. 1999. Again. Closer proximity of cultural groups can be assumed to increase contact and transmission of knowledge and awareness of value systems (Hofstede. although they were consistent with more recent research by Sinha & Watson (2007). Salih &Young.Malaysian participants scored lower in internality was contrary to Carment’s earlier conclusions with individuals from India. than between Singaporean-Chinese and Chinese participants from China. The size of the urban population in Malaysia increased by 4.5 million in 1991 to 11. the proportion of the population residing in urban areas increased from 51% in 1991 to 55. but two possible influences stand out. Indeed. as a result.8 million in 1996. and.
Huff.women’s friendship patterns. Brown (2007) has examined educational practices in Malaysia within the context of ethnicity and nation-building. Lawton & Nutter. 2003. bringing them closer together in outlook. driving in a more urgent fashion and concentrating more on destination activities than on road and traffic 190 . Nonetheless. 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. Dukes. by the enraged driver. aggression had a strong influence on behaviour in traffic. King & Parker. Government initiatives have aimed at re-positioning Malaysia as a highly networked information economy and society. 5.4 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. 2001. participants scoring higher on a measure of total trait aggression reported driving patterns that involved right-ofway violations. Oetting & Salvatore. Miles & Johnson. Miller & Rodgers. 2002). Hewstone and Ward (1985) showed that participants of Chinese descent in Singapore and Malaysia made about the same attributions about behaviour of Malay subjects as they did with regard to same-ethnicity subjects. feeling more frustrated at external sources. 2002. including perhaps attributions about the control of events. Clayton. Parkinson. 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. Lynch. 2001) In the present research. there is a large body of evidence that aggression plays a significant role in unsafe driving behaviour and in crash outcomes (Deffenbacher. 2008. 318). 2000. more recently. among automobile drivers and motorcyclists. Consistently. Jenkins. in which members of ethnic groups are encouraged to adopt a ‘Malaysian outlook’ on life.
higher aggression levels related to a strong tendency to commit right-of-way violations and to drive more urgently.conditions. Parker. 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. Male drivers tended to score higher than female drivers with respect to total aggression. found that drivers were more likely to report anger when congestion was present. Further. the more dangerously they behaved in traffic. 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. Deffenbacher. during such incidents. Angry and aggressive driving episodes have been related to hostile cognitive statements that drivers make. a little less strongly when they thought about taking revenge (“I want to get back at this person”) and least 191 . (1999) found that near accidents provoked feelings of anger. (2003) found that drivers engaging in hostile automatic thoughts tended to report more aggressive and riskier driving. Underwood et al. (1996) and Deffenbacher. With taxicab drivers. Petrilli et al. but there were no gender differences with respect to anger or hostility. but had no significant effect on externally-focused frustration or destination oriented activity. on a journey by journey basis. verbal aggression and indirect aggression. These effects were observed most strongly when drivers had cognitions involving physical violence toward other drivers (“I’d like to knock his/her teeth out”). particularly where drivers felt that they were not at fault in the incident. but that there was no evidence that the drivers who generally experienced higher level of congestion also experienced more anger. there are only a few that have attempted to explore the mechanism through which external or cognitive contexts trigger the effect. Finland and the Netherlands. Oetting et al. either verbally or as unspoken thoughts (“self-talk”). While there are plenty of studies establishing the link between aggression and driving behaviour. Underwood et al. physical aggression.
in the samples studied here. but they were found to moderate the effects of aggression on behaviour in traffic. 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. however. 2006). and (c) cognitive distortions (ways in which people misinterpret their environment). The effects of aggression on behaviour. Aggressive automobile drivers with a tendency to believe that outcomes are determined by chance or fate were significantly more likely to report riskier driving patterns than were aggressive drivers who did not believe that outcomes 192 . would be most likely to involve the usurpation of right-of-way or more urgent speeding behaviour. 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.strongly.. one’s interpretations of the environment lead one to react emotionally toward features within the environment (Galovski et al.. the world and others). but not when they involved the derogation of others. That is. a cognitive distortion which stimulates a cognitive response related to physical aggression or revenge. were also modified by the drivers’ locus of control. Not only did drivers’ angry cognitions have a direct effect on their behaviour in traffic. Such responses. 1997). perceiving another person’s slow driving as purposeful may lead to the emotional experience of anger. These moderating effects were significant when the content of the cognitions involved physical aggression or revenge motives. as well. although still significantly. and that cognitive event in turn triggers an aggressive or punitive type of traffic behaviour. when entertaining cognitive statements that made derogatory comments (“What an idiot!”) about other drivers. (b) schemas (underlying general assumptions about life). Each class of hostile automatic thought can be thought to represent a reaction to these three factors (Snyder et al. In essence.
but there may be more to it than that.e. like any other mental task. 401). 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. 1994. Generally. “in ergonomics. and also by attributions regarding locus of control. Finally. Certainly.. receive positive reinforcement – when I see the shocked look on his/her face!”). 1977). Language loaded with emotional content.e. this process may be instrumental in the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic (“I’d like to knock his/her teeth out. 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. has a workload associated with it” (Bridger. true to operant learning principles. p. and particularly with negative emotion. 193 . 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. 1990. Novaco. Downe & Loke.. in the form of hostile automatic thoughts. 1979. language comprehension can be regarded as a mental task which. A driver’s mental workload is increased by the number of task demands with which one must contend in performing a function and. has been shown to be difficult to process (Dodge & Coie. 2004. aggressive automobile drivers who believed that outcomes are determined by powerful others were also significantly more likely to report riskier driving patters than were aggressive drivers who did not believe that outcomes are determined by powerful others. or self-talk. 1995. (2003). Similarly.are determined by chance or fate. evoked specific behavioural responses that then became subject to contingent reinforcement (Kanfer & Goldstein. This last finding replicated and extended earlier research by Gidron et al. Meichenbaum. The relationship between aggression and driving behaviour is both important and complex. 1987. Hochschild. so I’ll overtake him/her at high speed on the inside and feel great – i. It is moderated by cognitive processes.
Mercado & Tapia. 1996. Performance (e. Lambie & Marcel. The present research has demonstrated linkages between hostile automatic thoughts. Martin. 2005). 162). 2000. so too does the mental effort required (de Waard & Brookhuis..5 Testing the Contextual Mediated Model Using Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) 5. Watson & Wan. Making sense of. Taylor & Fragopanagos. Hinojosa. In fact. 1997). Stein. internal locus of control and tendencies toward more dangerous behaviour in traffic. as well as other task demands of driving in traffic.Robbins. 2000. As the costs of achieving or maintaining a certain target level of performance increase. lane control in driving) will drop if effort investment is insufficient or ceases.5. aggressive emotionality. 1999. Tomkins. Dien. This can happen both in conditions of very high task demand and in conditions where the driver’s state is affected (p. 2004. they may well reach a “red line” at which more mental effort is required than is available. 1979) and disruptive to attentional processing of external stimuli (Adolphs. an overburdening of cognitive workload capacity or both. 2002. MartinLoeches. Carretie. and at the same time processing feelings of responsibility arising from one’s internal locus of control requires the investment of mental effort. and attempting to exercise control over. As drivers contend with heightened feelings of aggression and increased internal chatter. 2002.1) defined multivariate thinking as “a body of thought processes that illuminate interrelatedness between and within sets of variables” and proposed that 194 . 5.1 Advantages of Using SEM Harlow (2005. 1993). Trabasso & Liwag. Tavris (1989) referred to anger as the “misunderstood emotion”. subject to ambiguous interpretation (Chan.g. Additional studies are needed to investigate whether this relationship is best explained through an internal stimulus-response process. hostile automatic thoughts. As de Waard (2002) has argued: There are limits to the investment of effort. p.
. Having the characteristics of multiple regression analysis. By estimating and removing measurement error. the reliability of measurement can thus be accounted for explicitly within the analysis. and perhaps most important. 195 . First. The constructs may be comprised of unobservable. Finally. 2006). variables but also determine which specific predictors are most important in predicting dependent variable outcomes (Maruyama. p. The earliest use of SEM has been attributed to Swedish Statistician. similar to the variables representing factors in a factor analysis. 2004. or dependent. SEM can not only tell how well the predictors. Structural equation modelling (SEM). Hair et al.434). Gavin and Hartman (2004).. 2004. allows the simultaneous estimation of multiple equations (Hair et al. the SEM depicts all of the relationships among constructs. involved in the analysis. who in 1970. a multivariate technique. 1998). SEM is deemed to be a unique combination of factor analysis and multiple regression analysis (Hair et al. According to Williams. explain criterion. Karl Jöreskog. In addition. When composing a model. researchers are attracted to the benefits that SEM can offer. 2006). using SEM to examine relationships among factors allows the relationships to be free from measurement errors “because the error has been estimated and removed. Second. leaving only common variance” (Hardy and Bryman. factors represented by multiple variables. or independent variables. 2006). advanced the idea of combining features of econometrics and psychometrics into a single model (Klem.multivariate methods provide a richer and more comprehensive examination on the variables. including dependent and independent variables. EQS and AMOS. 2000).. 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. the growth in application of SEM techniques has paralleled researchers’ access to computer based data analysis software programs such as LISREL. or latent.
(2004) has been critical of most studies. Williams et al. Ketchen. Shook. In the present research. CFI or TLI) One goodness-of-fit index (GFI. (2006). model re-specification by citing theoretical support for the changes made is desired.e. Shook et al. and the root mean square residual were included. etc) 196 .5. fit indices such as chi-square statistics. (2004) noted that. the comparative fit index (CFI).5.e. etc) One badness-of-fit index (RMSEA. despite the prominence of SEM as a statistical tool. there is a lack of consensus on how best to evaluate the extent to which a proposed model fits the data. (2006) have argued that no single ‘magic value’ for the fit indices has been found to differentiate good from poor models. GFI. as suggested by Hair et al. Therefore. but that very few studies have used multiple fit indices. the goodness of fit index (GFI). in that they have failed to compare or re-specify the proposed model with an alternative model to test a variety of different theoretical propositions. Sümer (2003) added that. several alternative models were tested against different propositions in order to arrive at a model with the best possible fit. SRMR. RMSEA or SMRM) One incremental fit index (i. TLI. Hult & Kacmar (2004) and Williams et al. Hair et al added that the assessment of a model’s goodness-of-fit should include the following: The χ2 value and the associated df One absolute fit index (i. when assessing the fits of measurement models. CFI. Hair et al. It is therefore not practical to apply a single set of cutoff rules to the measurement models.2 Goodness of Fit SEM is considered a confirmatory analysis for testing and potentially confirming theory. Although many researchers have used SEM to examine a theoretically proposed model. (2004) commented on inconsistencies in the way SEM results have been reported in the literature.
1998. Maruyama. provided competing models both present a pre-determined standard for goodness-of-fit. 2000) and there are many examples of research studies. it may be advisable to select one that offers the most useful information even if indices are slightly lower than its alternative. Although chi-square is the most fundamental absolute fit index. 2006) such that for analyses of sample sizes more than 250. RMSEA lower than .5. 5. Structural equation modelling should. It is argued here that. 1998). the model with the best goodness-of-fit indices is selected over alternate models. 2000). 2006).. so that stronger evidence supporting the correct specification of a model can be adduced (Thompson. 2006. both dealing with traffic psychology (Sümer. 2009) that have tended to select the model that has the best fit indices. CFI. 2001.In the present research. the fit indices for assessing the model included χ2 value and the associated df. This has become such a widely accepted principle that decisions over model selection have become almost automatic (Klem.08 and a χ2 /degrees of freedom ratio less than 3.3 Best Fit or Best Model It is important to test multiple plausible rival models. we would argue. 2003) and other disciplines (Elangovan. it should not be used as the sole indicator of SEM fit because it is affected by sample size (Hair et al. Md-Sidin. be a process that balances utility with statistical 197 . GFI.. It is widely agreed that selection of the model should be a very good or an excellent fit. As a general rule.00 have been recommended to indicate good model fit (Hair et al. Sümer (2003) reported that some researchers have used critical χ2 /degrees of freedom ratios from 2 to 5 to indicate an acceptable fit.g.90. 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. Hair et al. it has been stressed repeatedly by several authors no definitive set of rules has been established for model selection (Byrne. Fit index values (e. At the same time. CFI and CFI) greater than . Sambasivan & Ismail.. significant p-values can be expected. 2001. RMSEA and the χ2 /degrees of freedom ratio.
In some cases.10) excluded the fourth factor. There is some support for this position in the literature. More importantly. In the case at hand. stating that. assessment of model adequacy must be based on multiple criteria that take into account theoretical. it makes sense to choose a model with a slightly poorer fit but more useful information over the best-fitting model. Both models were judged to have an excellent or very good fit.7. 4. while Model 1C6 (see Figure 4.1. two structural equation models. it is concluded that the selection of Model 1C5 would be preferable 198 . 1C5 and 1C6.soundness. statistical.3). 158).9) included all four components of the BIT scale. Sobel and Bohrnstedt (1985) pointed out that exclusive reliance on goodness-of-fit indices is unacceptable. the choice between the two would be Model 1C6 given its superior index coefficients. Byrne (2001) argued that: Fit indexes yield information bearing only on the model’s lack of fit. Thus. 88). Model 1C5 (see Figure 4. provided the chosen one meets pre-determined standards for goodness-of-fit. However. a finding that was further supported by additional subsequent analyses using a further series of goodness-of-fit indices. destination-activity orientation. Index coefficients from the original and subsequent analysis are shown in Table 5. of intervariable relationships for high-risk undergraduate automobile drivers were compared using an initial set of goodness-of-fit indices (see sect. and practical considerations (p. when taking into consideration “practical considerations”. If selection criteria were to be based solely on goodness-of-fit parameters. they can in no way reflect the extent to which the model is plausible. “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. this judgment rests squarely on the shoulders of the research. as suggested by Byrne (2001).
02 0.98 0. HAT Proximal Context: BITF1.99 0. Fit Statistics (Threshold values) Outcomes: Crash Occurrence.91 0.97 0. Injury Occurrence 35. C. BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration. 199 .94 0. C.060 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.Table 5.1: Goodness of Fit Statistics for Model 1C5 and 1C6 (Initial and Subsequent Analyses) Model 1C5 Distal Context: I.48 30. AQ.51 Very Good Model 1C6 Distal Context: I. BITF4=DestinationActivity Orientation Outcomes: Crash Occurrence. P.045 0.97 1.39 Best because it includes important information about destination-activity orientation behaviour that would be lost if Model 1C6 were chosen. F2. F3 BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way.02 0. BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration.96 0. Given that multivariate analysis revealed a significant association between this BIT component and crash outcomes.909 0.499 0.42 11.97 0.043 129. F3 & F4 BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way.97 0.034 97.02 0. BITF2=Freeway Urgency. BITF2=Freeway Urgency.96 1. AQ. Injury Occurrence Degrees of Freedom RMSEA GFI Chi-sq/Df RMR AIC NFI CFI AGFI PGFI NCP ECVI Overall model fit 63.97 0. HAT Proximal Context: BITF1. P. F2.
200 . By selecting Model 1C5. they should be dropped.. the decision was made to select Model 1C5 over Model 1C6. provide the key to reducing injuries and saving lives (Reason. 1995. 1990. goodness-of-fit. et al.48. farther along. based on the notion that each variable included may. the PGFI coefficient for Model 1C5 is 0. this is an important component to retain in a contextual mediated model of behaviour in traffic even if it does render a lower. Hair et al. 1996). it is 0. in this analysis. However. but still acceptable. in particular.It can be argued here that safety research demands a somewhat different standard in terms of model construction and selection. 2006. 2006). Sambasivan (2008) stated that. Results of this and other research have demonstrated that. Nahn & Shapiro.1). when drivers do let their attention wander from current road and traffic conditions they are at increased risk of experiencing a crash outome (Moller. one that favours the maximum use of information in the cause of saving lives. Parker. For practical reasons. Reason. Schwebel. Manstead & Stradling. Some justification for the selection of Model 1C5 over 1C6 is also found in the analysis of the parsimony fit (PGFI) statistic (see Table 5. When dealing with systems that are safetycritical. Kayumov. a central psychological feature of the TABP in driving is not overlooked and the BIT framework is kept intact.42. the standard should be to include as much relevant information as possible. while for Model 1C6. (2006) have noted that models with a higher PGFI are preferable over competing models because they have a better fit relative to their complexity. 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. Storey. when variables do not improve the AGFI and PGFI. Further discussion in this section refers only to Model 1C5.
. externality-chance.14. Total scores of BIT were significantly correlated with crash occurrence (r = .23 respectively) and the BIT displayed a significant effect on crash outcomes (path coefficient = . externality-powerful other. indicating that driving behaviour is closely related to involvement in motor vehicle crashes.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.4 Testing the Contextual Mediated Models Using SEM 5.5. indicating the importance of this factor in crash outcomes.21).45). internality and aggression had direct effects on BIT and indirect effects. aggression. . Evans. As observed from the investigation of structural paths.26. the base model (with only locus of control variables) was compared against five alternative models (see section 4. The results suggested that the alternative model.5. 1991. with five distal factors (internality.18) and injury occurrence (r = -. freeway urgency.34) and injury occurrence (r = . four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way.6. Distal factors (locus of control: internality.1).28 respectively).35 and . . on crash outcomes.4. externalitychance. Findings in this study underscored the strong role of BIT in predicting accidents. In Study 1C. Internality was significantly but negatively correlated with BIT (r = -. externality-powerful other. and hostile automatic thoughts). via BIT. Rothengatter. Sümer. externally-focused frustration. This suggested that automobile drivers with high levels of 201 . for automobile drivers sampled. crash occurrence (r = -. 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.g.5. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) had significant effects on BIT scores (path coefficients = .29). They appeared to be the strongest predictors among the five distal factors (path coefficients = -.28 and .35. 2003). Examination of the predictive relationship between distal and proximal variables yielded support for the contextual model and were consistent with previous findings (e. 2001.66).
Aggression. and destination-activity orientation) comprising the proximal factor and two latent constructs (crash and injury occurrence) comprising the crash outcome variable.66) directly predicted crash outcomes. crash occurrence (r = .41). externally-focused frustration. and destination-activity orientation) as proximal factors.20) and injury occurrence (r = . was significantly and positively correlated with BIT (r = . and high probabilities of crash and injury occurrence.4. and four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way. as well as low probability of crash and injury occurrence. 202 . The second alternative model also had four distal factors but only three latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way. with hopelessness removed as a distal factor but four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way. had a better fit than other alternative models.55). freeway urgency. The first alternative model had four distal factors (locus of control: internality.2 Study 2: Motorcyclists In Study 2. Results indicated that the first alternative model. externally-focused frustration. on the other hand. internality and externality-chance (path coefficients = -. crash occurrence (r = . externality-powerful other and hopelessness). 5.25).24). the base model (with only the locus of control variable) was compared against two alternative models. which sampled motorcyclists.80) indirectly and the proximal factor-BIT (path coefficient = . Investigation of the path parameters revealed that only two of the distal factors. externality-chance.65 and .internality were more likely to have low total BIT scores.23) and injury occurrence (r = . One of the most compelling findings in Study 2 was that externalitychance scores had the highest correlations with BIT (r = . Aggressive automobile drivers tended to have high level of BIT scores.5. freeway urgency and externally-focused frustration) for the proximal factor. 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. freeway urgency.
6. Results indicated that the third alternative model. Finally. their crash occurrence.5. 203 . with the sample of taxicab drivers. the results of measurement model analysis showed that one of the distal factors. 5. hopelessness. externality-powerful other and aggression). had significant direct effects on the four latent constructs that comprised the proximal variable (BIT) and. to measure outcome. externality-chance. The second and third alternative models only had one latent construct. aggression). Both dimensions of external locus of control had insignificant results. and destination-activity orientation) as proximal factors. had a better fit than alternative models. and destination-activity orientation) comprising the proximal factor and one latent construct (crash occurrence) comprising the outcome variable.4. the bestfitting model used only a single latent construct.5. for crash outcomes. the base model (with only the locus of control variable) was compared against three alternative models (see sect. This suggested that internality and aggression play important roles in affecting the behaviour in traffic of taxicab drivers and. such as internality.20 and .24 respectively) that had direct effects on the proximal factor and a simultaneous indirect effect on crash occurrence. externally-focused frustration. externality-powerful other. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts. crash occurrence. via BIT. for the sample of taxicab drivers. had no significant effect on BIT scores. the result was slightly different as a belief in chance as an outcome determinant had a significant effect on BIT scores. The first alternative included four distal factors (internality. Investigation of the path parameters revealed that there were only two of the four distal factors. freeway urgency.3). Distal factors. 4. All models included four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way. externality-chance. with four distal factors (internality. internality and aggression (path coefficients = -. on the two latent variables comprising crash outcomes. crash occurrence. four latent constructs (usurpation of right-ofway. externally-focused frustration.3 Study 3: Taxicab Drivers In Study 3.5 What Can be Learned from Testing Contextual Models with SEM? The use of SEM provided support for the contextual mediated model. freeway urgency. However. as a result. in turn and indirectly. For motorcyclists.5.
