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Several researchers at other institutions have provided assistance in the form of test instruments, unpublished papers and guidance over the course of this project.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.
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. on average. Previous research has found that human factors play the chief role in contributing to crash outcomes. However. where. respectively). self-reported patterns of driving considered more proximal to the causality of the crash and self-reported crash and injury histories of the participants. seven fatalities are recorded each day. driving experience and demographic characteristics are the specific contributors of these factors. freeway urgency. demographic characteristics and driving exposure in predicting crash and injury occurrence. and that driver behaviours. hopelessness. vii .ABSTRACT Motor vehicle crashes are a serious social and economic problem in Malaysia. Distal variables included driver (driving experience and driving frequency). 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). personality traits. demographic (age. BIT had four components: usurpation of right-of-way. some personality constructs. Effects of the distal variables and proximal variable on self-reported history of crash occurrence and injuries were examined. A contextual mediated model was used to examine interactions between a set of variables considered distal to the causality of the crash event. The role of the proximal variable in mediating distal effects on crash outcomes was also investigated. externally-focused frustration. Three samples of university students whose primary mode of transportation involved driving automobiles (n = 301. The present research was conducted to examine the interaction between the role of behaviour in traffic. and destination-activity orientation. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) characteristics. previous attempts to investigate relationships between psycho-social variables and crash incidence have frequently yielded weak associations and inconclusive results. 302 and 252. gender and ethnicity) and psychological (locus of control.
particularly with respect to an ongoing debate within traffic psychology over the comparative importance of theories or models of driving behaviour.Results indicated a complex series of interactions between the variables. The advantages of multi-disciplinary approaches to the study of roadway crashes are discussed. all four BIT components were associated with higher occurrence of both self-reported motor vehicle crashes and crash-related injury. Implications for both theory and practice are discussed. viii . Areas for further study include the role of locus of control and other distal variables in the behavioural adaptation process at the root of most risk and task interface capability theories and applications to driver selection and training procedures. locus of control moderated the BIT-aggression relationship. as well. 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. consistent with the assumptions of the contextual mediated model. Results indicated that. As reported in previous studies. BIT. As hypothesised. Among distal variables. in mediating the effects of the distal variables was analysed using a four-step regression procedure developed by Baron and Kenny (1986) and using structural equation modelling (SEM) with LISREL. 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.
6 Background of the Study Road Safety in Malaysia The Problem Statement The Professional Significance of the Study Overview of the Methodology Delimitations ii iii iv vi vii ix xv xviii xx 1 1 2 4 5 7 9 12 12 12 17 19 19 21 21 22 24 24 25 26 28 30 31 31 CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 2.1 Accident Proneness 188.8.131.52 Studies of Causal Factors in Malaysian Roadway Crashes The Professional Background 184.108.40.206.1 An Applied Perspective 2.TABLE OF CONTENTS COPYRIGHT PAGE DECLARATION ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS DEDICATION ABSTRACT TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES PREFACE CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1 220.127.116.11.4 18.104.22.168 The Individual Differences Approach 2.2 Differential Accident Involvement 2.2 Traffic Psychology: Slow Progress in Theory-Building 2.1 Roadway Crashes in Malaysia and Public Perceptions of Causality 2.3.2 A Multidisciplinary Approach Theories of Driving Behaviour 2.1 Human Factors in Roadway Crashes: A Vexing Research Challenge 22.214.171.124 The Emergence of Traffic Psychology as a Scientific Discipline 2.1 Risk Homeostasis Theory (RHT) 2.4 Risk Theories 2.2 2.1 Concepts.1 Human Factors and the Motor Vehicle Safety Problem in Malaysia 2. Theories and Models 2.3 1.2.2 1.2.3 ix .126.96.36.199 1.