Some authors have commented on the lack of generalisability of findings in traffic psychology research (Dunbar. In the present research. 2004). With very few studies having been completed on Malaysian drivers to date. the fact remains that participants constituting the four student samples were. 2005). 278279). Huguenin. “but sometimes it may be the only viable alternative when quick and timely information is needed” (pp.5. both and particularly the student samples constituted a convenience sample that may have curtailed the generalisability of findings. Further. The fifth sample was comprised of professional taxicab drivers. an argument used by Montag & Comrey (1978) and others who have studied young drivers. 2005. Sekaran (2003) points out. a total of five samples were taken. that convenience sampling is indeed the least reliable of all sampling designs in terms of generalisability. by virtue of their age and driving experience within the highest risk group. An important question then becomes: Were the participants in Studies 1 and 2 representative of a high-risk population of young Malaysian drivers? This can be answered in terms of age and the geographic location from where participants received their driving licenses. To a large extent. 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.6. four of which were comprised of students from a single university.6 5. however. 204 .1 Limitations of the Study and Methodological Considerations Generalisabilty of Findings A key feature of all research is the capacity for results obtained from a sample to be applied to a larger population with proportionately the same degree of diversity (Langdridge. chosen at random from taxi stands.
55).2 compares the percentage of the national population located in each state and the percentage of the participants in the total sample coming from each state.2). Table 5. Sarawak and Kelantan were under-represented in the sample. Based alone on the number of residents living in each state. during the interval from 2000 to 2003.2% and Study 2: 99.13 years (SD = 1. Sabah. Selangor.31.to 25-year old high-risk group was 99. it is helpful to examine the distribution by state in which research participants obtained their driving licenses. 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. while Malacca and Negeri Sembilan were overrepresented.6%.2%). making it the single highest risk age group (see Table 2. with a mean age of 20. as elsewhere. 205 . Study 1C: 99. The Spearman rank correlation coefficient for these two sets of scores is rs=. Approximately one-third of all automobile crashes. With regard to whether the sample was representative of peoples of the various states and regions of Malaysia. young drivers are among the most likely to experience a motor vehicle crash. Since. Study 1B: 100%. individuals usually obtain their license in the state in which they are registered as resident. involved drivers aged 16 to 25 years. the sample does not appear to be very repreresentative of the Malaysian population. Ages of participants in this research ranged from 18 to 29 years. contributed the largest proportion of the sample. in Malaysia.In Malaysia.6% (Study 1A: 99. The proportion of the total sample for Studies 1 and 2 falling within the 16. The most populous state.
500.0 8.6 0.200.9 (9) 7.880 3.4 5.9 9.674 1.5 (4) 4.000 1.818.188 1.807 733.260.6 5. attempting to determine sample representativeness based on only state population would be flawed.6 6. In both cases.5 (8) 3.500 1.2 11. and there are different crash frequencies in each one.000 Per cent of national population 26.6 2. the state of origin is defined as the state in which the participants’ driving licenses were issued.000 2. 206 .1 (7) 8.2 3.3 (12) 11.8 6.004.Table 5.6 (10) 7.576 2.000 3.887.100.2 7.000 1.19 Per cent (rank) of participants sampled 17. high-risk drivers in Malaysia.2 (5) 0.9 (3) 2.286 1.3 compares the state of origin of participants in Study 1 with the more relevant measures of vehicle registrations and crash occurrence.7 (2) 2.2 (1) 3.0 4.0 12.300.7 (14) But.000 215.2 (11) 12.8 (6) 6. Not all states have the same number of drivers. For that reason.387.2 (13) 11.2: 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) 7.503.4 provides similar comparisons for the state of origin of the sample of motorcyclists. in this case. It is important to remember that the purpose of this research was to study the population of young.150. Table 5. 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. Table 5.396.000 2.
725 70.230 266.635 1.22 17.600 135.16 2.144 12.561 1.13 6.46 8.212 39.617 10.98 0.34 11.19 7.4 4.05 2.24 0.70 12.28 3.163 10.45 9.76 3.920 181.026 10.96 3.496 187.97 12.20 12.170 13.90 5.55 7.19 4.35 4.85 1.68 7.774 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 12.467 25.92 25.24 2.029 273.88 2.198 156.104 6.89 3.785 393.19 3.496 Private Automobile Registrations (until 2003) 703.84 11.064 9.768 6.490 525.27 14.43 2.70 3.251 324.041 92.37 3.36 8.Table 5.75 4.34 3.3: State of Origin Compared with Crash Frequency and Vehicle Registrations (Study 1) Average Motor Vehicle Crash Frequency (2000-2003) 34.93 9.88 3.093 5.137 698.63 207 .003 10.50 29.588.93 0.735 165.428.606 24.91 2.
43 2.212 39.46 14.38 0.856 310.722 255.4: State of Origin Compared with Crash Frequency and Vehicle Registrations (Study 2) Average Motor Vehicle Crash Frequency (2000-2003) 34.37 3.93 7.14 7.725 70.615.15 5.28 3.49 0.288 444.064 9.104 6.4 4.38 4.88 2.768 6.003 10.66 11.64 1.958 % Participants’ State of Origin (by license 17 9 1 11 9 5 11 13 14 2 2 3 18 7 122 % Johor Kedah Kelantan Kuala Lumpur Melaka Negeri Sembilan Pahang Penang Perak Perlis Sabah Sarawak Selangor Terengganu 12.02 7.221 36.35 4.27 14.92 25.74 208 .98 0.170 13.63 13.46 5.45 2.561 1.33 4.49 12.36 8.656 821.88 3.606 24.305 276.75 5.679 90.995 233.59 1.76 3.467 25.026 10.02 10.112 347.727 161.989 6.992 776.59 12.617 10.029 273.10 9.Table 5.64 2.03 4.283 770.82 9.22 3.63 11.48 1.133 705.79 13.496 % Private Vehicle Registrations (until 2003) 933.93 9.144 12.20 15.
3 and 5.5 shows the The Spearman rank correlation coefficient (rs) for the variables in Tables 5.814** 1 .903** .Table 5. was representative of a high risk driver population. This sample was comprised of individuals within the age group that has the most motor vehicle crashes. at least. participants came from – or. Of course. Table 5.796** 1 Were the participants studied in this research representative of high-risk Malaysian drivers? In terms of their age and their regional origin.908** 1 3 Participants’ state of origin .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) . Future studies of Malaysian driving behaviour will need to expand the range participant 209 . it is possible to say that sampling.4. 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.824** . both for the studies of automobile drivers and for the study of motorcyclists. were licensed as drivers in – the states with the most registered vehicles and the highest numbers of crashes. At least on these dimensions. there are many other dimensions on which members of a sample can or cannot be representative of the population from which they have been drawn. it can be argued that they were.701** 1 Study 2: Motorcyclists Motorcycle crash frequency (by state) Vehicle registrations (by state) Participants’ state of origin 1 2 3 1 . Even though data collection was carried out at a single university location.
in studying driving behaviour. Keskinen. Rothengatter.g. Additional studies should be carried out in order to validate findings within the broader population. It would be impossible to find an answer to the question “is the elderly group with low mileage at a higher risk than younger drivers with high mileage?” In order to explain the differences between different road-user roups in accient risk. 1998. Elander et al. Self-report data are prone to inaccuracy due to participant memory lapses. Hatakka. (1993) have similarly argued that other methods for studying the 210 . We can also get rough data of exposure by age. Exposure. as in other psychological research.. accidents. social desirability response sets and fakeability (Aiken. unless the variation within the group is very small. e. demographic factors. 5. None of these variables can be substituted by group means. is that this kind of data is usually aggregated … From aggregated data we cannot study the connections between accidents and age and exposure. the easiest way to get data on several factors from the same subjects is by simply asking the subjects (p. The issue becomes even harder to resolve when dealing with cognitive variables that cannot be observed directly (Groeger & Rothengatter. Much important data is available in official statistics. 296).2 Use of self-report methods The use of self-report methods in traffic psychology has been strongly criticised by af Wählberg (2002). Katila and Laapotti (1997) have argued that. attitudinal factors.characteristics used as a basis for sample-to-population comparisons. Again. the data has to be disaggregated. However. the use of questionnaire data provides the only practical possibility for gathering data at a low cost. accident distributions by age. however. violations and accidents should be linked together. 1979). 2001). The problem. 1998.6.
questionnaires were administered to measure all variables and. in studies of driving behaviour. errors of recall or contamination by post-event information (Belli & Loftus. Visser and Denis (2004). muscle tension. the more information is lost through memory lapses. combined interview and observational methods. perhaps drawing from drivers’ insurance records or. subjects would tend to under-report dangerous or illegal activities and that this tendency might usually be expected to be consistent across compared groups. steering wheel reversals and speed change frequencies)” (p. the longer the time period for data collection. as in a study reported by Chalmé. 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. 13). subjective accounts of crash or injury history should be validated against objective measures.. In the present research. heart-rate acceleration and electrodermal activity) and to overt driving behaviours (e. 211 . as well.effects of personality on driving have drawbacks that cannot be overlooked. 1996).. blood pressure. therefore.6. Miles and Johnson (2003) have noted that. all data may be subject to the shortcomings of self-report methods. 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.g. self-reported crash and injury histories and self-reported driving patterns measured by the Behaviour in Traffic scale could be prone to inaccuracy. Particularly. 5.g. Papacostas and Synodinos (1988) also stressed the need to undertake studies investigating the correlation of BIT factors to “the usually measured physiological responses of drivers (e. Yet. The assumption. In future studies. for instance. though.3 Timeframe for Data Collection Elander et al. Since generally motor vehicle crashes are fairly rare events. inadequate data are collected when the research is conducted over short periods of time. (1993) and af Wählberg (2003) have commented on the problem of data collection timeframes in studies of motor vehicle crashes.
participants were asked to recall if a crash or resulting injury had occurred within the past twelve months. 1997. a timeframe that is consistent with reasonably accurate recall (Haber & Haber. it has to be acknowledged that the measure is subjective. Traits included in the contextual mediated model as distal variables have been found to be relatively consistent and resistant to change over this interval. The driving frequency measure was alaso used a co-variate in analyses of relationships between other distal variables and proximal variables. other measures of driving frequency present as many or more problems. The problem with this approach is that it is every bit as subjective as the categorical judgements of 212 . 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. as well. in that the measure tells us little about the circumstances under which participants drove other than their perceived use against some unstated.6.2) that higher levels would result in less risky behaviour in traffic was supported. Unfortunately. Mercer. 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. This method has been used in previous studies by other authors (Pelz & Schuman.4 Measurement of Driving Frequency One of the self-report measures used in this research requires particular discussion. 2002). Results were used as a measure of driving frequency for Studies 1 and 2. First. there is a certain imprecision to the measure.In the present research. Second. Some authors have asked participants to estimate the distrance travelled during a particular period (Lajunen & Summala. individual standard. 5. and that one participant’s perception of frequent automobile or motorcycle use may seem infrequent to another’s. and the hypothesis (H2. 1999). 1971).
Wood & Boyd. on how available it is in our memories (Kahneman. 2003. 2002). p. “Some events are more available than others not because they tend to occur frewquently or with high probability. in other words. in which the perceived probability of an event corresponds to the ease with thich the event comes to mind or. 1974). Specifically. experiences that are more common than others tend to be the ones that are most available.. But. because they have taken place recently. their chances of winning a lottery (Griffiths. although this has not been firmly established. 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. 1973. and that people are consistently poor at making these sorts of estimates accurately (Saad. Kahneman. Slovic & Tversky. eventful or recent. Often. the problem in relying on the ease with which event can be retrieved from memory for determining their likelihood is that our perceptions cannot necessarily be counted on as an accurate reflection of reality. but because they are inherently easier to think about. This is why individuals tend to irrationally overestimate the number of murders per year (Jaffe. 181). but not always. There is some evidence that the availability heuristic exerts a greater impact when specific quantitative amounts or percentages have to be estimated. 121). In much the same way. it is argued here that such inaccuracy is also likely due to a cognitive phenomenon known as the availability heuristic. frequency or distribution in the world (p. 2003). because they are highly emotional and so forth” (Plous. 1993). 1993. 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. 2004). this strategy leads us to overestimate their actual occurrence. Levy (1997) argues that: Unfortuantely. 213 . as opposed to reporting perceptions in categorical form (Tversky & Kahneman. 1982). and the likelihood of encountering a traffic jam (Wood.frequency that were used in this research. 2008).
A logbook approach was considered during the design of the present research. Driving 30 kilometres daily on quiet city thoroughfares.. 1991). on one hand. and the availability of the resources necessary to operationalise them. road conditions. Of course. 2001) . the use of distance travelled doesn’t really solve the main problem in travel frequency measurement. but training participants in standardised record-keeping. in their studies of roadway aggression. 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. Deffenbacher et al. Sansone. (2003). it might be expected that participants’ driving estimates would be particularly prone to influence by the availability heuristic. for example. Given that sample sizes for this research had to be large enough to apply structural equation modelling procedures. emotionally-laden seasonal and holiday travel (Richardson & Downe. it was felt that the collection of logbook data would have overextended time and financial resources at hand for the five 214 . poorer pavement and more surrounding vehicles (Åkerstedt & Kecklund. in the form of more vividly remembered trips to family reunions during festive seasons. where driving histories generally include lengthy. 2000). Similarly.In the Malaysian environment. Finally. during periods of low traffic volume. Morf and Panter (2004) argue that psycho-social research generally involves a balancing act between idealised research questions. traffic volume and so on in logbooks as a means of controlling for differing driving circumstances. which is the lack of information about the circumstances under which road use occurred (Odero et al. asked participants to record the time of day. many of the inaccuracies involved with the use of self-reported frequency data could have been solved by taking direct odometer readings. 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.
To summarise. Models in Traffic Psychology It has been noted earlier that the emerging field of traffic psychology has yet to arrive at a unified. 2002. Michon.. 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. 1985. during the study design process. 2004). Summala. Good theories are simple. creating new difficulties in their quantification (King. 2004). drawn from empirical studies and demonstrating inter-variable relationships (Chaloupka-Risser.7 5. 2005).1 Implications and Areas for Further Study Theory vs. In the present research. selfreported measure used here. have high information content. 5. While some authors have considered the terms “theory” and “model” as synonymous (e. 1997). over-arching theory (Rothengatter. Ranney. but that considerable effort has gone into the development of descriptive models.g.7. 2005). categorical perceptions of driving frequency. collected logbook data would have been largely qualitative in nature. that associated methodological disadvantages were fewer than those of the competing approaches. Rothengatter (2001) has argued that better measures of risk exposure are needed in traffic psychology. 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. 1991). 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. are of nomological character and can be applied irrespective of time and space (Langdridge. but this was done with an awareness of the shortcomings of this measure. 1994). the difference is that models are generally seen as “more modest affairs that aim to illustrate 215 . the decision was made to use participants’ subjective. Further research is required.studies undertaken. It was felt. are testable and contain no contradictions. In addition.
Huguenin (1997) has similarly argued that theories are necessary to treat a subject scientifically. 1997. Wilde (1982) has expressed concern that the study of traffic safety “is characterised by a sparsity of comprehensive and articulate conceptions” (p. debate as to whether the greater need exists for more theory or for more data. 294). Throughout the development of traffic psychology. in particular to structure data. The answer is probably not. check facts. on the other hand. at times. stating that. there has beeen an ongoing discussion and. if they aim to illuminate and encourage research on specific topics rather than the 216 . often in graphical form (Grayson. 32). 94). and while any data collection procedure must have some element of theory if it is to have real purpose. or represent processes. Grayson (1997) agreed. The first question is whether we need traffic psychology theories. 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. Hauer (1987). The answer to this question is possibly yes. Attempts to develop ‘traffic- specific’ theories have proved far less fruitful than has the importation of established theories from other areas of psychology. the fact remains that we have enough guidance already from mainstream psychology.patterns of relationships. p. if they are modest in ambition. Although one might agree with the statement (ascribed at different times to Helmholtz and to Lewin) that “there is nothing so practical as a good theory”. create links to other fields of knowledge or to explain or predict circumstances. The second question is whether we need traffic psychology models.
and if they are resultscentred (pp. while ignoring other factors which are much too important to be ignored (p. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts. but the framework constructed here can easily accommodate a potentially endless range of both distal and proximal variables. In this case.entire spectrum of traffic behaviour. 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. argued that with theory-centred methods there was an inherent danger of confirmation bias – a tendency to evaluate ideas in a manner the meets existing expectancies (Chaplin. 1985) – that could hinder scientific progress. In 217 . This dichotomy of perspectives is not unique to traffic studies and driving behaviour but seems to permeate all areas of applied psychology. it has proved capable of linking psychological and demographic variables with a pattern of driving behaviour to illustrate influences on crash outcomes and injuries. Yet. it seems unlikely that general theories offering much more can be formulated. The debate often seems to revolve around the comparative merits of result-centred versus theory-centred methods in research. The problem arises from an intrinsic dilemma.3). hopelessness. the contextual mediated model developed here may also go some distance toward breaking out of the narrow monist frame of reference eschewed by Evans. who argued that. While many models offer insight into specific aspects of driver behaviour. 2. This latter point was also stressed by Evans (1991). those variables included a diverse set of human traits including locus of control. for instance. In the present research. 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. Greenwald and Pratkanis (1988). 304). 95-96).
together with methodological difficulties associated with the use of accident measures. not on everyday driving. Future research should attempt to expand the contextual mediated approach beyond studies of crash histories. while still very much a model and not a theory.3. … has used performance-based measures to predict individual accident histories. The contextual mediated framework. According to Ranney (1994). Kerlinger (2000) and others. 2003). 2005) were included as distal variables. psychoticism. conscientiousness. for instance. 5. openness. sensation seeking (Sümer.other studies. anxiety. as defined by Grayson (1997). crash-free driving.4). agreeableness and neuroticism (Sümer et al. While the present research 218 . has focused primarily on accident-causing behaviour. depression. 2.. and has relied heavily on post-hoc explanations. The general lack of success in identifying predictors of safe driving. much current research. competence or hierarchical level of information processing (see sect. the process through which drivers make adjustments based on their perceptions of risk. 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.7.2 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). Rather than describing and predicting the interaction of factors involved in causing crashes. provides breadth of focus and a more holistic perspective than many other attempts at modelling driving behaviour. With several exceptions. extraversion. it has been conducted without the benefit of a process model of driving.
They argued that locus of control. or at least to react more slowly. those who see themselves playing little or no part in the unfolding of events will act in a less cautious manner. On the other hand. relying on it to competently perform the task it was designed for. Such individuals would be more likely than internals to over-rely on a device to keep them oriented and alert. Brown and Noy (2004) stressed that theories of BA and driving behaviour in general. no matter how reliable a safety device. will always maintain more direct involvement with the driving task than those scoring high on externality dimensions. along with trust in automation and sensation seeking. BA to in-vehicle safety measures may also be under the influence of drivers’ locus of control.did not test any of those theories specifically. should the device fail to perform the task for which it was designed. those with an external locus of control may be more likely to give up control to an external device. As a result. Within their proposed conceptual framework. believing that fate will achieve its predetermined goals no matter what the individual does. 219 . some of the variables considered are conceptually tied to them. while intuitively appealing and providing some useful insight. fail by not considering individual driver characteristics or the range of motivations that determine driving behaviour. 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. Conversely. Following this reasoning. they will become less involved with the driving task and be less likely to react. individuals viewing themselves as being responsible for both positive and negative driving outcomes will be more likely to take precautionary measures such as wearing seat belts and being vigilant to roadway cures. is a concept that should be incorporated as an element in theories seeking to explain BA and its role in driving.
can be focused specifically on combinations of risk factors at both the distal and proximal levels. 1997. 2005. these approaches require special therapeutic training and large efforts on behalf of drivers. Training and Rehabilitation The results of the present research have important implications for the improvement of driving behaviour. which may mitigate the negative effects of roadway hostility. Summala.In the present research.3 Driver Selection. Findings from the present research can guide planners of remedial courses and counsellors to teach methods for increasing internal attributions. locus of control was found to exert effects on Type A driving patterns and.7. 1982). 2006) or cognitive processing (Keskinen. external locus of control and hostile attributions. 220 . whether that adaptation is the result of perceived risk (Wilde. Programmes with content focused on building internal attributions and a sense of personal responsibility would enhance training outcomes. Luckner (1989) and others have successfully developed training curricula that encourage internality. 2004). Typically. changes in driver behaviour might be better targeted. an area of increasing importance in fleet management (Barjonet & Tortosa. 2002. Gidron & Davidson. The treatment or rehabilitation of dangerous drivers has relied heavily on cognitive behaviour modification applications (Deffenbacher et. (2003) to moderate the effects of aggression on driving outcomes. Specifically. scarce resources for screening drivers. could be screened out. Coupled with simulated or actual driving experience and methods to modify patterns of hostile selftalk. Christ et al. Drivers may need to undergo cognitive restructuring about their beliefs about their own responsibility over road safety in order to increase levels of internality. 1996). consistent with the earlier findings of Gidron et al. 1996). Further research is required to investigate implications for improving driving performance. once identified. 5. Drivers with combinations of TABP and aggression. Further research should focus on the role played by locus of control in influencing patterns of BA.. al. though. task capability (Fuller.
the technologies sophisticated and the interactions among humans. education. the Haddon Matrix (Haddon. educational programming (including public awareness and driver training). Matthews and Guest (1999) have argued that traffic engineering has also undergone a transition in emphasis over the last decade. and the effective enforcement of regulatory legislation (Wheatley. 1961. Specific measures aimed at reducing accident occurrence or injury can be classed according to whether they are predominantly based on engineering principles. 1957.5. Unlike 100 years ago. and machines are highly intricate (p. From this has emerged the growing 221 .2 Engineering Interventions Engineering applications in transportation have become increasingly cogniscent of human thinking processes. or legal intervention. World Health Organisation. 5. 1957). the tasks we ask operators to perform today are highly cognitie.4.1 Generating and classifying crash prevention interventions Ergonomists and safety scientists have. 1970) provides another system for classifying highway events for the purposes of research or accident prevention (see Figure 2.4). recognised that the cardinal bases of accident prevention fall into three categories: engineering.7. for the last fifty years. Cooke and Durso (2008) have noted that: Most industrial tasks require human operators to interact with various technologies. 1).7. This framework can be integrated with the “Three E’s” to identify specific crash prevention measures arising from the findings of the present research.4 Preventive Measures: “The Three E’s” 5. Slinn. teams of humans. These have been euphemistically termed the “three E’s”.7. At the same time.4. in the the traffic engineer’s role has increasingly become one of improving the efficiency of an existing roadway system rather than building new higher capacity roads.
Maggio & Jin. (Bishop. as well as other in-vehicle technologies now being tested for future implementation in automobiles and other vehicles (see Table 5. is strongly associated with crash outcomes would support the importance of further development of LKA systems. Lane-keeping Assist Systems (LKA). Stough. Suda & Ono. The findings of the present research that usurpation of right-of-way. depending on environmental factors. 2005). there is an adaptive and cooperative relationship between the driver and the vehicle in ensuring that lane deviation and roadway departure are controlled. 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. These have been applied to in-car. In the case of LKA. 2001). for instance. so the systems are easily overridden by even the weakest drivers when needed (Kawazoe. The aim should be to assist drivers by making routine actions simpler. with the resulting transport systems generally referred to as Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS. Sadano. there may be limits to the number and level of sophistication of devices installed in motor vehicles. not to overwhelm them with complicated or difficult override processes. 2003). At the same time. Such systems are based on a shared control paradigm. 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. 222 . 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.6). The amount of toque needed to adjust vehicle direction at highway speeds is quite small. operator workload and performance (Inagaki.6). Bishop (2005) has noted that there is still a lack of knowledge about the threshold levels at which to set in-vehicle modifications. roadway and environmental settings (see Table 5. or the adaptive automation concept. Other authors have cautioned against engineering so many devices and signals that driver attention becomes diverted from vehicle control tasks. 2001). Murazami.
Safety benefits from traffic management can result from changes in the patterns of trffic flow. Herzog. 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. Ulrich. in particular to pursue environmental. 1993. 1997). 2000). Intelligent Speed Adaptation (ISA) and Adaptive Cruise Control (ACC) systems (see Table 5. Fountaine and Knotts. Tassinary. Black. 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. 2003. Parsons. Hebl & Grossman-Alexander. Traffic management may also be carried out for easons other than safety. Brown & Noy. The present research also found that freeway urgency.6). traffic 223 . changes in traffic speed. 1999.with a resulting increase in crash risk (Noy. Recovery from lapses in attention has been faster in “restorative environments” enhanced with horticultural and aesthetic features (Heerwagen & Oriens. but also encourages at a more basic level the concept of traffic management as a policy prescription: Traffic management refers to the adaptation of the use of the existing road network. 1998). 2004. such as Automated Speed Enforcement (ASE). Richardson & Downe. in the form of driving above the speed limit and driving consistently in the fast lane. was associated crash outcomes. Engineering solutions have also been suggested with respect to the design of roadways and the general driving environment. 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.
ostensibly satisfying wandering attentional needs and allowing vehicle operators to concentrate on tasks at hand. 224 . however. 1996. but extends into city-wide suppression of traffic. inexperienced drivers. Lippold and Mayser (2003) have noted that new driver assistance systems offer some promise for safety improvements by providing additional information to drivers. journey purpose or other human factors. 1991). Proctor. however. questions of alternative urban structure. Gregersen and Falkmer (2003). 309). Maakip (2003) has also added that there is little understanding of exactly what specific pieces of information drivers require or prefer to have. This view embraces a philosophy and a set of goals that go far beyone mere physical control and management of traffic. and whether this information varies according to the situation. 1992). 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 refers to driving while thinking about things unrelated to the driving task. 1996. Current discussions of speed management go even beyond traditional traffic management approaches. have pointed out that many problems still exist in the implementation of such technological solutions and that some of these – including the creation of higher mental workloads and overestimation tendencies in the use of information – may be particularly salient for young. engineering solutions have the least to offer in terms of behaviour in traffic that involves risky levels of destination activity orientation. p.efficiency (capacity) or access objectives (Ogden. and now encompass the principle of “traffic calming” (Brindle. Dietze. Probably. and substantial lifestyle changes aimed at achieving an environmentally sustainable future (Ogden.
traffic and systems (RDWS) – curve different materials to increase weather sesors.1. to allow easier lanes and synchronised actuated increase in steering overtaking and lane signals decreases the need as the vehicle nears a lane. keeping. and likelihood of. reversible corrections through a motorlanes. generally comprehensive lateral control controlled from a central assistance (LCA) – a point.1 Vehicle Road Environment lane departure warning lane marker improvements – integrated traffic systems (LDWS) – have the using plastic. – 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. “rumble strips” in expressways. traffic drivers when their speed is definition. Integrated with combination of radar and roadside sensors. Examples are the signals and ramp meters to too high for an upcoming use of “Bot’s dots” or monitor traffic on streets and curve. variable speed warning systems advise lane conspicuity and message signs (VMS). thermoplastic management systems – Many ability to detect lane and epoxy materials to metropolitan areas have departures and to alert drivers designate lane configurations. etc. the systems vision sensing technology to transmit information to combine lane and road drivers about traffic flow. Hi H 1. management centers (TMCs) integrated lane marker with closed-circuit television road departure warning applications – these combine (CCTV) camersas. unsafe blind spot monitoring systems lane deviation. 225 . departure warning.Table 5. blind spot sensing and lange change assist. transitions for. infrastructure. 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.6: Engineering Applications for Crash Prevention Finding Drivers who usurp the right-ofway and commit lane violations are more likely to experience crash outcomes. created intelligent traffic of impending hazards. lane road conditions.
the host vehicle. than the safety standard. t-junctions or or (at maximum) to limit the warning signs for vehicles pedestrian crossings. generally pilot”. communication systems (ACC) – acting as a Driving speed can be reduced embedded in the roadway “longitudinal control cothrough infrastructure infrastructure.1.. a particular high-risk part of the thoroughfare. vehicle’s speed to comply travelling at speeds higher cooperative vehicle highway with the speed limit. adjusting transmit information to Intersection devices (yield speed as needed to maintaina drivers about the speed at and stop signs.1. the systems intersection modification. Radar. deriver-selectable interwhich surrounding vehicles provide speed modification at vehicle gap.2 lane deviation feedback systems – systems calculate the number of lane changes as a function of speed and cue the driver with performance data. traffic lights) safe. including controlled from a central cruise control but also track street and link closures. systems (CVHS) – wireless adaptive cruise control road network modifications. point.(continued) H 1. 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”.and millimetre-wave (MMW)-based inter-vehicle communications – systems that send data about the proximity of approaching or following vehicles. H 1. to in-vehicle display terminals. 226 . including those in adjoining lanes. 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. are travelling.1 Drivers scoring high on a measure of freeway urgency are more likely to experience crash outcomes. Integrated with vehicles in the lane ahead of roadside sensors. ACC systems provide modifications.
coupled with stress vegetation to reduce traffic signals. “Speed tables”. 227 . environment and other frustrating stimuli. humorous content to evoke a contradictory affective response to frustration. signs with calming or vehicles. H 1. at which the whole road space at an intersection is raised. Such devices include chicanes. automated speed enforcement – the use of high-volume speed cameras to regulate the speed of motor vehicles on roadways. measures that can reduce by driver interactions with congestion and other contrary messages – roadroad. pinchpoints and gateways or arches.(continued) Externally-frustrated drivers are more likely to experience crash outcomes.1. The use of properly designed humps are effective in causing vehicles to reduce speed in their vicinity. horizontal displacement – these design features cause the driver to change direction quite sharply and change the visual cues presented by the roadway. 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.3 vertical displacement. traffic flow management training to better frustration and effect a moderation and other cope with frustration caused calming influence on drivers. has an advantage over intersection redesign by saving space.
1. H 1. dedicated broadcast of safety messages – radio or broadband messages with reminder to focus attention on driving tasks at hand. 228 . safety messages. This information allows drivers to avoid or. notice of future road construction and notice of public events. Destination-activity orientation is associated with a higher risk of crash outcomes. driver assistance systems – capable of providing information about destination conditions or journey progress. at least. notification of construction ahead. prepare for stress-provoking conditions and external frustration. weather-related road conditions.4 in-vehicle biofeedback devices – systems that measure driver arousal and eye focal points and cue the driver when measures do not calibrate with attention to road conditions. to reduce wandering thoughts and focus attention on driving tasks at hand.(continued) electronic variable message signs (VMSs) – roadside signboards which change messages to provide updated information about traffic congestion.
(b) there are no driving or instruction manuals. 73). in addition to teaching the practical manoeuvres and driving techniques associated with managing a vehicle.3 Education According to Jacobs and Baguley (2004). It suggests that.5. Training skills for anger management and frustration tolerance. publicity campaigns and incentive schemes to be offered as part of the activities within mosques (Che Ali Bin Che Hitam. however.7. 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. 2001). Professional driving instruction tends to be inadequate because (a) driving instructors are not properly tested or monitored. like community centres or places of worship. to some extent. it may be effective to conduct such awareness bulding within cultural centres. Downing and Sager (1982) reported that children were significantly less likely to recive advice than in the United Kingdom from members of thir family. The present research provides some useful additions to the knowledge base to be imparted to professional driving instructors in Malaysia. to inadequacies in driver training and testing. Effective road safety education goes beyond driver training programmes. and (c) driving test standards and requirements are inadequate” (p. They concluded that there is clarealy a need to improve road safety education. and must include broader awareness about the dangers of roads and traffic. 229 . teachers or the police. The present research suggests that. This is consistent with previous calls in Malaysia for safety awareness education. the probems of poor driver behaviour and knowledge in developing and emerging countries “are likely to be due. In a study of traffic awareness in developing countries. given ethnic differences observed with respect to drivers’ behaviour in traffic.4. it is also important for them to devote some time to the affective and cognitive components of the driving task.
Success of the yearly Ops Sitak safety campaign by the Royal Malaysian Police and other regulatory bodies has been attributed to several “cumulative factors. road safety campaigns and media coverage” (Cheah. and driving within safe legal limits could be included within future public information campaigns.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. Jacobs and Baguley (2004) have stressed that changes in road laws and police operations need to be well advertised in order to be effective. First. 2007. Siegrist and Roskova (2001) have called for an integration of social science views arising from traffic psychology with legislation and enforcement pertaining to traffic. however. legal measures change least often. 1978. p. (2) exhortatory and educational measures to encourage the development of appropriate skills and attitudes. or an internal locus of control. evoke the least expectation and are least often evaluated in terms of their effect on accidents” (p. from the findings of the present research.5. or the tendency to attribute one’s own attitudes and behaviour to others. Yergil (2005) has discussed a number of cognitive biases that tend to enhance a false sense of safety among drivers.4. They also stated. p. The bias of false consensus. and penalties for infringement to ensure that the rules are obeyed.7. The results of the present research would suggest that messages about the link between personal responsibility for one’s action. Second. that “Of these three approaches. was studied in a 230 . one practical and the other touching on the development of theory. and (3) legal measures providing rules governing the interaction of pedestrians and traffic. This twinning of psychological and legal perspectives derives two implications. N6). The Belief in a Just World bias is the tendency “to belive that they live in a world where people generally get what they deserve” (Lerner and Miller. 265). such as visibility of enforcement. 1030).
after all. 498). on one hand attributing outcomes to a fatalistic notion of Just World and. Stradling. Azjen & Fishbein. to consensual beliefs of powerful others. Parker. 2001) provides an interesting theoretical framework for considering the influences of these cognitions and their interplay with regulatory controls. Yergil (2005) notes that: In order to maintain the self-concept of a law-abiding citizen. 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. is allowed to occur in a Just World. They showed that the frequency of violations was related to the evaluated percentage of other drivers who commit the same violations. on the other. The theory of planned behaviour (TPB. 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). 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 . drivers need to resolve the contradiction between cognitions: “traffic laws are laws” and “I violate traffic laws. Another possible way to minimise the same contradiction is to diminish the significance of the violation by labelling it as an action that. 1991. Ajzen.sample of drivers by Manstead. opinions about what significant others would think of the behaviour (subjective norms) and perceived behaviour control (PCB). 2001. 1992). Reason & Baxter.” One possible way to minimize this contradiction and the resulting dissonance is to attribute the same behaviour regarding violating the law to other drivers (the bias of the false consensus). By doing so. Both biases seem rooted in an external locus of control.
Similarly. or not adhere. it may be possible to come closer to the integration of legal and psychological perspectives advocated by Siegrist and Roskova (2001). an orientation toward an external locus of control may influence PCB factors underlying the decision to comply with legal requirements or not. to traffic regulations. 232 .drivers’ decisions to adhere. By examining drivers’ response to traffic laws in the context of the theory of planned behaviour.
when risky. locus of control. Results have indicated that. such human factors are important contributors to crash outcomes. as expected. it was concluded that driver experience. gender. 233 . A contextual mediated model. demographic and psychological characteristics of drivers on the occurrence of self-reported motor vehicle crashes and crash-related injuries. as proximal to the crash outcomes. It is concluded here that the contextual mediated model is useful in conceptualising and testing driving behaviour and its outcomes and that further research incorporating other variables at both the distal and proximal level should be carried out. aggression and tendency to entertain hostile automatic thoughts all act upon driving behaviour patterns which. Sümer et al. Wállen Warner & Åberg. In doing so. hopelessness.g. with demographic and personality variables posited as distal and patterns of behaviour in traffic consistent with the Type A behaviour pattern. 2005.. Studies using structural equation modelling to interpret complex inter-variable relationships have become increasingly prevalent within the traffic psychology literature (e. 2003. Iverson & Rundmo. Sümer. In the present research. 2002. contribute to the occurrence of crashes and injuries. 2006) and it is anticipated that there will be many more.. structural equation modelling (SEM) was found to be a valuable technique for articulating interactive relationships in a holistic manner. was used to frame the relationship between these human factors. derived from the earlier work of Sümer (2003).CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION The present research was an attempt to investigate interaction effects of experiential. age. ethnicity.
Some inter-ethnic differences in 234 . 2000) and hierarchical motivation theories (Näätänen and Summala. although it is widely acknowledged that this is not a hard and fast rule. measures of aggression had direct effects on all components of self-reported behaviour in traffic.In the current literature. 1986. task capability (Fuller. 1973). that when faced with competing models in safety studies. while internal locus of control has been frequently associated with safer work and lifestyle practices (Guastello & Guastello. In the present research. The present research replicated earlier findings about the important influences of internal and external locus of control over behaviour leading to safety problems and. 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. However. 1987). or external locus of control. 1974).. it has been argued here that it may be an important factor in behavioural adaptation processes underlying risk homeostasis (Wilde. Of particular interest was the fact that the effects of aggression on TABP were moderated by cognitive self-talk containing two content types: physical aggression and revenge. one conclusion is that the locus of control construct plays an important role in safety behaviour. like Brown and Noy (2004). consistent with the position taken by Byrne (2001) and other authors. Hoyt. and accident risk (e. Some previous studies have shown a link between ‘fatalism’. 2003). 1995. the selection of one SEM over competing models has been generally based on which has the better goodness-of-fit. Further. 1982).. the locus of control variable has been long recognised as a moderator variable in a range of psychological processes involving stress (Lefcourt. the best fit usually implies the best model. This is Of the variables studied. it is argued here. Montag & Comrey. 1983) and was earlier found to moderate the effects of aggression on driving behaviour (Gidron et al. traffic psychologists and other researchers are advised to make the choice based on theoretical and practical. In most cases. Harrell.g. It is further concluded that aggression also plays a significant role in behaviour leading to crash outcomes. as well as statistical grounds.
an economist who researches economic factors of transportation without much concern for geography. 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. For example.. they 235 . One of the benefits of using structural equation modelling in such research is that it allows for a holistic.aggression were observed. Several authors (e. However. Each system has its own experts whose lenses are focused almost exclusively on their own subject matter. a multi-disciplinary approach was used. As Rothe (2002) has pointed out: Traffic-safety systems are composed of complex behaviours that imply complex causes and entangled factors. road engineering and ergonomics. bird’s eye view of the factors contributing a given outcome. as well. a civil engineer who uses laboratories to measure asphalt wearing under different conditions. and a psychologist who studies cognition and driving while turning away from laws and government. Huguenin.g. 1998. 2005. in combination. Groeger & Rothengatter. Rothengatter. including psychology (especially cognitive and information processing). 2002) have noted that this is a hallmark of the traffic psychology field and it is concluded here that studies of the manner in which human factors influence safety behaviour require a range of constructs pulled from various disciplines. It is argued that this is a In interpreting these effects. it became apparent that motor vehicle crashes are indeed multi-factorial phenomena and that prior assumptions of causality should always be subject to review. promising approach to future studies of crasch occurrence. all are professionals who know their area of expertise has collegially or self-imposed limitations. cultural anthropology.
Continued sharing between professional associations and between design. In the present research. 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). 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. 313). significant impacts can be made in reducing motor vehicle crashes. management. injuries and death. 236 . educational and enforcement spheres. It is to be hoped that future preventive measures and research will continue along the multi-disciplinary path that has characterised both traffic psychology and road engineering as emerging areas of specialisation. findings with regard to four components of behaviour in traffic gave rise to a number of interventions in the engineering. Indeed. Through a multi-disciplinary approach.form a complex traffic-safety reality in which systems form a web of interdependent fields (p. Additional studies should aim toward a conceptual common ground and further examination of models and theories from which broader understanding can be derived.
Third edition. Bahrain.  Abdul Kareem. and Pederson. Malaysian Journal of Medical Sciences. (2002). Understanding Multicultural Malaysia: Delights. K.. (Research Report 1/99) Kuala Lumpur: Malaysia Road Safety Council. attitudes and social norms of Swedish male drivers. Crash data analysis: collective vs. and Kulanthayan. and Law. M. Mohd Nasir. P. (2003)..  af Wählberg. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. S. A.E. Some methodological deficiencies in studies on traffic accident predictors. Drinking and driving: intention. Psychological Testing and Assessment. Review of global menace of road accidents with special reference to Malaysia – a social perspective...  Abdul Rahman. A. Accident Analysis and Prevention.R. 169-177. (2002). A. individual crash level approach. Current Opinion in Neurobiology. H.A. Neural systems for recognizing emotion. P. Mohd Zulkifli. Subramaniam. 289-296. R. L.REFERENCES  Abdel-Aty. 237 . (2007). T. 25. L. Radin Umar. (2003). (1999).  Adolphs. Puzzles & Irritations.  Abdullah. H. N. (2003). (1979).E.  af Wählberg. R. 581-587.  Aiken. 473-486. 1867-1874. A. Musa.H. The effectiveness of motorcycle safety campaigns on motorcyclists. Journal of Safety Research. 10(2).. Accident Analysis and Prevention. and Anurag.  Ahmad Hariza. 31-39.  Åberg.H. 38(5). MY: Pearson. Petaling Jaya.T. Car occupants accidents and injuries among adolescents in a state in Malaysia. E140 Proceedings of the Safety on Roads International Conference (SORIC). (1993). 12. 5. (2005). Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies. M.B.S. 35. On the validity of self-reported traffic accident data.
H. (2004). From attitudes to behaviour: basic and applied research on the theory of planned behaviour. 187-195.  Arthur. Attitudes and the attitude behavior relation: reasoned and automatic processes. (2001). gender and early morning accidents.) Action-Control: From Cognition to Behavior. Human Factors. (2003). T. 404-415.  Arbous. and Beckmann. Nature and operation of attitudes. The theory of planned behaviour. S. J. and Fishbein. Ajzen. A. Aggressive Behavior. 7. 22(3). Bell. E. (Eds.  Ajzen.  Ajzen. and Hewston. and Kecklund (2001). 33(3). 50(2). Current Psychology: Developmental. (2005).) European Review of Social Psychology. (1985).G. Learning.C. I. Accident statistics and the concept of accident proneness.J. I. and Tubré. M. A. A. Ethnic differences and married women’s employment in Malaysia: do government policies matter? Journal of Socio-Economics. B. J. W. Women’s friendships under urbanization: A Malaysian study.A. 340-342.  Archer. Beliefs about aggression among male and female prisoners. Heidleberg: Springer-Verlag. M. T. 10(6). (1997). Annual Review of Psychology. From intentions to actions: a theory of planned behavior. In Stroebe..J.. Age. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. J. (2001). and Christian. 291-307. (1987).T.  Armitage. 10. (Eds. Tubré. C. I. Convergence of self-report and archival crash involvement data: a two-year longitudinal followup. J. W.  Armstrong. Social. Personality. Edwards. Women’s Studies International Forum. I. Day. Journal of Sleep Research. 52. London: John Wiley & Sons..  Åkerstedt.  Ajzen. In Kuhl. 27-58. J. (1952). 303-313. Biometrics. and Haigh. (1991). S. 238 .  Amin. M. 623-633. and Kerrich.105-110.D. 47.E. 179-211. 23.
F.) Challenges to Accident Preventions: The Issue of Risk Compensation Behaviour. (Eds. Wilde. October 18).-E. Accident Analysis and Prevention.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp.  Bakri Musa.  Barjonet.  Asian Development Bank (2005). 14-29). 2(4). (1997). (1991). Amsterdam: Elsevier.bakrimusa.M. 51(6). Groningen.  Aylott.C.D. 1173-1182. When hope becomes hopelessness. 34. Manila: Philippines. Barrett.  Aschenbrenner. Human Performance. Characteristics of traffic crashes in Maryland (1996-1998): differences among the youngest drivers. (1998). P. Retrieved April 4. J. and Tortosa.S. M. R. M. K. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual. Accident Analysis and Prevention. (2005. European Journal of Oncology Nursing. B. P. and Kenny.L. 21-30). D. (1994). 34. and Alexander. R.M.-E. R.A. Transport psychology and transport in Europe: a general overview. 2007 from http://www. F. In Barjonet. Asian Development Bank – Association of Southeast Asian Nations regional road safety program (accident costing report AC5: Malaysia). GJ. 89-105. strategic and statistical considerations. (2002). (Ed. and Tortosa. Arthur.. Transport psychology in Europe: a historical approach.F. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.com/archives/continuing-carnage-on-our-carriageways. Prediction of vehicular accident involvement: a meta-analysis.V. 279-284. (2002). and Dischinger.M. S.. Boston: Kluwer. P. G.) Traffic Psychology Today (pp. In Rothengatter. 239 .31-42. Improved safety through improved technical measures? Empirical studies regarding risk compensation in relation to antilock braking systems.  Ballesteros.  Barjonet. NL: Styx. (Eds. T. An alternative accident prediction model for highway-rail interfaces.  Baron.A.  Austin. (1986). and Carbonell Vaya E. In Trimpop. R. (2001). Continuing carnage on our carriageways. and Biehl.. P-E. 4(2). and Carson. W. 231-234.
5-37.  Beck. A. D. A. A.  Bentler. (1999). L. Lester. New York: Cambridge University Press. Health Education and Behavior. and Bonnett. (2005). (1980).S. (1987b). and Mills. (1976).T. A.  Beck. The measurement of pessimism: the Hopelessness scale. 1146-1149.) The Evolution of Psychotherapy (pp. 240 . 1(1). 88. A.A. (1987a). and Steer. 218-229). Cognitive Therapy and the Emotional Disorders. (1975).M..  Beck. A. (pp. A. J. In Zeig. Hartos.. Weissman. Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. (1993). New York: Brunner/Mazel.  Beck. (Ed. (Eds.G. Kovacs.C. Prisoners of Hate: The Cognitive Basis of Anger. Manual for Beck Hopelessness Scale.. K. Cognitive models of depression.T. Psychological Bulletin. R.. P.  Beck.T. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy: An International Quarterly. 234(11). and Trexler. New York: Teachers College Press. Theory: the necessary evil. R. G. A. D.E.  Beck. Teen driving risk: the promise of parental influence and public policy. A.C.. (1996).T. E.F.T.H.F.) Remembering Our Past: Studies in Autobiographical Memory (pp.J. D. 234-240.  Belli. 149-178). Hostility and Violence. and Berg. and Simons-Morton (2002). hopelessness and fatigue in patients and family members in palliative care. New York: Perennial Harper Collins. New York: Meridian. J. (Ed. (1974). and Weissman. 29(1). 42  Becker.) Theory and Concepts in Qualitative Research: Perspectives from the Field. In (Flinders. In Rubin. The pliability of autobiographical memory: Misinformation and the false memory problem. Beck. Cognitive therapy.  Benzein. 157-179). M. The level of and relation between hope. 73-84.T. E. A.  Beck. 588-606. H.T. D. Journal of the American Medical Association. San Antonio TX: Psychological Corporation.G. 19. Palliative Medicine. (1993). and Loftus. Hopelessness and suicidal behavior.K.
F. A. Associations of Type A behavior with the emotional traits of anger and curiosity. 53. Managing the high costs of road deaths. 37.  Blasco. A technology to measure multiple driving behaviors without self-report or participant reactivity. (1981).. 37-40.S. March 12).S. McKee.  Blumenthal. Talley. E. B. S. 313-322. (2006). A. 2007 from http://www.  Bina. 95-104. M. F. Malaysian National News Agency.  Bettencourt. K.. (1995). T.. Retrieved March 30. Personality and aggressive behavior under provoking and neutral conditions: a meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin. Graziano. 751-777. and Valentine. and Haney. Accident analysis and Prevention. Applied Ergonomics. (1984).my/bernama/v3/printable.php?id=185148.com. 44-51. T.  Boff. J. (2002). Journal of Personality Assessment. and Shimmin. Introduction to Ergonomics. (2006.. Ben-Zur.  Boyce. Applying Psychology in Organizations.. 241 . 472-481  Binzer. Revolutions and shifting paradigms in human factors & ergonomics.  Bridger. Benjamin. R. and Bonino. New York: McGraw Hill. (1994). New York: Routledge. S. (2006) Risky driving and lifestyles in adolescence. 132(5). 15(1). Hopelessness and locus of control in patients with motor conversion disorder.J. (2006). 39-55.C. (2001). 391-399. and Geller. H. R.D. M.bernama. 45(1). 38(3).  Bernama. Psychology and road safety. Applied Psychology: An International Review.A.B.E. R. Assessment of conceptual tempo in the Type A (coronary prone) behavior pattern. Anxiety. J. 43.A. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis.  Blacker. D. Nordic Journal of Psychiatry. Stress and Coping. Williams. 34(1).
242 . Amsterdam: Elsevier.  Burns.. Making ethnic citizens: the politics and practice of education in Malaysia.. I.S. How traffic and transport systems can benefit from psychology (pp. and Ghiselli. Accident proneness among street car motormen and motor coach operators. and Warren.W. Local street management in Australia: is it ‘traffic calming’.K. I. (1997). and Wilde. 32(1).D.G. 20-23. R. 219-241. The Fatality Analysis Reporting System as a tool for investigating racial and ethnic determinants of motor vehicle crash fatalities. W. (1948). Exposure and experience are a confounded nuisance in research on driver behaviour.D. (2004).W. D. (Eds.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application. and Cudeck. (2000). (1989). 105-124.P. In Rothengatter. Levine.C. Political Geography. 24. 445-455. R. Goldzweig. C.  Brown.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application. R. Personality and Individual Differences. R. observational data and driver records. 14. Haliburton. I. Briggs. Accident Analysis and Prevention. E.C. 267-278.. G. R. (2002). N. 24(1).  Brown. I. and Carbonell Vaya. M. Accident Analysis and Prevention. (1982). 9-19). International Journal of Educational Development. In Rothengatter. Amsterdam: Pergamon. (2005).. T. Risk taking in male taxi drivers: relationships among personality. Behavioural adaptation to in-vehicle safety measures: past ideas and future directions.  Bunnell. (1992). Single sample cross-validation indices for covariance structures. C.  Browne. The effects of music tempo on simulated driving performance and vehicular control.M. 4(4). Journal of Applied Psychology. and Noy. E. Ergonomics. G. T. P. 21.S. T. (1995). Schlundt.C. and Huguenin. W. 37(4).E. (Eds.D.J. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. (Re) positioning Malaysia: high-tech networks and the multicultural rescripting of national identity. 18(2).E. 345-352. (2007). 318-330.  Brown.  Brindle. 641-649. Multivariate Behavioral Research.  Brown.  Brown. 29-38  Brodsky. 27(3).
L.H. 65-115). Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Conccepts. J. Seatbelt use and belief in destiny among Hispanic and non-Hispanic drivers. 31. 15981613. 63-65. M. J. (Eds). and Tapia. T.  Carmines. and Warren. 22.W. B.K. (1981)..  Byrne. E. Multiple perspectives. O. F. Los Angeles CA: Western Psychological Services. Internal versus external control in India and Canada. M. (2002).. In Fuller. Human Brain Mapping. Journal of Consulting Psychology.  Byrne.P. T. and Nasar. 45-50..F. An inventory for assessing different kinds of hostility. Applications and Programming. 243 . 21. Martin-Loeches..A. and McIver. E. Accident Analysis and Prevention.M. G. (Eds. R. A. Oxford: Elsevier Science.. B. L.  Carretie. 35(6). and Durkee.  Cackowski. Human Factors for Highway Engineers.H. (2000). Analyzing models with unobserved variables: analysis of covariance structures.A.D.  Carment.W. Environment and Behaviour. International Journal of Psychology. Beverly Hislls CA: Sage. (1998). (1974). Mercado. A. A. (1999). Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. M.L. E. PRELIS and SIMPLIS: Basic Conccepts. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.G. Hinojosa. 9. Applications and Programming. and Cortes. Buss. Parada. Automatic attention to emotional stimuli: neural correlates.) Social Measurement: Current Issues (pp.  Byrd. Structural Equation Modeling with LISREL. J.  Buss. (2004). & Santos. 290-299. Gonzalez. J. M. 736-751. (2001).. W. 47(15). In Bohrnstedt. and Kline.. D.  Caird. and Borgatta. J. (2004). 343-349. J.  Carsten. The restorative effects of roadside vegetation. (1957). (2003).J. Manual for Aggression Questionnaire. L. Ergonomics. The relationship between organizational and individual variables to on-the-job driver accidents and accident-free kilometers. Cohn.
) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp.M. What are we allowed to ask. Driving: through the eyes of teens.F. November 12). 41. Cheung. Dictionary of Psychology.ghipr. Self-consciousness in Chinese college students in Hong Kong.-L. Retrieved October 15. R.D.com/statefarm/chop/youngdriversurvey/PDF/NYD_Survey_FIN. T. R. March 20-22. S. and Denis. (2007... and Huguenin. Taiwan. W. Motorists more careful because of Ops Sitak. 557-562.  Che Ali bin Che Hitam (2001. gender and risky behaviors in Taipei. (2000).  Chalmé.. Monash University. Cognitive effects of environmental knowledge on urban route planning strategies. N6. S. J. The Star. Matto Grosso do Sul. 61-71).ictct.-H. Malaysia. 109-122. and Lim. Retrieved March 31.0. J. (Eds. (1996).  Chang.org/workshops/05CampoGrande  Chan. Personality across the ethnic divide in Singapore: are “Chinese traits” uniquely Chinese? Personality and Individual Differences. and Yeh. (2004). Visser. 10(2). Sunway Campus. (2007). Howard. what can we know – traffic psychological analysis of Driver Behaviour. Motorcyclist accident involvement by age. F. Y. 2008 from http://www. 21(4). P. New York: Dell.  Chaplin. Kuala Lumpur. M.G. Pacific Grove CA: Duxbury. Personality and Individual Difference. November). Amsterdam: Elsevier. (1985).  Cheah.H.W. Paper presented at the Traffic Engineering and Management in Malaysia workshop. 2007 from http:www. H.  Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and State Farm Insurance (2007). Proceedings of the International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT) Extra Workshop. Carver. Campo Grande.P.pdf 244 . (2006). Traffic management and road safety along federal roads in Malaysia. Doing data analysis with SPSS 10. In Rothengatter. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. R. T.-H.  Chaloupka-Risser (2005). R. D. Brazil.  Cheung. and Nash. 467-477.
London: Wiley-Blackwell. Cairns. (Eds... and Lee-Gosselin. In Rothengatter. (1996). 24(2). P. 193-200.. (2004). and Truman. V. Panosch. 13(2).  Christ. Demakakos. 28(2).. Y. R..  Christie. E. 974-981. (2005).  Clarke. In Chmiel.K. P.S. J. S. 38(6).. M. and Costello. C. Safety at work.’ Injury Prevention. M.E. N. MacGregor. Driver selection and improvement in Austria.  Chung. N. (Ed. Personality and Individual Differences. Ward.org/documents/make_roads_safe_low_res. C. and Darviri.  Chmiel.L.. Lamsudin. D. Amsterdam: Elsevier.. 2007 from http://www.C. Chioqueta. 125-129. (2000). 39. Cancer Nursing. (2002). Make Roads Safe: A New Priority for Sustainable Development. Towner. The role fo motorcyclist and other driver behaviour in two types of serious accident in the UK. Aggressive behavior while driving as predictor of self-reported car crashes. S.M. Patient-related barriers to cancer pain management in a palliative care setting in Hong Kong.. T.pdf  Conrad. Kasniyah. H. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Bakou. 22(3). Accident Analysis & Prevention. C. How exposure information can enhance our understanding of child traffic ‘death leagues. hopelessness and suicide ideation. 33... 255-274)..  Chliaoutaks.. N. Personality traits and the development of depression. Journal of Safety Research.) An Introduction to Work and Organizational Psychology: A European Perspective (pp.D. and Bukasa. distance as measures of exposure in driving surveys.. R. 431-443. 679-684. )2007). Helmets.makeroadssafe. C. Accident Analysis and Prevention.G. P. Smiley. injuries and cultural definitions: motorcycle injury in urban Indonesia. June). 1283-1289.D.  Chipman. Tzamalouka. 377-390). and Ward. 196-203.. and Chan. (2007). A. (1999). 245 . Bradshaw.  Commission for Global Road Safety (2006. E.T. Retrieved December 7. N.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. A. and Stiles. French. T. Koumaki. B. P. R. and Huguenin. M. W. Time vs. G. Bartle. (1992).P.
 Crittendon.thestar. 5(1). and Ponjaert-Kristofferson (2004). and Durso. Asian self-effacement or feminine modesty? Gender and Society. Engineering psychology and the highway transportation system..  Davin Arul (2005. October 18). Stories of Modern Technology Failures and Cognitive Engineering Successes. 64.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application.J. J.W. 161-175). Journal of Personality Assessment. K.  Costa.F. R. D. L.  Cresswell.  Davies. W.S. 2007 from http://blog. and McRae. F. (2005). Wagenaar. American Psychologist. Retrieved April 5. 20(5).  Cowardly Malaysian drivers. Mental workload.  Crombag.M. (1995). Domains and facets: hierarchical personality assessment using the Revised NEO Personality Inventory. [Letter to the Editor] The Star Online. Amsterdam: Elsevier. W. 152-171. Boca Raton Fl: CRC / Taylor & Francis.  Cozan. (2002). T. R. position on the road and culpability in a road accident scenario. N.asp?id-7003. and Patel. R.T. The influence of car and driver stereotypes on attributions of vehicle speed. 10. or variable accident tendency? Journal of the Statistical and Social Inquiry Society of Ireland. Legal and Criminological Psychology. In Fuller.  de Waard. and Huguenin. Cognitive/neuropsychological functioning and compensation related to car driving performance in older adults. N48  de Raedt. 45-62.D. Cooke. 246 . P.A. 16(5). H. Applied Cognitive Psychology. 263. and Froggatt. Amsterdam: Elsevier. (1962). February 8). G. 10. (Eds.com.A. D. 21-50. 95-104. Editorial: Get out of my @%^$! way: there are a few things we should remember about this whole rudeness-on-the-road thing. The Star. Human Factors for Engineers (pp. and Santos.L. R. p.M. In Rothengatter.my/permalink. P. (2006.J. P. (1961). 98-117. Accident proneness. (1991).R. (1996). Crashing memories and the problem of ‘source monitoring’. and van Koppen.
R.S.S. 47.. 5-17. E. R. Tucson. AZ: Lawyers & Judges. On the measurement of driver mental workload.S. Cognitive Therapy and Research.  Deffenbacher. 333-356. 729-730. The expression of anger and its consequences. 161-171).L. 27(4). and Brookhuis. and Olson.A.  Deffenbacher. L. In Dewar. T. 1-20. Characteristics of two groups of angry drivers. 575-590. Petrilli. C.C. de Waard. D.  Dewar. and Ameratunga. Oetting. Road traffic injuries in Sri Lanka: a call to action. E.  Deffenbacher. 41.L. 247 . (2002b). (1998). J.  Dien. Characteristics and treatment of high anger drivers.W. E. and Oetting. and Swaim. Amsterdam: Pergamon. R. P. Personality and Individual Differences. The Driver’s Angry Thoughts Questionnaire: a measure of angry cognitions when driving.E. E.  Dharmaratne. J. (2003). Lynch. and Meyer. Lynch. M. N.  Devashayam. Journal of Counseling Psychology.R. R. T. 209-233).T. Richards. R.L. 111-142). 28.E. (Eds.. R.. (1997). Journal of Physicians and Surgeons Pakistan. (2003). Lynch. Lynch.) Human Factors in Traffic Safety (pp. Power and pleasure around the stove: the construction of gendered identity in middle-class south Indian Hindu households in urban Malaysia. R.R. Oetting. (2000). 34. Filetti.D.R.D.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp.. Ergonomics. J. E. Journal of Counseling Psychology.. T. (Eds. and Olson. S. (1996). 14(12).L. In Rothengatter... 123132..  Dewar.E.  Deffenbacher. AZ: Lawyers & Judges. Women’s Studies International Forum. R. (2002a). Huff.F. 26(1). and Salvatore. R. (1999). and Carbonell Vaya. T. Oetting. 383-402. S. P. 373-393. E. J. In Dewar. (2005).S. Individual differences.L. K.B.N. 50(2). P. Behaviour Research and Therapy. Differential lateralization of trait anxiety and trait fearfulness: evoked potential correlates. R. Control motivation and young drivers’ decision making. and Morris. Tucson. J.L.. E.  Delhomme.) Human Factors in Traffic Safety (pp. (2004). (Eds. R.L. Age differences – drivers old and young.
 Dula. accident causation and prevention: issues for health promotion from an exploratory study in a Yoruba town.  Draskóczy. (Eds. Paper presented at the First International Conference-Seminar on Culture. Health Education Research.. 31.. A.D. T. A.  Dukes. (Eds. 53. A. negative emotional and risky driving. In Dorn. (2001).L. Powers. and Che Doi. E. 248 . (2003). T. N. Jenkins.L. C.M. M. 263282. November). Bahar.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. C. Dietze. 14(2).G. Science & Technology.S.A.. Lippold. and Mayser. 223-231).) Driver Behaviour and Training (pp.Y.G. Aldershot UK: Ashgate.. Clayton. H. In Rothengatter. R. Aggression and ethnicity in Malaysia: a preliminary investigation. (1999). 1146-1158. (1999). Kedah.P. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Miller. M.) Proceedings of Agriculture Ergonomics Development Conference (pp.. R.  Dobson. and Rodgers. Malaysia. (1997). J.  Downe. Accident Analysis and Prevention. J. D.a. Amsterdam: Pergamon. Knowledge transfer.  Dodge. T.. and Coie. and Loke. J. M. Social information-processing factors in reactive and proactive aggression in children’s playgroups. S.L. Effects of aggressive driving and river characteristics on road rage. M. Journal of Applied Social Psychology.R. S. December). (2003). R. Ball.. (Ed. ‘Fatalism’.. Traffic safety and the new research paradigm in human sciences. (1987). socio-demographic characteristics and accidents. Social Science Journal 38.A. In Khalid.E. (2007. Asian Institute of Medicine. and McFadden. and Ballard. K. 197208. Mohd Yusuff. S. M.  Downe. Women drivers’ behaviour. and Carbonell Vaya. 33. The safety potential of the new driver assistance system (CSA). L. C. Ebersbach. 85-92). W. locus of control and worker safety in three Malaysian plantations: moving toward a contextual-mediate research model.. L. 278-285).E. 323-331. Development and evaluation of a measure of dangerous aggressive.. Lim. 525-535..T.  Dixey. Sungai Petani. Nigeria. (2004. Kuala Lumpur MY: IEA Press. Brown.
A. (1993). A. 74. (Ed. 838-844. 159165. A life setting conducive to illness: the giving up complex.L. Czech Republic. West.A. R. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry.. Psychiatric risk factors for motor vehicle fatalities in young men. Cross cultural research with the locus of control construct. (2001). Dumais. J.  Ellis.  Elvik. and Turecki.M. Lesage.. (2002).. Weather-related road accidents in England and Wales: a spatial analysis. R. Retrieved December 25. Sudden and rapid death during psychological stress. Causal ordering of stress. J. (1968). Brno. H..  Elander. 69... Journal of Transport Geography.  Engel. G. (1962). Annals of Internal Medicine. Using epidemiological data to address psychological questions about pedestrian behavior. (1971). 249 . (1984). Amsterdam: Elsevier  Dyal.. G. New York: Academic.L. Annals of Internal Medicine. 17-26). (1996). Volume 3: Extensions and Limitations (pp.. J. 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.. In Underwood. Lalovic. and intention to quit: a structural equations analysis. 2007 from www. N. and French D. Kim. 771-782. R. C. In Lefcourt. 293-300. New York: Lyle Stuart Press. (2005). A.ictct. 201-22.org/workshops/02-Brno/Elvik.  Elangovan. Leadership and Organizational Development. Ménard-Buteau.(Ed. satisfaction and commitment. 4(3).) Traffic and Transport Psychology (pp. 279-294. G.  Dunbar. A. C. 50(13).B.) Research with the Locus of Control Construct. 22(4). A.  Edwards. Boyer. 209-306). Psychological Bulletin. G. G. March 20-22. (2005). Chawky.R.D. Reason and Emotion in Psychotherapy. 113.pdf  Engel. Behavioral correlates of individual differences in road-traffic crash risk: an examination of methods and findings.
. The Star.  Evans. (1976). (1926). 81-94. Barnard. p. Risk Homeostasis Theory and traffic accident data. B. London: Medical Research Council. G. A study of accident proneness among motor drivers.. (1995). L.. L. 250 . 19-36. 38). Patterson. (1929). 784-786. London: Medical Research Council. A psychological study of individual differences in accident rates. (1991).  Evans.M.G. (1939).  Ferguson. E. and Chambers. Accident Analysis and Prevention.  Farran. and Popovich. (1984).J. L. N22.  Farmer. Evans. 55).  Ey. (2000).G. Traffic Safety and the Driver. December 10). (Industrial Fatigue Research Board Report No.M. E. J. London: Medical Research Council.6bil losses yearly.  Evans. E. (Industrial Fatigue Research Board Report No. L. and Chambers.A. 86(6). New York: McGraw Hill.. American Journal of Public Health. E. 16. and Chambers. S..M. (1996). E. Hadley.  Farik Zolkepli (2007.000 and RM5. E. Journal of Behavioural Medicine. 421-435. Driver fatalities versus car mass using a new exposure approach. Worse than a war zone: our roads claim 6. Klesges. (Industrial Fatigue Research Board Report No.G. L. Comment: the dominant role of driver behavior in traffic safety. 84). 6(1). 23(5). and Alpert. M.  Farmer. W. Statistical Analysis in Psychology and Education. Risk Analysis. A study of personal qualities in accident proneness and deficiency.  Farmer. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.S. Herth.A. C. Racial differences in adolescents’ perceived vulnerability to disease and injury. Hope and Hopelessness: Critical Clinical Constructs. (1986). S. K. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.
R. (2002). The task-capability interface model of the driving process.W. (1998. Suicide and the continuum of self-destructive behavior.E.  Frazier. I. Human factors and driving. (2007). and Ajzen. 63-77.T. 51(1). S. 207-213.P. and Seiden. (1974). J. A. S. (2005). P. Teoh. Journal of American College Health. Perception of the risk of an accident by young and older drivers. and Rosenman. Intention and Behavior. Reading MA: Addison-Wesley. 289-298. H.A. R.. 412-426. consequences and considerations. R. Towards a general theory of driver behaviour. Malays and Indians compared. Recherche Transports Sécurité. (1975). 461-472. In Fuller. 137-145. and Richardson. 66. (1990).R. Testing moderator and mediator effects in counseling psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology. and Järmark. R. K. 12(4). A. Belief. Ferguson. and McCartt.A. M.A. Type A Behavior and Your Heart.  Forward. San Francisco.W.  Friedman. M. (2005). Journal of Safety Research 38.18(4). E. Women and traffic accidents.  Finn.  Fishbein.  Fuller. (1986). 9. Linderholm. S. Cross Cultural Management. S. 38(5)..H. R. (2000). 115-134.  Firestone. and Barron. August). 47-55.  Fontaine. R. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. R. New York: Knopf. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 37. B. and Santos. causes. (2006). 77-97). Cultural values in Malaysia: Chinese. In Proceedings of the 24th International Congress of Applied Psychology.  Forward. and Bragg. I. P. S.  Fuller.. Attitude. Accident analysis and Prevention.. 251 . Tix. Amsterdam: Elsevier. R. Progress in teenage crash risk during the last decade. The intention to commit driving violations – a qualitative study. Human Factors for Engineers (pp.  Fuller. (2004).
Ergonomics. Mutu. and Gomez.E. R.S.A. In Rothengatter. (2006). (2008). Behavior Paterns.W. C. MY: Sage. McHugh.  Garg.S. 6. 1233-1248. Road Rage: Assessment and Treatment of the Angry. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. C. (2003). (2006).  Gomez. Petaling Jaya. Theories and models in traffic psychology – a contrary view. D. (1977). Task difficulty and risk in the determination of driver behaviour.D. and Syna Desevilya.B. A.. 109-128. Exploring the relationship between development and road traffic injuries: a case study from India.  Gidron. The prediction of accidents of taxicab drivers.  Graham. Internal locus of control moderates the effects of road-hostility on recalled driving behavior. E. and Hyder.  Ghiselli.  Galovski. Journal of Food Products Marketing. E.) Ethnic Futures: The State and Identity Politics in Asia (pp. 33(6). (1997). (2006). A. 167-202). Tracing the ethnic divide: race.  Ghazali. rights and redistribution in Malaysia. D. 58(1). Attitude towards online purchase of fish in urban Malaysia: an ethnic comparison. 487-491. Nandy. 540-546. and Pender. R. N. (1949). NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Revue européenne de psychologie appliquée. Stress and Coronary Disease. Hillsdale. and Carbonell Vaya.T.. 12(4). 19. Y. K. T. N. Malta. 16(5). H. Amsterdam: Pergamon.A. Aggressive Driver. Washington DC: American Psychological Association. L. R. Rajasingham-Senanayake.. E. 203-220. European Journal of Public Health. G. (Eds.  Gidron.C. E. (1996). Development and preliminary validation of a brief intervention for modifying CHD-predictive hostility components. (1999). (Eds. Journal of Applied Psychology. Use of auditory icons as emergency warnings: evaluation within a vehicle collision avoidance application. and Davidson. 93-96). and Blanchard.. In Pfaff-Czarnecaka..T. E.B.. T.  Grayson. A. Gal.E. J. 109-116. E. (1999).  Glass. and Mahbob. 13-21.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. Journal of Behavioural Medicine. S. Y. and Brown. 42(9). 252 . Fuller.
 Gregersen, N.P. and Falkmer, T. (2003). In-vehicle support systems and young, novice drivers.
In Dorn, L. (Ed.) Driver Behaviour and Training (pp. 277-292). Aldershot UK: Ashgate.
Green, P. (2002). Where do drivers look while driving (and for how long)? In Dewar, R. E. and Olson, P.L. (Eds.) Human Factors in Traffic Safety (pp. 77-110). Tucson, AZ: Lawyers & Judges.
Greenwald, A.G. and Pratkanis, A.R. (1988). On the use of ‘theory’ and the usefulness of theory. Psychological Review, 95, 575-579.
Greenwood, M. and Woods, H.M. (1919). The incidence of industrial accidents upon individuals with specific reference to multiple accidents. (Industrial Fatigue Research Board Report No. 4). London: Medical Research Council.
Greenwood, M. and Yule, C.V. (1920). An inquiry into the nature of frequency distributions representative of multiple happenings, with particular reference to the occurrence of multiple attacks of disease or repeated accidents. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 89, 255-279.
Griffiths, M. (2003). Communicating risk: journalists have responsibility to report risks in context. British Medical Journal, 327, 1404.
Groeger, J.A. (1997). Mood and driving: is there an effect of affect? In Rothengatter, T. and Carbonell Vaya, E. (Eds.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp.335342). Amsterdam: Pergamon.
Groeger, J.A. (2000). Understanding Driving: Applying Cognitive Psychology to a Complex Everyday Task. Hove, UK: Taylor & Francis.
Groeger, J.A. (2002). Trafficking in cognition: applying cognitive psychology to driving. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 5, 235-248.
Groeger, J.A. and Clegg, B.A. (1995). Automaticity and driving: time to change gear? In Rothengatter, T. and Carbonell Vaya, E. (Eds.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp.137-246). Amsterdam: Pergamon.
Groeger, J.A. and Rothengatter, J.A. (1998). Traffic psychology and behaviour. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 1(1), 1-9.
Guastello, S.J. and Guastello, D.D. (1986). The relation between the locus of control construct and involvement in traffic accidents. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 120(3), 293-297.
Haber, R.N. and Haber, L. (2002). Why witnesses to accidents make mistakes: the cognitive psychology of human memory. In Dewar, R. E. and Olson, P.L. (Eds.) Human Factors in Traffic Safety (pp. 663-695). Tucson, AZ: Lawyers & Judges
Haddon, W. Jr. (1963). A note concerning accident theory and research with special reference to motor vehicle accidents. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 107, 635-646.
Haddon, W. Jr. (1970). A logical framework for categorizing highway safety phenomena and activity. Paper presented at the 10th International study Week in Traffic and Safety Engineering, Rotterdam, 7-11 September.
Haddon, W. Jr. (1972). A logical framework for categorizing highway safety phenomena and activity. Journal of Trauma, 12, 193-207.
Harrell, W.A. (1995). Factors influencing involvement in farm accidents. Perceptual Motor Skills, 81(2), 592-594.
Hauer, E. (1987). The reign of ignorance. Proceedings of Conference on Transportation and Deregulation and Safety.. Chicago: Northwestern University.
Hair, J.F. Jr., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E. and Tatham, R.L. (2006). Multivariate Data Analysis. Sixth Edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Haight, F.A. (1986). Risk – especially risk of traffic accident. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 5, 359-366.
Haight, F.A. (2004). Accident proneness: the history of an idea. In Rothengatter, T. and Huguenin, R.D. (Eds.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. 421-432). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Hale, A.R. and Glendon, A.I. (1987). Individual Behaviour in the Control of Danger. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Hampson, P.J. and Morris, P.E. (1996). Understanding Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
Harbin, T.J. (1989). The relationship between the type A behavior pattern and physiological responsivity: a quantitative review. Psychophysiology, 26(1), 110-119.
Harlow, L.L. (2005). The Essence of Multivariate Thinking: Basic Themes and Methods. London: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.
Harper, J.S., Marine, W.M., Garrett, C.J., Lezotte, D. and Lowenstein, S.R. (2000). Motor vehicle crash fatalities: a comparison of Hispanic and non-Hispanic motorists in Colorado. Annals of Emergency Medincie, 36(6), 589-596.
Harré, N. Foster, S. and O’Neill, M. Self-enhancement, crash-risk optimism and the impact of safety advertisements on young drivers. British Journal of Psychology, 96(Pt 2), 215-230.
Harris, J.A. (1997). A further evaluation of the Aggression Questionnaire: issues of validity and reliability. Behaviour Research & Therapy, 35, 1047-1053.
Hattaka, M., Keskinen, E., Gregerson, N.P., Glad, A. and Hernetkoski, K. (2002). From control of the vehicle to personal self-control; broadening the perspectives to driver education. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 5, 201-216.
Hattaka, M., Keskinen, E., Katila, A. and Laapotti, S. (1997). Self-reported driving habits are valid predictors of violations and accidents. In Rothengatter, T. and Carbonell Vaya, E. (Eds.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. 295-304). Amsterdam: Pergamon.
Heerwagen, J.H. and Orians., G.H. (1993). Humans, habitats and aethetics. In Kellert, S.O. and Wilson, E.O. (Eds.) The Biophilia Hypothesis. 9 (pp. 138-172) Washington DC: Shearwater Books / Island Press.
Henderson, J.T. (1976, April). Hope and self-destruction: the ratio of external threat to feelings of personal competence on the underlying continuum of self-destructive behavior. Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the Southwester Psychological Association. Albuquerque, NM.
Hernetkoski, K. and Keskinen, E. (1998). Self-destruction in Finnish motor traffic accidents in 1974-1992. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 30(5), 697-704.
Herzog, T.R., Black, A.M., Fountaine, K.A. and Knotts, D.J. (19970. Reflection and attentional recovery as distinctive benefits of restoratie environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 17,, 165-170.
Hewstone, M. and Ward, C. (1985). Ethnocentrism and causal attribution in Southeast Asia. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48(3), 614-623.
Hochschild, (1979). Emotion, work, feeling rules and social structure, American Journal of Sociology, 85, 551-575.
Hofstede, G. (1998). A case for comparing apples with oranges: international differences in values. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 39, 17-29.
Hofstede, G. (1999). Cultures and Organizations: Intercultural Cooperation and its Importance for Survival. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Holder, E.E. and Levi, D.J. (2006). Mental health and locus of control: SCL-90-R and Levenson’s IPC scales. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 44(5), 753-755.
Holzmann, F. (2008). Adaptive Cooperation Between Driver and Assistant System: Improving Road Safety. Springer.
Hong, I., Iwasaki, M., Furuichi, T. and Kadoma, T. (2006). Eye movement and driving behavior in curved section passages of an urban motorway. Proceedings of the Institute of Mechanical Engineers, 220(D10), 1319-1331.
Horswill, M.S. and Coster, M.E. (2002). The effect of vehicle characteristics on drivers’ risktaking behaviour. Ergonomics, 45(2), 85-104.
 Howarth, C.I. and Gunn, M.J. (1982). Pedestrian safety and the law. In Chapman, A.J., Wade,
F.M. and Foot, H.C. (Eds.) Pedestrian Accidents (pp. 265-290). Chichester UK: John Wiley & Sons.
Hoyle, R.H. and Robinson, J.C. (2004). Mediated and moderated effects in social psychological research: measurement, design and analysis issues. In Sansone, C., Morf, C. and Panter, AT. (Eds.) Handbook of Methods in Social Psychology (pp. 213-233).
Hoyt, M.F. (1973). Internal-external locus of control and beliefs about automobile travel. Journal of Research in Personality, 7, 288-293.
Hsieh, T.T., Shybut, J., and Lotsof, E.J. (1969). Internal versus external control and ethnic group membership. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 33, 122-124.
Huguenin, R.D. (1997). Do we need traffic psychology models? In Rothengatter, T. and Carbonell Vaya, E. (Eds.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. 31-40). Amsterdam: Pergamon.
Huguenin, R.D. (2001). Models in traffic psychology. In In Barjonet, P.-E.. (Ed.) Traffic Psychology Today (pp. 31-59). Boston: Kluwer.
Huguenin, R.D. (2005). Traffic psychology in a (new) social setting. In Underwood, G.(Ed.) Traffic and Transport Psychology (pp. 3-14). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Hyder, A.A. and Peden, M. (2003). Inequality and road-traffic injuries: call for action. Lancet, 2034-2035.
Hyman, G.J., Stanley, R. and Burrows, G.D. (1991). The relationship between three multidimensional locus of control scales. Educational and Psychological Measuresment, 51(2), 403-412.
Inagaki, T. (2003). Adaptive automation: sharing and trading of control. In Hollnagel, E. (Ed.) Handbook of Cognitive Task Design (pp. 147-169). LEA
Isani, R. (1963). From hopelessness to hope. Perspectives in Psychiatric Care, 1(2), 15-17.
Islam, Z. and Hoque, N.M.S. (2004, December). Road users behavioral culture of Dhaka, Bangladesh: an anthropological perspective. Paper presented at the First International Conference-Seminar on Culture, Asian Institute of Medicine, Science & Technology, Sungai Petani, Kedah, Malaysia.
Iverson, H. and Rundmo, T. (2002). Personality, risky driving and accident involvement among Norwegian drivers. Personality and Individual Differences 44, 1251-1263.
Jacobs, G. and Baguley, C. (2004). Traffic safety. In Robinson, R. and Thagesen, B. (Eds.) Road Engineering for Development (pp. 57-77). London: Spon.
Jaffe, E. (2004). What was I thinking: Kahneman explains how intuition leads us astray. Association for Psychological Science Observer, 17, 5.
James, L. and Nahl, D. (2000). Road Rage and Aggressive Driving. Amherst NY: Prometheus.
James, L.R., Mulaik, S.A., and Brett, J.M. (1982). Causal Analysis: Assumptions Models and Data. Beverly Hills CA: Sage.
Johnson, H.M. (1946). The detection and treatment of accident-prone drivers. Psychological Bulletin, 43(6), 489-532.
Johnston, I. (2007). Road trauma in the region – avoiding a pandemic. Journal of the Road Engineering Association of Asia & Australasia, 14(2), 5-12.
Jonah, B.A. (1997a). Sensation seeking and risky driving. In Rothengatter, T. and Carbonell Vaya, E. (Eds.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. 259-267), Amsterdam: Pergamon.
Jonah, B.A. (1997b). Sensation seeking and risky driving. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 18, 255-271.
Joseph, C. (2006). Negotiating discourses of gender, ethnicity and schooling: ways of being Malay, Chinese and Indian schoolgirls in Malaysia. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 141), 35-53.
Kahneman, D. (2003). Maps of bounded rationality: psychology for behavioral economics. American Economic Review, 93, 1449-1475.
Kahneman, D., Slovic, P. and Tversky, A. (1982). Judgement Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kanfer, F.H. and Goldstein, A.P. (Eds.) (1990). Helping People Change: A Textbook of Methods. London: Allyn & Bacon
Karlberg, L., Undén, A.-L., Elofsson, S. and Krakau, I. (1998). Is there a connection between car accidents, near accidents, and Type A drivers? Behavioral Medicine, 243(3), 99-106.
Kawazoe, H., Murakami, T.., Sadano, O., Suda, K. and Ono, H. (2001). Development of a lanekeeping support system. Proceedings of Intelligent Vehicle Technology and Navigation Systems pp. 29-35). Warrendale, PA: Society of Automotive Engineers.
Kenny, D.A. (2006. February 7). Mediation. Retrieved April 9, 2006, from http://www.davidakenny.net/cm/mediate.htm
Kerlinger, F.N. and Lee, H.B. (2000). Foundations of Behavioral Research. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Keskinen, E., Hatakka, M. and Katila, A. (1992). Inner models as a basis for traffic behaviour. Journal of Traffic Medicine, 20(4), 147-152.
Keskinen, E., Hatakka, M., Laaapotti, S., Katila, A. and Peräho, M. (2004). Driver behaviour as a hierarchical system. In Rothengatter, T. and Huguenin, R.D. (Eds.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. 9-24). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
King, A. (2004) Measures and meanings: the use of qualitative data in social and personality psychology. In Sansone, C., Morf, C.C. and Panter, A.T. (Eds.) The Sage Handbook of Methods in Psychology (pp. 145-172). Thousand Oaks CA: Sage
King, Y. and Parker, D. (2008). Driving violations, aggression and perceived consensus. Revue européenne de psychologie appliqué, 58(1), 43-19.
Klem, L. (2000). Structural equation modeling. In Grimm, L.G. and Yarnold, P.R. (Eds.) Reading and Understanding More Multivariate Statistics. Washington DC: American Psychological Association.
Klockars, A.J. and Hancock, G.R. (2000). Scheffé’s more powerful F-protected post hoc procedure. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Sciences, 25(1), 13-19.
Koh, S. (2005, October 31). Stop the road carnage! Malaysian Chinese Association (MCA) Online. Retrieved April 5, 2007 from http://www.mca.org.my/services/printerfriendly.asp?file=/articles/exclusive/2005/10/47611.html &lg=1
Korff, R. (2001). Globalisation and communal identities in the plural society of Malaysia. Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography, 22(3), 270-284.
Krishnan, R., & Radin Umar, R.S. (1997). An update on road traffic injuries in Malaysia. Journal of University Malaya Medical Centre, 2(1), 39-41.
Laapotti, S. and Keskinen, E. (1998). Differences in fatal loss-of-control accidents between young male and female drivers. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 30(4), 435-442.
Laapotti, S. and Keskinen, E. (2004a). Are female drivers adopting male drivers’ way of driving? In Rothengatter, T. and Huguenin, R.D. (Eds.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application. (pp. 201-208). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Laapotti, S. and Keskinen, E. (2004b). Has the difference in accident patterns between male and female drivers changed between 1984 and 2000? Accident Analysis and Prevention, 36, 577-584.
Laapotti, S., Keskinen, E. and Rajalin, S. (2003). Comparison of young male and female drivers’ attitude and self-reported traffic behaviour in Finland in 1978 and 2001. Journal of Safety Research, 34(5), 579-587.
Laapotti, S., Keskinen, Htakka, M. and Katila, A. (2001). Novice drivers’ accidents and violations – a failure on higher or lower hierarchical levels of driving behaviour. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 33, 759-769.
Lajunen, T. (2001). Personality and accident liability: are extraversion, neuroticism and psychoticism related to traffic and occupational fatalities? Personality and Individual Differences, 31(8), 1365-1373.
Lajunen, T. and Summala, H. (1995). Driving experience, personality, and skill and safetymotive dimensions in drivers’ self-assessments. Personality and Individual Difference, 19, 307318.
Lajunen, T. and Summala, H. (1997). Effects of driving experience, personality, driver’s skill and safety orientation on speed regulation and accidents (pp. 283-294). In Rothengatter, T. and Carbonell Vaya, E. (Eds.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. 283294), Amsterdam: Pergamon.
Lam, L.T. (2004). Environmental factors associated with crash-related mortality and injury among taxi drivers in New South Wales, Australia. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 36, 905908.
Lambie, J.A. and Marcel, A.J. (2002). Consciousness and the varieties of emotion experience: a theoretical framework. Psychological Review, 109, 219-259.
Langdridge, D. (2004). Introduction to Research Methods and Data Analysis in Psychology. London: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Lau, G., Seow, E. and Lim, E.S.Y. (1998). A review of pedestrian fatalities in Singapore from 1990 to 1994. Annals of the Academy of Medicine, 27(6), 830-837.
Law, T.H., Radin Umar, R.S.,and Wong, S.V. (2005). The Malaysian government’s road accident death reduction target for year 2010. IATSS Research / International Association of Traffic and Safety Sciences, 29(1), 42-49.
Law, T.H., Radin Umar, R.S., Zulkaurnain, S. and Kulanthayan, S. (2005). Impact of the effect of economic crisis and the targeted motorcycle safety programme on motorcycle-related accidents, injuries and fatalities in Malaysia. International Journal of Injury Control and Safety Promotion, 12(1), 9-21.
G. Neerincx and Schreibers (2006).B. The locus of control as a moderator variable: stress. (Ed. SPSS for Intermediate Statistics: Use and Implementation. 479-490. 3. Barrett.P. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.L. 37. Lawton. and Morgan.. Janssen. K.  Lerner.. and Nutter. Human-factors engineering for smart transport: decision support for car drivers and train traffic controllers. Malay dominance and opposition politics. (1974). W. The influence of demographic factors on seatbelt use by adults injured in motor vehicle crashes. Accident Analysis and Prevention. D.J. 41.) Research with the Locus of Control Construct. H. 397-401. A comparison of reported levels and expression of anger in everyday and driving situations.M. 262 . 177-196. G.M. New York: Academic. (1983).  Levenson. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. 377-383. 303-304.  Lee. Journal of Personality Assessment. Billittier. Mahwah.. Multidimensional locus of control in psychiatric patients.  Levenson. C. H. (2005). H.M. E. L.A. Conner.M. Jehle. 2nd Edition.. H.. 659-662. (1989). H. IV.K. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Applied Ergonomics. (1976).V. Journal of Social Psychology. H. N. (1973). 253-269).  LeShan. Additional dimensions of internal-external control.  Levenson. (2001). Dutton. New York: E. (1975).  Lefcourt.  Lenior. A. 93. 38. H. British journal of Psychology. In Lefcourt. and Stiller. Locus of Control: Current Trends in Theory and Research.407-423. (2002). D. Volume 2: Developments and Social Problems (pp. G. Cancer as a turning point. A. pp. Activism and powerful others: distinctions within the concept of internalexternal control. 97. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychiatry. R.M. Moscati. In Southeast Asian Affairs 2002: An Annual Review.  Lefcourt.C. R. (2002).  Leech.
. J. March 26).htm. D. and Yen. and Donovan.. (1999. Defensive driving a must under new curriculum. and Scodel. Retrieved April 5. H-D. L-L. 7. 39(3). C. (1997). K. Accident Analysis and Prevention. H. (2007).asp?file=/2007/3/26/nation/17254652&sec=nation&focus=1. I.M. 8-9  Liverant. 125-127. Internal and external control as determinants of decision making under conditions of risk. Tools of Critical Thinking: Metathoughts for Psychology.) Research with the Locus of Control Construct. (1960). Accident-proneness: does it exist? Occupational Safety and Health. 11.P. Accident Analysis and Prevention. (2007. F. Role of primary personality factors in the perception of traffic signs and driver violations and accidents.. (Ed. 536-545. Psychological Reports. Media Statement released by the Office of the Malaysian Parliamentary Opposition Leader and Democratic Action Party Secretary-General.S. In Lefcourt. (Ed. New York: Academic. February 2).  Levy.  Lonero. Levenson. R.com/archive/1999/feb99/sg1541. (1981). W. H. 10.A. powerful others and chance.. (1979). Volume 1: Assessment Methods (pp. 2007 from http://thestar. Differentiating among internality.com. A. S. D.P.  Lin. 213-222.S.limkitsiang. 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. E. Wu. Huang. Predicting risky and angry driving as a function of gender. 15-63). (2002) Driver skill: performance and behaviour. (1980). 36. L. Neighbors. Retrieved May 14.. The effect of crash experience on changes in risk taking among urban and rural young people. H-F.  Lim.  Lonczak. Accident Analysis and Prevention.my/news/story. The Star Online. M-R. Hwang. In Rothe. 2007 from http://www. (2004). 263 . H.  Lindsey.) Driving Lessons: Exploring Systems that Make Traffic Safer. Edmonton AB: University of Alberta Press.M.  Looi.  Loo. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. 59-67.
(1986). A three-factor model of trait anger: dimensions.F. Accident Analysis and Prevention.M. 593-597. H. 103. 129. (Ed.A.L. J.M. C. 55(2). Australia.A. Annual mileage. and Wan. In Dorn.  Marsh. Vissers. 27(1). Campbell. Watson. Accident Analysis & Prevention. 233-252). (1997). S. K. Young driver research program – a review of information on young driver performance characteristics and capabilities. 869-897. (1994). Goodness-of-fit indexes in confirmatory factor analysis: the effect of sample size. and Jessurun.W. Multivariate Statistical Methods: A First Course.28. of affect. and McDonald.  Luckner.M. Report No. H. (1995). 185-217.L.. Basics of Structural Equation Modeling. and Williams.. J. and Mooran. J.  Marcoulides. A.  Matthews. May). and level of education.W. D.  Macdonald. age. Monash University Accident Research Centre. W. 73-87.K. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.F.A.  Marsh. M.L. 18(4). Accident Analysis and Prevention.  Maruyama. G.  Massie. G. (2000).. R. Balla. Malaysia.L. (1988). Goodness-of-fit in CFA: the effects of sample size and model parsimony. (1999). Traffic accident involvement rates by driver age and gender. (1994. 391-411. 68(5). Quality & Quantity. D. C. A. J. Lourens. 264 . Age differences in male drivers’ perception of accident risk: the role of perceived driving ability. Journal of Personality..) Driver Behaviour and Training (pp. P.R.L. driving violations and accident involvement in relation to drivers’ sex. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 31. Altering locus of control of individuals with hearing impairments by outdoor-adventure courses. behavior and cognition. R. L. Driver information systems: a preliminary investigation of motorists information requirements in Kuala lUmpur. 62-67. and Hershberger. 299313. I.R.  Martin. (1989).. and Balla.P. (1998). Aldershot UK: Ashgate.R. Psychological Bulletin. Victoria NSW. Journal of Rehabilitation. R. (2003).  Maakip. M.
F. Psychological Medicine. M. and Brown. (1998). Retrieved April 5. Cognitive abilities and safety on the road: a re-examination of individual differences in dichotic listening and search for embedded figures. (1986). S. G. Journal of Managerial Psychology. 265 .P. D.V..D. 23.E.R. Relationship between work-family conflict and the quality fo life: an investigation into the role of social support. Malaysia Today. D.E. 29. 649-663. Perspectives Psychiatriques. Waylen.  McKenna. Cognitive-Behavior Modification: An Integrative Approach.malaysia-today. Fort Worth TX: Holt. Unconscious suicides.  McRae. Sambasivan.htm  McConnell. 769-778. (1990). Hampshire UK.  Md-Sidin. R. The University of Reading. and Costa. F. 173-181. (2005. (1989). Ismail. I. P.. November 6).. Malaysia records highest single-day death toll during holiday period. New York: Plenum. and Neilly. (1983). 34(47). (1989).P. Understanding Human Behavior. Traffic accidents and convictions: group totals versus rate per kilometer driven. (1974). (2007). Rinehar and Winston. S.. I. 9. Beresford. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 71-77.net/Bloge/2005/11/malaysia-records-highest-single-day. New York: Guilford. (2009). (1977).  McKenna..  Mendel. and Burkes. Accident proneness: a conceptual analysis.. E. [ in press].  McMillan. M. 45-52.  McKenna. Gilbody. J. Risk Analysis.P. L. Can we predict suicide and nonfatal self harm with the Beck Hopelessness Scale? A metanalysis. J. Male and female drivers: how different are they? AA Foundation for Road Safety Research. A.  Meichenbaum. 2007 from http://www.  Mercer.W. Personality in Adulthood. Duncan. Ergonomics. G. F. 37(6).
and Niemi. Retrieved December 15.E. and Blum. J.org. First year as a licensed car deriver: gender differences in crash experience..L. (1983. A critical review of driver behaviour models: what do we know. 6(2). R. 401406. (1989). Kayumov. (2006). 2007. J.) Human Behaviour and Traffic Safety. J. (2006). D.  Michon. L. M. (2003). from http://www. Cognitive theory of traffic behaviour. A. 335-342. microsleep episodes.my/en/street_smart_statistik. 75-85. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 38(6).pdf  Moller.  Mizel. 21(4). (1985).) Proceedings of the Finnish-Soviet Symposium on Cognitive Processes. Finland. (1949). and Johnson.org/pdf/agdr3study..A.panducermat. L. Journal of Applied Psychology. G. 266 . Hasselberg. Aggressive driving. (Eds. 61(3). 2006 from http://www. 147-161. Safety Science. M.L. Journal of Applied Psychology.  Mintz. V. New York: Plenum.aaafoundation.  Mikkonen.  Mintz.C. A. E. l.A.. Retrieved May 23. and subjective sleepiness: normative data using convergent methodologies to assess driver drowsiness.L. 33(3). (Eds. Journal of Psychosomatic Research. and Keskinen. L. Time intervals between accidents.M. K. Aggressive driving behaviors: are there psychological and attitudinal predictors? Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. H. Turku.. In Aggressive driving: three studies.J. Explanatory pitfalls and rule-based driver models.  Monárrez-Espino. P. Statistics. what should we do? In Evans. 44(2). (154). May).  Miles. A re-examination of the accident proneness concept. In Helkama. E. Simulator performance. and Shapiro. 341-353. Washington DC.php. J. and Laflamme. and Schwing. C. Bulmas. Nhan. 195-211. AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety.  Ministry of Transport Malaysia (2007). Michon. (1997).
and Summala.L. Rajasingham-Senanayake. 8. (2007). 339-343. 167-202).) Ethnic Futures: The State and Identity Politics in Asia (pp. A.. 164-174. (1987). I. Journal of Affective Disorders. W.E. and Maniam. Fifth Edition. H. (Eds. 125-132. R. Montag. 51-63.  Novaco. In Pfaff-Czarnecaka. and Comrey. Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. New York: Allyn & Bacon. A.  Nandy. P. (Eds. 72. (2007). Religioin 37. Coping with the politics of faiths and cultures: between secular state and ecumenical traditions in India. S. R. 38(1). W. A. L. In O’Donoghue . T. Träskman-Bendz and Alsén (1997). R. Clinical problems of anger and its assessment and regulation through a stress coping skills approach. and Summala H.. (1974).  Näätänen. Defining ‘modern’ Malay womanhood and the coexistent messages of the veil.L. A model for the role of motivational factors in drivers’ decision-making.  Moore. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Feature-based attentional set as a cause of traffic accidents. and Gomez.. 137-144. K. Transcultural Psychiatry.  Morris. Journal of Applied Psychology. R.  Näätänen.  Neuman. Boston: Pearson. 320-388). 15(2). (1999). 42.  Most.  Niméus. D. Journal of the Institute of Automobile Assessors. (2003). and Krasner. Visual Cognition. E. Accident proneness and road accidents.  Mousser.L. Amsterdam: North Holland. (1956). 267 . Petaling Jaya. Nandy.T. MY: Sage. Internality and externality as correlates of involvement in fatal driving accidents. and Astur. 243-261.) Handbook of Psychological Skills Training: Clinical Techniques and Application (pp. (2001) Ethnicicity and suicidal behaviour in Malaysia: a review of the literature. Road User Behavior and Traffic Accidents. (1976).S. A. 6. J. A.B. Hopelessness and suicidal behavior. 32-37. (1994).
) Human Factors in Traffic Safety (pp. Oxford UK: North Holland.L (2002). N51. Driver suicides. 171. Garner. J. 468-472. Novaco. Zwi (1997). E. says operator. and Hermida. J.  Noy.) Targets of Violence and Aggression: Advances in Psychology (pp. A. 445-460. I. (1997). A.. Injury Prevention. and Williams. (2002). Pentilla. R. 34.A. February 8). and Lonnqvist. In Dewar.38. Straits Times.  Olson. Driver perception-response time.  Our roads are filled with selfish drivers. p. R.. 40(10).  O’Neill. 268 . F.B. P. R. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice. A. P. (Eds. Aldershot. 1016-1024.  Novaco.W. Tropical Medicine and International Health. AZ: Lawyers & Judges. 201-215). (1996. 92-93. (Ed. M. December 9). 253-326). R. (2000). [Letter to the Editor] The Star. and Santos. Human Factors for Engineers (pp.W. British Journal of Psychiatry.. Ergonomics. p.  Ochando.  Ohberg. 237-252. Human factors in modern traffic systems.S.  N-S highway still one of the safest roads. 2(5). [Review of the book Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application]. The decade 1989-1998 in Spanish psychology: an analysis of development of professional psychology in Spain. R. K. (2001). (2007.  O’Connell. M. Spanish Journal of Psychology. UK: Ashgate.F (2001). (1998). P. B. 654-656.L. Temes. 43-76).W. and Z. Road traffic injuries in developing countries: a comprehensive review of epidemiological studies. (1997). Social psychological principles: ‘the group inside the person’. Aggression on roadways. and Olson. Amsterdam: Elsevier  Odero. 4(2). In Fuller. W. Tucson. Safer Roads: A Guide to Road Safety Engineering.R. Risk homeostasis hypothesis: a rebuttal. (1996). J.  Ogden. In Baenninger. 4.
T. (2001).  Parsons. T.R and Stradling. H. 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.R.  Parker. C. Tassinary. D. 479-486. and Lajunen (2005).T. (2002). Dimensions of driving behaviour and driver characteristics.. (2004). 507-526. B. driving violations and accident involvement. Özkan. Road safety: what has social psychology to offer? In Rothengatter. Ulrich.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application. Manstead.S.  Parkinson. (Eds. and Synodinos.S. Amsterdam: Elsevier.ictct.. W. O. 1036-1048. T. and Kaistinen.. Applied Psychology: An International Review. and Schneider.  Özkan. (2008). 125-134). and Saleh. Journal of Environmental Psychology.E. 3-13. J. (1988). J. Hebl. D. T. J.. 42.. C.G. M. and Huguenin. Finland. British Journal of Psychology..  Parsons. 34. Retrieved December 20. R.. Accident Analysis & Prevention. (2005).  Papacostas. 2007 from www. Traffic locus of control. (1974).pdf -  Pai. A. and Summala. D. M. Poster session presented at the 18th International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT).org/workshops/05Helsinki/P1_Ozkan. Anger on and off the road. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. Locus of control in university students from eastern and western societies. 40. (1998). 269 .S. S. Helsinki. 533-545. Ergonomics. 38(3).  Parker. Anger and aggression among drivers in three European countries. 229-235. 37(1). 92. (pp. 18. 38(5). and Grossman-Alexander. 113-140. Accident Analysis & Prevention. Lajunen. 456-461. The view from the road: implications for stress recovery and immunisation. R.A. T.  Parker. N. R.G. Driving errors.M. Personality and Individual Difference. driving skills and attitudes toward in-vehicle technologies (ISA & ACC). Reason.D. Lajunen. Multidimensional Traffic Locus of Control Scale (T-LOC): factor structure and relationship to risky driving.W. (1995). L.
. Are young drivers really more dangerous after controlling for exposure and experience? Journal of Safety Research. 147-154. 8(1)... Retrieved March 31. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Locus of Control in Personality. and Baldwin. Superstition. Brazil. and Peters. and Mathers (Eds. Type A behaviour pattern and motor vehicle drivers’ behaviour.M. Jarawan.  Perry. Journal of Sleep Research. A.. D. E. 12(3). 91. and Singh. Bioulac.A. Perceptual and Motor Skills. British Medical Journal. M. World report on road traffic injury prevention. A. and Renner. A.C. Mohan. B. Proceedings of the International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT) Extra Workshop. Automotive Vehicle Safety. 35. Simple reaction time. (2002). March 20-22. Road safety in southeast Asia: factors affecting motorcycle safety.) (2004). Morristown NJ: General Learning. Geneva.  Peden.J. (2005). Perceptual and Motor Skills. B. Peden. D. (2003).. 201-204. (1986).org/workshops/05-CampoGrande  Perry. and Hyder. 619-623. Neuroticism-extraversion as correlates of accident occurrence. (1976). R. 9-14 270 . Sleet. 875-878..  Peltzer.  Philip.R.s  Pelz.. risk-taking and risk perception of accidents among South African taxi drivers. 3.  Pestonjee.A. 324.  Per. Campo Grande. W. M. P. (1999). G. London: Taylor & Francis. D. T. M. S. 1153. 2007 from http:www. Taillard. 63. Accident Analysis and Prevention. E.  Peters. Further evidence of associations of type A personality scores and driving-related attitudes and behaviors. (2000). D. Hyder..  Phares. Scurfield. and Åkerstedt. Switzerland: World Health Organization. D. (1971). Road traffic injuries are a global public health problem [Letters].B. duration of driving and sleep deprivation in young versus old automobile drivers.J. (2002).ictct. J.H. L.A.R. G. (1980). 68-79. U. and Al Haji. A. K. Matto Grosso do Sul.and Schuman. Quera-Salva.
(2000). Journal of Clinical Psychology. 33. 49(4).J. 78-80. Performance differences of individuals classified by questionnaire as accident prone or non-accident prone. Disaster Prevention and Management. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health. and Campbell. and Pant.S.D. S.J. 369-374  Renner. (1989). 299-300. T. (1996). P. 32.E. 29(1). 3112). (2007).-G.  Proctor. Accident reduction through area-wide traffic schemes. 733-750.H. 32(2). and Lussier. (2005). K. C... T.. 673-678. (1994). Stradling.J. 16(3). (1965). 26. 334-343. and Corlett. Baxter.I. S. Accident Analysis and Prevention. J.  Porter. and Langley. (1990). and Anderle. and Harris. Ergonomics. IATSS Research / International Association of Traffic and Safety Sciences. 284-288. Accident Analysis and Prevention. J. Rider training.S. Plous.  Ranney.  Reeder. Psychology of drivers in traffic accidents. Hopelessness. F. J. New York: McGraw Hill. Errors and violations on the roads: a real distinction? Ergonomics. 271 . Manstead. L.. The Psychology of Judgment and Decision Making. S. C. Updates of road safety status in Malaysia. Chalmers. R. (1993). (1990). Cambridge University Press. W.N.  Preston.A. S. internal-external locus of control and depression. reasons for riding and the social context of riding among young on-road motorcyclists in New Zealand. 1315-1332. Journal of Applied Psychology.  Reason.  Reason. D. (1976).J. A. 20(4).. Venturesomeness and extraversion as correlated of juvenile drivers’ traffic violations. Models of driving behavior: a review of their evoloution. S.  Prociuk. Delineating road accident risk along mountain roads. Traffic Engineering and Control. E.  Rautela. 317-333. Breen. Human Error. R. (1991). S. 32(3).  Radin Umar. J. 566-573.
B. P. (2004). Ergonomics.64. R. In Rothengatter.  Richardson. E. (2000). K. Retrieved December 11. 34(15). Organizational Behavior. 485-489. S.R. (1999). 37(3). 37(1).pdf  Risser. Aggression and Violence: An Interdisciplinary Approach. (Ed). (2005a) Stop sign violations: the role of race and ethnicity on fatal crashes.Y. Journal of Safety Research. Human factors and motor vehicle crashes: a conceptual framework for ergonomic research in South East Asia.efpa.A.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application. 2007 from http://www. Amsterdam: Elsevier. 2007 from http://202. and Nickel.. Journal of Safety Research. Retrieved May 23. Aberrant driving behaviour: homogeneity of a four-factor structure in samples differing in age and gender. R.D.S.be/doc/Final%20report%20TF%20Traffic%20Psychology%20GA%202003. M. and Huguenin.  Rice. R. 1-7.G. Upper Saddle River NJ: Prentice Hall.  Romano. P-A. Proceedings of the joint conference of the Asia Pacific Conference on Human Computer Interaction and the Southeast Asian Ergonomics Society Conference. Weinstein. Pacific Grove CA: Brooks/Cole. Accident Analysis & Prevention. S. A. 453-460. Theories of science in traffic psychology. T.P.  Robbins.L. Jefferson NC: McFarland & Company. R. In Lim. cities. (2003.  Road Transport Department Malaysia [Jabatan Pengagkutan Jalan Malaysia]. and Solomon. 569-582. W-R.  Romano. (2005). (2003). Tippetts.html  Robbins.  Rimmö. 45(8). 272 . (2005b) Fatal red light crashes: the role of race and ethnicity. R. and Downe. Stress and Health. Anger. S. (2000). Retting.G. (Eds. E. H.  Risser. European Federation of Psychologists’ Associations Task Force on Traffic Psychology. S. R. and Voas.190.. Report to the General Assembly. (2002). Tippetts. and Voas.96/v5/statistik/statistik-2006. April).. Singapore: Elsevier. P. (2007) Statistik2006. Analysis of motor-vehicle crashes at stop signs in four U.
5. Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement.) Traffic Psychology Today (pp. In Barjonet. and Bhopal. (2002). J. 43(3).B.  Rowley. G. Differences between taxi and nonprofessional male drivers and attitudes towards traffic-violation penalties. 10. T. 595-600). J.B. Internal versus external control of reinforcement: a case history of a variable. (2001) Objectives.  Rotter. (1998). M. (1990). 84-115. (pp. An overview of traffic psychology: do research and measures match? In Grayson. 88. T. Capital & Class. Rosenbloom. J. 3-12). (Ed.  Rothengatter. T.P. Crowthorne UK: Transport Research Laboratory. Psychological Monographs. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources. P-E. 428-435  Rothe. 489-493. Traffic psychology and road safety: separate realities.  Rothengatter. whole issue. American Psychologist. 56-67. G. In Underwood. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. (1966). In Rothe. 43(1).  Rotter. T. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. 273 .) Driving Lessons: Exploring Systems that Make Traffic Safer. and Bhopal. M. (2002). The ethnic factor in state-labour relations: the case of Malaysia. 308-331. topics and methods.P. Some problems and misconceptions related to the construct of internal versus external control of reinforcement. and Shahar. Traffic safety: content over packaging. A. C. J. 45. The role of ethnicity in employee relations: the case of Malaysia. 80.B.(Ed.) Traffic and Transport Psychology (pp. (Ed.  Rothengatter.  Rowley. Drivers’ illusions – no more risk.  Rothengatter. 214-220). J. C. 249-258.  Rotter.B. T. Amsterdam: Elsevier. (2007). (Ed. Edmonton CA: University of Alberta Press. (2005). (2005). Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. (2006).) Behavioural Research in Road Safety VIII. (1975). Boston: Kluwer.
Thrills. sports and home accidents. IBU Pejabat Polis. and Santos (Eds.rmp. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Kuala Lumpur. [Perankaan Kemalangang Jalanraya Malaysia]. F. 373-376. p. IBU Pejabat Polis.net/Blog-n/2006/09/thrillsspills-death-plague-malaysian. (2005. and Heiskanen. Malaysian Road Accident Statistics.htm 274 . 37(2). 33-36. Bukit Aman. The Star.  Royal Malaysian Police [Polis Diraja Malaysia] (2007). B.my.  Saad. J. Ergonomics of the driver’s interface with the road environment: the contribution of psychological research.  Salminen. Amsterdam: Elsevier. [Perankaan Kemalangang Jalanraya Malaysia].  Royal Malaysian Police [Polis Diraja Malaysia] (2003). Kuala Lumpur. Malaysiatoday (Reuters). M. 29(1). Kuala Lumpur. Bukit Aman.A. [Perankaan Kemalangang Jalanraya Malaysia]. In Fuller. Retrieved May 22. occupational.malaysia-today. September 29). (2002). Bukit Aman. IBU Pejabat Polis.gov. (2005). S.  Salminen. IBU Pejabat Polis. S.  Royal Malaysian Police [Polis Diraja Malaysia] (2002). 2003 from http://www. J. (1997). (2006. Accident Analysis and Prevention.  Sadiq.  Royal Malaysian Police [Polis Diraja Malaysia] (2001). [Perankaan Kemalangang Jalanraya Malaysia]. Bukit Aman. Statistik Kemalangan Jalanraya & Kematian.). Retrieved December 11. Malaysian Road Accident Statistics.A2. R. spills & death plague Malaysian roads. (1999). Kuala Lumpur.  Sabey. Basingstoke UK: AA Foundation for Road Safety Research. 23-42). Malaysian Road Accident Statistics. Correlations between traffic. September 26). Relationships between injuries at work and leisure time. Road Safety – Back to the Future. Human Factors for Engineers (pp. Malaysian Road Accident Statistics.  Rude drivers lack emotional control. Royal Malaysian Police [Polis Diraja Malaysia] (2000). 2007 from http://www.
 Scuffham. A model of traffic crashes in New Zealand. and the social psychological road in between.E.T. M. S. (Eds.  Sendut. The research process: of big pictures. v. and Schade. Malaysia: urbanization in a multiethnic society – case of peninsula Malaysia. Economic factors and traffic crashes in New Zealand.  Sansone. Public acceptability of traffic demand management in Europe. (2006). J.. 6. H. C. little details. and Bourne. 801-810. Healy..  Schneider. Ericsson. (Ed. Individual difference factors in risky driving: the roles of anger/hostility. Severson. P. Accident Analysis and Prevention. B. Morf.A..L. 484-491. 29(3). Personal correspondence. V. M. 293302  Salih. Jr.F. C. M. F. Ball. 34. L. Singapore: Maruzen Asia for United Nations Centre fro Regional Development. and Panter. Nagoya: Japan. (1981). Regional Development Series. November 15). A. The effects of contextual interference on the acquisition and retention of logical rules. C. and Panter. (2004).I. 38.  Scuffham. I. M.T.A.. Asian Survey. Applied Economics.C. A. 179-188. (2008. 6(9). J.C. 3-16)... Thousand Oaks CA: Sage. Learning and Memory of Knowledge and Skills: Durability and Specificity.  Schwebel. and Langley (2002). conscientiousness. Accident Analysis and Prevention. K. 41.F. Fosser. 117-147).E.  Schlag. L. and Sætermo. A. and Bourne. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage. K. C. A. 314-318. P. Urbanization and Regional Development (pp. and sensation seeking..F. Morf. Contemporary urbanization in Malaysia. Jr. (2003). In Healy. (1997). and Rizzo.C. K. 35. In Sansone. An investigation of behavioural adaptation to airbags and antilock brakes among taxi drivers. Accident Analysis and Prevention.A. Sagberg.K. 673-687. Traffic Engineering + Control. (1966).  Sambasivan. D. 275 . (2000). In Honjo.) The Sage Handbook of Methods in Psychology (pp. and Young. (1995).).
M and Kacmar. and Zakowska. D.  Shinar. Theory of reasoned action and theory of planned behavior in alcohol and drug education.L. 1549-1565. Journal of Consumer Research. suicide and unconscious motivation. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. New York: John Wiley & Sons. D. American Journal of Psychiatry.  Sharma. The theory of reasoned action: a metaanalysis of past research with recommendations for modifications and future research. (1998). New York: McGraw Hill. B. 25. 66.  Shinar.  Sharkin.. C. and Kanekar. (2001).. and Roskova. (1962).E. (2003). J. B. and Warshaw. 237-240. 361-365. 325-343.E. M. (2004)..  Sheppard.P.  Selzer.J. M.) Traffic Psychology Today (pp. 137-160. Sekaran. Los Angeles CA: Western Psychological Services. 1. C.  Siegriest. 46(15).H. An assessment of the use of structural equation modeling in strategic management research. A. Hult. K. G. L. Boston: Kluwer. (2007). and Payne. 397-404. J. D. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. Dewar. 15(3).R.  Shapiro. Automobile accidents. Ergonomics. Manual for the Attitudes toward Guns and Violence Questionnaire (AGVQ). Research Methods for Business: A Skill Building Approach. Strategic Management Journal. 276 .. Traffic sign symbol comprehension: a cross-cultural study. E. H. The effects of safety regulations and law enforcement. Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education.  Shook. P-E. Fourth Edition. In Barjonet. 119(3). 51(1). (2003). (1956). P.T.M. R. 180-205). Aggressive driving: the contribution of the drivers and the situation. The measurement and treatment of client anger in counselling. (2000). S.  Siegel. (1988). S.. (Ed. Hartwick. (1988).S. U.L. Journal of Counseling and Development. 3-7. Ketchen. Summala.
org/publik/driving. P. S. Journal of Risk and Insurance.J.  Stanton. 277 .K.C. B. 21(4). (1998). Measuring the experience. Sinha.). 14(4). (1992).) Anger Disorders: Definition and Treatment (pp. (1995).D. Injury control: a promising field for psychologists. FL: Taylor & Francis. 1029-1030.. M. Jr. J. (2001.K.  Smiley.A. Corrigan. 44. Retrieved December 1.G. Boca Raton.  Slinn. 49-68). D. American Psychologist. Editorial. R. Philadelphia PA: Taylor & Francis. (1977). B. P.  Social Issues Research Centre (2004.sirc. Kurylo. 1-18).A. C. Retrieved December 25. Product design with people in mind. and Guest.D. N.pdf  Spielberger.  Spielberger. August). C. J. and Frank. 2007 from http://www. Winter). Matthews. S. Houston. Fishchoff. Traffic Engineering Design: Principles and Practice.J. 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.. (2004). (Ed.A. 50(8)..com/p/articles/mi_qa3622/is_200001/ai_n8903050/pg_1  Snyder. and Coombs. (Ed.. 386-397. Assessing hostile automatic thoughts: development and validation of the HAT scale. (2007).. B. Stress. N. and Sydeman.  Slovic. (2007). Cognitive Therapy and Research.. M. Auto safety and human adaptation. (1997). Human Factors in Consumer Products (pp. Issues in Science and Technology. B. H. N. London: Arnold. E. Reheiser. expression and control of anger. 47(8). C. International Journal of Stress Management. Ergonomics. In Kassinove.R. and Watson.C. 2007 from http://findarticles.. Oxford UK.  Stanton. Crowson. A. and Poirier. P. In Stanton.. 1151-1158. 237-258. Lichtenstein. B. Preference for insuring against probably small losses: insurance implications. 477-492. coping and psychological illness: a cross-cultural study.
247-254. (1988). Journal of Psychology.) Intelligent Transportation Systems. Personality attributes as predictors of psychological well-being for NCOs. Harlow UK: Addison-Wesley. Cheltenham. 63. N. Novaco. (2000). and stress. 467-480. R.. M. Traffic congestion.  Stevenson.L. Behavioural compensation by drivers of a simulator when using a vision enhancement system..E. 43(9).. UK: Edward Elgar. Traffic Injury Prevention.  Steiner.  Storey. and Ryan.  Stein.M. and Havland. T. Personality and behavioral predictors of traffic accidents: testing a contextual mediated model. M. Sümer. R.A. Type A Behavior...  Sümer. (2001).  Stokols. 44(3). N.E. 139(6). Maggio. A. In Lewis. R. 35. J. New York: Guilford. Stokols. E. N. and Liwag. D. The representation and organization of emotion experience: unfolding the emotion episode. Methodological and technical challenges in regional evaluation of ITS: Induced and direct effects. Journal of Applied Psychology. M.. (2005). Stanton. N. and Campbell.R. The Methodology of Theory Building. Sydney AU: Educology Research Associates. (1989) Prevention and control of injuries arising from road traffic accidents in Malaysia. H.C. N. 278 . 279-300). Trabasso. 1359-1370. T. and Pinto. Palamara. Behavioral factors as predictors of motor vehicle crashes in young drivers. (2005).) Handbook of Emotions (pp. J. Bilgic. 178-182. (1978). 949-964. (Ed. D. M. Safety-Critical Computer Systems. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 2(4). 37(4).. R.  Stewart.  Sümer. 681-688. (1993). J. M. D. N. In Stough. Attributions of responsibility for motor vehicle crashes. Medical Journal of Malaysia. and Erol. 529-544.  Subramaniam. (Eds. and Jin. (2003).A. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Ergonomics. P.. G. R.W. (1996).  Stough. (2001).R. Morrison.
T. R. T. Berument. and Tantriratna. H. pedestrians and road environments involved in 279 . A psychophysical method for determining the effects of studded tires on safety. 18(4). R. 82-92). In Rothengatter. H. (Eds.  Sümer. Özkan. M. Karanci. P. vehicles. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology. H. Amsterdam: Elsevier  Summala. 331-342. (2006). Traffic psychology theories: towards understanding driving behaviour and safety efforts. (1988). A. and Punto. Risk control is not risk adjustment: the zero-risk theory of driver behavior and its implications.  Summala.. (1980). H. A. Maintaining lane position with peripheral vision during in-vehicle tasks. (1988). G.N. N. (1997).  Summala. and Merisalo. H. The zero-risk theory and overtaking decision. University of Helsinki Traffic Research Unit. 38(3). G.) Traffic and Transport Psychology (pp. Safety Science. coping selfefficacy and quake exposure as predictors of psychological distress following the 1999 earthquake in Turkey. Nieminen. H. Journal of Traumatic Stress. Asymmetric relationship between driving and safety skills. Koonchote. In In Rothengatter.. 442-451.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. 21. and de Bruin. 491-506. (1996). S. and Lajunen. T. T. P. Mahasakpan.  Summala. 41-52). Helsinki. Amsterdam: Elsevier. S. Epidemiologic characteristics of drivers. (1996). 22(1-3). (1986). T. Nguntra. 31.. (Eds.  Summala. H. Risk control is not risk adjustment: the zero-risk theory of driver behaviour and its implications. and Näätänen. and Carbonell Vaya E. Hierarchical model of behavioural adaptation and traffic accidents. N...  Swaddiwudhipong. 703-711.  Summala. Accident Analysis and Prevention. W. Sümer. and Gunes. Accident risk and driver behaviour. H. 103-117.. (2005). (Ed. Human Factors..  Summala. (1994).) Road User Behaviour: Theory and Research (pp. 193-199. Assen/Maastricht: Van Gorcum. Ergonomics. In Underwood. 383-394). (2005). 38.K. (Report 11).  Summala. Personal resources. H.
52(6). Neural Networks. A Modern Dictionary of Sociology. 42. E. A.. S. New York: Simon & Schuster. (1969). Journal of Social Psychology. and Huba.J. (2000).A. L. C. The interaction of attention and emotion. N. Driving habits and behaviour patterns of university students. P. Sakamoto. British Journal of Mathematics and Statistics. (eds.M. Hopelessness in a community population in Japan. Boston: Kluwer. Anger: The Misunderstood Emotion.  Tanaka. and Papacostas. 33(2). Y. J. Fujihara. 138(5). 18(4). 37-44. Ono. (1985).M. (1985). and Kitamura. and Yarnold. P.  Tavris. Y. 34. Southeast Asian Journal of Tropical Medicine and Public Health..) Reading and Understanding More Multivariate Statistics.) Traffic Psychology Today (pp..  Taylor. 241-257. G. 167-172. In Barjonet. Washington DC: American Psychological Association. G. Ten commandments of structural equation modeling. (Ed. Sakamoto. S.  Theeuwes.R. Kuhn. Age and gender patterns in motor vehicle crash injuries: importance of type of crash and occupant role. Fujihara. and Fragopanagos (2005). Hopelessness in a community population: factorial structure and psychosocial correlates. J. T. 241-263).  Synodinos. (1989). 25(1).C.S. P-E.S...  Theodorson.G. J.E. 609-615. and Kitamura. Ono.233-239. In Grimm. E. (1996). 353-369. and Layde.  Tavris. 280 .  Thompson. New York: Thomas & Cromwell. C. Accident Analysis and Prevention.  Tanaka.road traffic injuries in rural Thailand. (2001). and Theodorson. International Review of Applied Psychology. (1998). S. 581-590. T. E.R. The effects of road design on driving. (2001). G.. A fit-index for covariance structure models under arbitrary GLS estimation.. D.  Tanaka. B. Journal of Clinical Psychology. S.
 Trimpop.A and Hobbs. P.M. 385-424. H. J.  Tiliman. Personality subtypes of young drivers.E. Paying attention behind the wheel: a framework for studying the role of attention in driving. Chapman. 281 . Science. W. A.  Tversky. 147-152. (1996).. J. and Kahneman. and McClure. 32(3). 5(5). Judgment under uncertainty. 23(1). 10(3). O. D. and Everatt. 5. A. and Milton. accident involvement. and response to a traffic safety campaign. Availability: a heuristic for judging frequency and probability. (2004). 185. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 207-332. Cognitive Psychology.  Underwood.) Handbook of Perception and Action. G.T. 123-130. (1993). P. Injury Control and Safety Promotion. Age and gender differences in risk-taking behaviour as an explanation for high incidence of motor vehicle crashes as a driver in young males. Enns. American Journal of Psychiatry. Thurman.F. 2. (Eds. (2003). 106(5).  Tversky. A.  Turner. Volume 3: Attention. R. and Vavrik.  Ulleberg. 445-448. Mills.. The accident prone automobile driver. Effectivenss of cognitive-behavioral treatments in reducing Type A behavior among university faculty – one year later. Automatic and controlled information processing: the role of attention in the processing of novelty. L. R. D.. Applied Cognitive Psychology. B. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. C.  Trick. J.  Underwood. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomic Science. and Kirkcaldy. and Sanders. C. Personality predictors of driving accidents. Collusion after a collision: witnesses’ reports of a road accident with and without discussion. G. Anger while driving. Relationship to risk-taking preferences. J. 321-333. G. London: Academic. (1985). In Neumann. (2001).W. 55-68. 279-297. (1999). (1997).. Personality and Individual Differences. (1974). (1973). Wright and Crundall. 1124-1130. and Kahneman. 7. 11-22. 4(4). (1949). D.  Underwood. G.
(2007).A. Accident Analysis and Prevention. In Rothengatter. M. Cockfield. 26. Ergonomics. Personality and negative expectancies: trait structure of the Beck Hopelessness Scale. Sanson.  Velting. Campo Grande.D. J. Harrison. (1999). É. Utzelmann.org/workshops/01-Caserta/Vaa. Ergonomics. Traffic accident risks in developing countries: superseding biased approaches. 282 . 336-345. A. 42. Personality and Individual Differences. Amsterdam: Elsevier  Van der Hulst.D. 181-190). 210-222. 913-921.F. G. 24-29. Brazil. Meijman. R. and Rothengatter. J.  Vaa..org/workshops/05-CampoGrande  Vassallo. 43(2). D.B. On-line driver workload estimation.pdf  Vallières. Harris. Amsterdam: Elsevier. E. Bergerson.A. J. Italy. (1998). and Vallerand. Effects of road situation and age on secondary task measures. R.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application.. and McIntyre. Proceedings of the 14th workshop of the International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT). Risky driving among young Australian drivers: trends precursors and correlates..  Verwey. A. 2007 from www.. 39. S. W. (2005). (2000). (2004).. (2001).) Traffic and Transport Psychology (pp.M. March 20-22. A. Anticipation and the adaptive control of safety margins in driving.J. 2007 from http:www. Driver selection and improvement in Germany. Proceedings of the International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT) Extra Workshop. and Huguenin. H.  Vavrik. Matto Grosso do Sul. Cognition and emotion in driver behaviour models: some critical viewpoints. T. Caserta. (2005). (1999)..” Recovery.  Vasconcellos. Retrieved December 5. D.F.ictct. 9(2). Retrieved September 1. T. The role of attributions and anger in aggressive driving behaviours. “Accident prone. (Ed. In Underwood. Smart. T. (Eds.. 444-458. S. W.ictct.
T. T. L. J. In Proceedings of the 1998 Road Safety Research. D.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. January 21).  Waylen. 117128. 427-433. In Rothengatter. H. (2006).H. R. and Åberg. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. (2001).pdf  Wei.B.E.com/public_affairs/reports/AA-foundation-FDN33-cradle-grave. Here’s the story of Burma-Shave.J. and Zaidel.P. Personality and Individual Differences. (Eds. 33. G. P. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Feeling nostalgic? Now you’ll rave. Changes in young adults offense and crash patterns over time. M. 2008 from http://www. Raghunathan. (1997). (2009.com/articles/waterman37. 9. 2007 from http://www. Retrieved November 2. Elliot. B. N. M. 283 . Cradle Attitudes – Grave Consequences. and McKenna. (2001). (2000). A.S. Journal of Counseling Psychology. (2002). W. International Journal of Cognitive Ergonomics.  Watson. Drivers’ decision to speed: a study inspired by the theory of planned behavior. Retrieved December 15.  Walker. and Young. Amsterdam: Elsevier.  Waller. Basingstoke UK: AA Foundation for Road Safety. Transportation and society. 438-447. and Carbonell Vaya E. eye blinks and ongoing driver behaviour. 1-8). P. 123-142. and Mallinckrodt (2003).backwoodshome.  Waterman.R.A.  Waller. 50(4). Stanton. Methodological problems associated with surveying unlicensed drivers. F. New Zealand.. M.html.A.. The development of gender differences in risky attitudes and behaviour in road use (Summary Report). 5(4). Policing and Educatino Conference 2... P. Heppner.. Shope. 28.F. 421-444. A. Backwoods Home Magazine.  Wállen Warner. and Little.M. (1998).F.P. Predicting drowsiness accidents from personal attributes. Wellington. An on-road investigation of vehicle feedback and its role in driver cognition: implications for cognitive ergonomics.theaa.T. Verwey. Perceived coping as a mediator between attachment and psychological distress: a structural equation modeling approach.
S. G. M. and French. Risk Analysis.  Wilde. (2002).  Wheatley. M. J. (1973).  Wilde.M (1956). (pp.  Wilde. 469-529) New York: McGraw Hill.J. University of Waterloo Press. (1993). G. Fox.. Risk homeostasis theory and traffic education requirements. 130(4).W. 271278.  Wilde. P. An exploratory study of the relationship between road rage and crash experience in a representative sample of US drivers. (1961). (2002). and Anderson.S..  West. 34.L.  Wilde. E. G. R.J. Mild social deviance. Accident Analysis and Prevention.. Ceminsky. Accident Prevention. G. (Ed. 450-455.).. R. Dunaway..S. Deaths and injuries from car accidents: an intractable problem? Journal of Cleaner Production. Risk homeostasis and traffic accidents: propositions. (1988). 84. G. Target Risk. Does risk homeostasis theory have implications for road safety? British Medical Journal. 1116-1121. (2007). G. Hostility and depression associated with suicide attempts. In Yager. G. D. 1149-1152. 135-154). 207-219. (2005). G. J. S. Weissman. Wiliams.  Wells.S.. 15(11/12). B. (1984). American Journal of Psychiatry. Type-A behaviour pattern and decision-making style as predictors of self-reported driving style and traffic accident risk. Snow. G.) Transport Risk Assessment (pp. The theory of risk homeostasis: implications for safety and health.  Wheatley. M.S.J. deductions and discussion of recent commentaries.J.J. (1994). 2. (1982). 31. Advances in Paediatrics. 209-225.J. G.S.M.  Wilde. Childhood accidents. K. Preventions of accidents in childhood. Guiling. 195.  Wells-Parker. Elander.S. 324. (ed. 8.N. Ergonomics. Toronto: PDE Publications. British Journal of Psychology. In Halsey. On the choice of denominator for the calculation of accident rates. 441-468. Hallberg.. Proceedings of the International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT) Extra 284 . and Klerman.
(2004). M.I.G. Responsibility of drivers. Journal of Safety Research. (2000). by age and gender. Space and Culture. 99-109. Mastering the World of Psychology.F. A.. 285 . The factor structure and convergent validity of the Aggression Questionnaire in an offender population. (1994).Y. 398-403. The fluid state: Malaysia’s national expressway.  Williams.  Williams. (Ed. Gavin. Countries and Their Cultures... 6(2). and Hartman. Boston: Pearson.Workshop. 2007 from http:www. New York: Taylor & Francis. March 20-22.. J. T. (2008)..  Williamson. 8. N.F.org/workshops/05-CampoGrande  Willford. 55(175). International Social Science Journal. A. A. 26(6).  Williams.R. M.G. Retrieved March 31. Farmington Hills MI: Gale. Brazil. Accident Analysis and Prevention.  Williamson. M. (2003). 303346. T. Matto Grosso do Sul.  Woodcock. and Well. Psychological Assessment. Campo Grande. (1996). In Hanson. (2003). J. for motor-vehicle crash deaths. Research Methodology in Strategy and Management.K. 110-131. Boyd. D. 31.ictct.B. Welsh.E. (2001).J.A. Fundamentals of ergonomics in theory and practice..) Contemporary Ergonomics.  Williams. E.S. Wood.  Wilson. Flyte and Garner. 1. J. N. Lenard.  Wood. and Shabanova. and Poythress. Possession and displacement in Kuala Lumpur’s ethnic landscape. 557-567. Cascardi. Structural equation modeling in strategy research: applications and issues. S. V. J. 527-531. Driver experience with antilock brake systems. S. A. (2003). T. 807-811. L. Designing for the in-car safety and security of women.C. 34(5). (1999). and Boyd. Applied Ergonomics.
Ergonomics. (2000). 50(1). (2007). 42(5). X. M. L. D. (2005). 740-746. World Health Organization [WHO] (1957). 43(9).S. A three-dimensional dynamic posture prediction model for simulating in-vehicle seated reaching movements: development and validation. G.R. D. Asian Journal of Social Science. 473-485.  Zhang. Negotiating identity in Malaysia: multi-cultural society. N. Country reports.C. Report of an Advisory Group. 118. 487-503). 286 . Amsterdam: Elsevier  Young.  Yaapar. Head tilt during driving. and Chaffin.A. (Ed.  Yergil. Regional Office for the Western Pacific.  World Health Organization [WHO] (2004). D. Ergonomics. In Underwood.) Traffic and Transport Psychology (pp. Back to the future: brake reaction times for manual and automated vehicles. Drivers and traffic laws: a review of psychological theories and empirical research. Technical Report Series No. and Harris. Accidents in Childhood: Facts as a Basis for Prevention. . (1999). Geneva. and Stanton. (2005). theatre and tourism. 46-58. S. 1314-1330. Ergonomics.  Zikovitz. 33(3). Islam.
or benefits. the outcome of which is typically reflected by perceived advantages. Immediately after releasing the pressure. presumably because of personality factors. differential accident involvement). As a result. 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. on most surface types.GLOSSARY Acronyms and Symbols: ABS AQ BA BHS BIT C DDB FARS HAT I ITS IFRB Anti-lock braking system LoC Aggression Questionnaire MVA Behavioural adaptation P Beck Hopelessness Scale PBC Behaviour-in-Traffic RHT Chance SEM Dangerous driving behaviour SRS Fatality Analysis Reporting System TAPB Hostile automatic thoughts TCI Internality TPB Intelligent transportation system TRA Industrial Fatigue Research Board Theory of Reasoned Action Theory of Planned Behaviour Task capability theory Type A Behaviour Pattern Supplementary restraint system Structural equation modelling Risk Homeostasis Theory Perceived behavioural control Powerful others Motor vehicle accident Locus of control Definitions: Accident-proneness: a tendency toward accidents. Anti-lock braking systems (ABS): in-vehicle technology that modulates the pressure in each wheel’s brake line so that when a whell lock-up is anticipated or occurs. the brake line pressure is relates. a concept generally attributed to Farmer and Chambers (1926. ABS ensures that. 1939) and arising from the individual differences approach in psychology. traction is maintained steering and braking actions continue to be effective. allowing the wheel to turn. to the individual” (Brown & 287 . Because the wheels continue to turn during the braking manoeuvre. (see also. Behavioural adaptation (BA): “the ability to adapt to novel conditions based on one’s experiences.
where possible. it refers to a combination of circumstances. Usually based on geographical location of the crash. first offered by Nebi Sümer of the Middle East Technical University in Ankara. characteristics of road users. It differs from accident proneness in that it (a) denotes an area of study. and (c) assumes that individuals may vary along a continuum with regard to factors that affect their risk of crash. The central idea is that. (see also. rather than a theory. (see also. risk homeostasis theory. where effort to save lives may be concentrated. Black event: a post-hoc extension of the black spot concept. McKenna of the University of Reading. 25). hierarchical driver adaptation theory. Also referred to as risk compensation. that corresponds to an accumulation of crashes in the statistical mass. including driver behaviour. when confronted by differing levels of perceived or objective risk in the environment. as an alternative to the largely discounted notion of accident proneness. 2004. black event) Contextual mediated model: an empirically-based path analysis. road and traffic conditions. it is essential when searching for black spots to disaggregate the accident mass by splitting it into progressively smaller units by type. (see also.Noy. BA is a core concept in all risk theories of driver behaviour. Turke showing the manner in which the certain demographic. distal variable. p. (b) does not prejudge the causation of personality variables. black spot) Black spot: a term attributed to Heikki Summala of the Traffic Research Unit at the University of Helsinki. (see also. The contextual mediated model forms the basis of ordering variables within the research design for studies reported in this thesis. therefore allowing for the influence of external factors. accident proneness) Differential psychology: see individual differences approach. The concept has been applied both to Summala’s (1996) hierarchical adaptation theory and to Fuller’s (2000) task capability theory. time of week and. drivers will alter their behaviour (see also. the statistical model was based on the results of automobile users’ responses to psychological testing and questionnaires. In the present research. crash outcome) Differential accident involvement: a concept proposed by Frank P. driving and psychological variables influence self-reported behaviour in traffic and self-reported crash outcomes. proximal variable. task capability theory) . 288 . It refers to accumulations of motor vehicle crashes in amassed statistics. 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.
Rotter of the University of Connecticut. It was at the IFRB that statisticians and analysts first examined the distribution of accident frequency. intelligence.S. 289 . selfefficacy and self-esteem. accident proneness) Inner speech: see self-talk. not as a unidimensional. demographic and motivational variables – contribute to diving outcomes. It contains detailed information about fatalities resulting from motor vehicle crashes on public roadways in the United States since 1975. interests. Later conceptualisations have viewed LoC. Headway: the distance between two vehicles travelling one in front of the other. in-crash. Locus of control (LoC): a concept generally credited to Julian B. Externality Chance (C) and Externality Powerful Others (P). The name was changed to the British Industrial Health Research Board in 1931. which combines the three components of the road traffic system – the human. then of the Veteran’s Administration Medical Centre in San Francisco. bipolar construct ranging from I (internal) to E (external) maximums. One such multidimensional model of LoC was advanced by Hanna Levenson. Each of the nine elements of the matrix represents a possible focus for road safety. values. and after crash – to form a matrix with nine cells. self-concept. motivation. Department of Transportation. but rather as a multidimensional variable made up of three or more dimensions. 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). leading to the now largely discredited concept of accident proneness. Individual differences approach: also referred to as differential psychology. (see also. Individual differences research typically focuses on the domains of personality. aptitudes. Haddon matrix: a model developed by the American traffic analyst. 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. a body of theoretical and empirical knowledge has been generated from attempts to consider how individual differences – primarily in personality. who posited three dimensions: Internality (I). William Haddon Jr. 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.Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS): is a database in the public domain maintained by the U. the vehicle and the road – with the three phases in a motor vehicle crash – pre-crash.. ability. (see also. In traffic psychology.
including life goals” (Chaplin. 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. Private speech: see self-talk. PBC refers to the degree of control that individuals believe they have over a given behaviour.Motor vehicle: a machine which incorporates an engine and wheels and is used for transportation on land. individuals are likely to perform riskier behaviour. operates to keep user risk at an essentially constant level. individuals will engage in more cautious behaviour. conversely. motorcycles. 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”. or characteristic manner of responding to life’s problems. individuals will engage in behaviour intended to eliminate the discrepancy. 1985.S. That is. For the purposes of the present research. most usually on roads. motorised bicycles. and using animal-drawn or human-drawn carts or other devices. as expressed by Raymond Cattell. 333-334). if perceived risk exceeds target risk. if perceived risk falls below the target risk. Perceived behavioural control (PBC): a key concept in Azjen’s Theory of Planned Behaviour. Non-motorised transport: any transport that does not require a motor to generate energy. the RHT posits that an underlying feedback system. Adlerian psychology views it as “the individual’s style of life. 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. Wilde’s theory has generated equivocal 290 . motor vehicle crash was considered largely synonymous with the concept of motor vehicle accident. trucks (lorries). Included in this term are walking. Risk homeostasis theory (RHT): Originally postulated by Gerald J. the ego and the superego. motor vehicles included automobiles. bicycling. Risk compensation: see behavioural adaptation. Motor vehicle crash: a collision or incident that may or may not lead to injury. somewhat analogous to a thermostat. but excluded those vehicles which operate on rails. regards it as “that which permits a prediction of what a person will do in a given situation. For the purposes of the present research. occurring on a public road and involving at least one moving motor vehicle. the individual differences approach. Professor Emeritus at Canada’s Queen’s University. p. Wilde. and buses. mobile construction equipment or platforms.
Road traffic injuries: fatal or non-fatal injuries incurred as a result of a motor vehicle crash. zero risk theory) Road infrastructure: road facilities and equipment. A motor vehicle crash may be considered as a failure in the system. Also referred to as private speech or inner speech. 1996. most frequently attributed to Donald Meichenbaum at Canada’s University of Waterloo. Road safety engineering: “a process. which applies engineering principles in order to identify road design or traffic management improvements that will cost-effectively reduce the cost of road accidents. these tyres are manufactured with small metal studs – much like football cleats – inserted in the treads. overpasses. (b) incorporation of safety features in the design of new roads. (see also. Self talk: a fundamental concept in most theories of cognitive behaviourism. Within the context of this research. p. bridges. but only 291 . Cognitive self-statements may be either negative or positive. Road traffic fatality: a death occurring within 30 days of a motor vehicle crash. 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. and (d) improvement of known hazardous locations on the road network. the vehicle and the road) interact with each other.and snow-covered roads during the winter months. stopping places. Opportunities for road safety engineering in general apply at four levels: (a) safety conscious planning of new road networks. including the network. draining system. at both conscious and unconscious levels. (c) improvement of safety aspects of existing roads to avoid future problems. based on analysis of road and traffic related accident information. signage. parking spaces. 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. 35). They enable better traction and shorter braking distances than non-studded counterparts. archways and footpaths. It refers to the constant stream of chatter that goes on in one’s mind. tunnels. Road traffic system: Road traffic may be considered as a system in which three components (the human. Studded tyres: used primarily in countries that experience ice.” (Ogden. target risk.research results and some heated controversy within the field of traffic psychology. behavioural adaptation. as the result of injury sustained in the crash.
According to Wilde (1994). risk homeostasis theory) Task cube. (see also. and Icek Ajzen at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst. remains constant at the target level. The theory of reasoned action (TRA) proposes that behaviour is a function of intentions. studded tyres actually increase braking distances and decrease lateral control of the vehicle. On dry roads. hierarchical adaptation theory) Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB): as proposed by Icek Ajzen of the University of MassachusettsAmherst. where i represents the number of factors defining the functional taxonomy dimension.when manoeuvring on icy or hard-packed snowy surfaces. 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. derived from Summala’s (1996) hierarchical adaptation theory of driver behaviour. and (4) the costs expected from risky behaviour alternatives. (see also. theory of reasoned action. it is a level of risk that each individual is willing to accept. theory of planned behavriour) 292 . The TPB has been applied to a wide range of research problems in traffic psychology. instrument panel and windshield of a motorcar. which in turn are a function of attitudes and subjective norms. and (c) perceived behavioural control (PBC) over the performance of the behaviour (which jointly influences both the intention and behavioural performance). Supplementary restraint system (SRS): Also referred to as “airbags”. (3) the benefits expected from cautious behaviour alternatives. Individuals will undertake behaviour to ensure that the level of risk in which they are engaged. behaviour control) (see also. Intentions are influenced by: (a) attitudes (the positive or negative evaluation of the 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. which are the best predictors of behaviour. (2) the costs expected from cautious behaviour alternatives. 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. Target risk: a core concept in Wilde’s risk homeostasis theory. target risk is determined by four “classes of utility factors”: (1) the benefits expected from risky behaviour alternatives. (b) subjective norms (opinions about what significant others would think of the behaviour). the TPB posits that a given behaviour is determined by individuals’ intentions. A complex 3 X 5 X i matrix. Each cell of the matrix represents a combination of the three dimensions which form the basis of the theory. According to RHT proponents.
behavioural adaptation. Zero risk theory: as proposed by Heikki Summala of the Traffic Research Unit at the University of Helsinki. The five basic transportation factors include: safety. Traffic mix: the form and structure of different modes of transport. convenience and economy. motorised and non-motorised. from its outset. community planning. It is primarily concerned with the study of the behaviour of road users and the psychological processes underlying that behaviour. road engineering. controlling and organising traffic to achieve efficiency and effectiveness of the existing road infrastructure capacity. In the present research. risk homeostasis theory) 293 . that share the same road infrastructure. It is often proposed as an alternative to Wilde’s risk homeostasis theory.Traffic management: planning. time. adapting behaviourally to driving conditions. comfort. The emergence and impact of the field of traffic psychology is discussed in chapter 2 of this thesis. (see also. coordinating. it posits that drivers attempt to maintain a stable balance between subjective and objective risk. only when a subjective threshold is exceeded and “feelings of fear” are experienced. Transportation factors: a set of five domains operating on the process of moving goods or persons from one place to another. has embraced a multidisciplinary approach and a shared focus with human physiology. the term is considered synonymous with transport psychology and with mobility psychology. Traffic psychology: a relatively new and developing field of applied psychology that. management science and economics. ergonomics.
Appendix A: List of Published and Research Scales 294 .
com/portal/page?_pageid=53.A number of variables studied in the present research were measured using scales copyrighted by corporate publishers or by universities where they were developed. Available from: Western Psychological Services 12031 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles. 2000).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. San Antonio. 1993). Beck & Steer. CA 90025 USA http://portal. Available from: The Psychological Corporation (Harcourt. Papacostas & Synodinos.eng.wpspublish. Research scales (BIT and HAT) were obtained and used with the permission of the authors. 19500 Bulverde Road.edu/~csp/csp. Information for obtaining copies of these instruments is provided below: Aggression Questionnaire (AQ. Brace & Company).com/cgibin/MsmGo.S. TX 78259 USA http://pearsonassess.70400&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL Beck Hopelessness Scale (BHS.hawaii.html 295 . Hawaii 96822 USA http://www. Buss & Warren. Published scales (AQ and BHS) are marketed only to professional psychologists capable of meeting criteria for psychometric knowledge and expertise. 1988) Obtained with permission from the authors: c/o Dr. with the understanding that they would not be re-published. C. Papacostas Department of Civil Engineering 2540 Dole Street University of Hawaii at Manoa Honolulu.
296 .edu/hope.R. C.Hostile Automatic Thoughts Scale (HAT. Snyder. Crowson.ukans. Kansas 66045 USA www. Houston. Snyder. 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. Kurylo & Poirier) Obtained with permission from the late Dr.psych.
Appendix B: Personal Information Form (PIF) 297 .
We are not asking for your name. 1. _________. In what city/town have you lived most of your life? _______________. what kind of transportation do you use? (please check only one) ___ bus ___ motorcycle (driver) ___ car (driver) ___motorcycle (pillion. so please answer all questions as truthfully as you can. For how long have you had your driver’s licence? __________ years and ___________months (number) (number) 3.g. Most of the time when you travel. In what city/town did you learn to drive? _______________. Proton Wira) _______________ ___ motorcycle – what engine size (e.. _________.g. sitting behind driver) ___ car (passenger) ___ bicycle (non-motorized) ___ walk ___ other (please specify: _______________) 6. __________ (city/town) (state) (country) 5. Do you presently have a driver’s licence? (circle one) yes no If yes. __________ (city/town) (state) (country) 4.CONFIDENTIAL Personal Information Form Please answer the following questions about Please answer the following questions about YOURSELF. What type of motor vehicle do you most often drive? (please check only one) ___ car -.. please answer the following questions: 2. 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 manufacturer & model (e. 250 cc) ______________ ___ other (please specify: _________________) 7.
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 . all the time ___ yes. When you want to use a motorcycle. do you have ready ACCESS to a motorcycle? (please check only one) ___ yes. most of the time ___ no 11. When you want to use a car. some of the time ___ yes. all the time ___ yes. have you been in a motor vehicle accident that required you to be hospitalised for injuries? yes no If yes.8. 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. in what kind of vehicle were you travelling when the accident occurred? ___ bus ___ motorcycle (driver) ___ car (driver) ___motorcycle (pillion. do you have ready ACCESS to a car? (please check only one) ___ yes. some of the time ___ yes. sitting behind driver) ___ car (passenger) ___ bicycle (non-motorized) ___ I was walking ___ other (please specify: _______________) If yes. Within the last twelve (12) months. most of the time ___ no 10.
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:__________________________________________ ) 13. What is your ethnic background? (please specify only one:) ___ Malay ___ Indian-Malaysian ___ Chinese-Malaysian ___ other (please specify: _____________) THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR COOPERATION 300 . sitting behind driver) ___ car (passenger) ___ bicycle (non-motorized) ___ I was walking ___ other (please specify: _______________) If yes. have you been in a motor vehicle accident that required you to go to a medical clinic for minor injuries? yes no If yes. have you been in a motor vehicle accident that resulted in damage over RM100 to your vehicle. What is your age? ___ male _____ years ___ female 17. sitting behind driver) ___ car (passenger) ___ bicycle (non-motorized) ___ I was walking ___ other (please specify: _______________) If yes. but no injuries? If yes. what phrase best describes what happened? (please check only one): ___ my vehicle was changing lanes and hit (or was hit by) another vehicle ___ my vehicle hit (or was hit by) another vehicle that was changing lanes ___ my vehicle went out of control and went off the side of the road ___ my vehicle went through a red light (or sign) at an intersection (junction) ___ the other vehicle went through a red light (or sign) at an intersection ___ my vehicle hit another vehicle from behind ___ my vehicle was hit from behind by another vehicle ___ other (please specify:__________________________________________ ) 15. Within the last twelve months. in what kind of vehicle were you travelling when the accident occurred? ___ bus ___ motorcycle (driver) ___ car (driver) ___motorcycle (pillion. What is your gender? 16.12. in what kind of vehicle were you travelling when the accident occurred? ___ bus ___ motorcycle (driver) ___ car (driver) ___motorcycle (pillion.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.