188.8.131.52 Aggression Proximal Variables in the Present Research 184.108.40.206.1 Locus of Control 2.4 2.1 Type A Behaviour Pattern and Motor Vehicle Crashes 220.127.116.11 Unidimensional and Multidimensional Constructs 2.2 Conceptualization and the Research Framework Definition of the Variables 3.4.2 Driver Characteristics 2.5.2 Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) Descriptive Models of Driver Behaviour 18.104.22.168.22.214.171.124.1.3 Locus of Control and Ethnicity 2.1 Demographic Variables 2.3 Psychological Variables 126.96.36.199 Locus of Control and Driving Behaviour 2.1 Age 188.8.131.52.1.9.5 Aggression 78 78 84 84 84 84 85 85 x .2.1.3 Core Concepts in the Contextual Mediated Model: Moderation and Mediation 184.108.40.206 The Haddon Matrix 2.5 2.2.3 Ethnicity 2.5 Hierarchical Theories of Driver Adaptation 2.4 Studies of Driving Behaviour Using the Contextual Mediated Model 220.127.116.11 Task Capability Interface (TCI) Theory 2.2 Demographic Variables: Age.1 Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) 2.1 Driver Characteristics: Driver Experience and Driving Frequency 3.2.2 A Conceptual Shift from TAPB to Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) As A Variable 34 35 37 38 38 39 41 41 42 42 43 45 47 49 50 50 50 52 56 58 58 61 63 63 63 64 67 69 71 73 73 75 CHAPTER 3: METHOD OF INVESTIGATION 18.104.22.168.2.2 Zero Risk Theory 2.3.1 Experience 22.214.171.124 Statistical Models 126.96.36.199.188.8.131.52.2 Driving Frequency and Traffic Exposure 184.108.40.206. Gender and Ethnicity 3.2.1 220.127.116.11 2.5 Use of the Contextual Mediated Model in Other Research Distal Variables in the Present Study 18.104.22.168 Attitude-behaviour Theories 2.5.3 Locus of Control 3.5.4 Hopelessness 3.2 Hopelessness 2.2 Process Models 2.2 Gender 2.2 A Contextual Mediated Model of Personality and Behavioral Predictors of Motor Vehicle Crashes 2.
2.7 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) 3.7 Expected Cross-Validation Index (ECVI) 3.4 Linear Regression Analysis 3.7.6 Personal Information Form (PIF) Procedure 22.214.171.124 One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) 3.4 Aggression Questionnaire (AQ) 3.7.3 3.2 Study 3 Analysis of the Data 126.96.36.199.2.7.6 188.8.131.52.5 Multiple Regression Analysis 184.108.40.206.9 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 .6 Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index (AGFI) 3.3 Study 1C 3.5 Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) and Comparative Fit Index (CFI) 3.7 Structural Equation Modelling 220.127.116.11.4 Normed Fit Index (NFI) 3.3 Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) and Root Mean Square Residual (RMR) 3.5 Study 3 Formulation of Hypotheses Methods of Data Collection and Analysis 3.1 Chi-Square (χ2).2 Study 1B 3.6 Hostile Automatic Thoughts 3.7 3.4 Study 2 3.5.2 Research Instruments 3.1 The Sample 18.104.22.168.7.5.6 Logistic Regression Analysis 3.5.8 Kolmogorov-Smirnov One-Sample Test 22.214.171.124.2 Degree of freedom (df) 3.5 3.3 The General Linear Model (GLM) Univariate Analysis 126.96.36.199.188.8.131.52.7.4 3.8 Parsimony Goodness-of-Fit Index (PGFI) 184.108.40.206.3 Beck Hopelessness Scale (BHS) 3.8 Crash Occurrence 3.7.5 Hostile Automatic Thoughts (HAT) 3.1 Study 1A 3.1 Studies 1 and 2 3.1 Independent-sample t-tests 3.7. p-Value and χ2/df Ratio 220.127.116.11.7.2 Levenson Locus of Control Scale 3.7.9 Injury Occurrence Research Design of the Studies 3.7.1 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) Scale 18.104.22.168.
1.11 Hypothesis 11: Aggression Influences Behaviour in Traffic 22.214.171.124 Hypothesis 4: Demographic Variables Influence Locus of Control 126.96.36.199 Hypothesis 10: Demographic Factors Influence Aggression 4.8 Hypothesis 8: Locus of control Influences Behaviour in Traffic 4.1 Description of the Sample 4.2 Externality-chance and Externality-powerful-others as Moderators 4.14 Hypothesis 14: Hostile Automatic Thoughts Influence Behaviour In Traffic 4.3 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the AQ Scale 4.6.1 Reliability Test Results: Cronbach’s Alpha 4.2.9 Hypothesis 9: Hopelessness Moderates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Behaviour in Traffic 4.2.2 Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 1 4.12 Hypothesis 12: Locus of Control Moderates the Relationship Between Aggression and Behaviour in Traffic 4.5.4 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the HAT Scale Normality.4 Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 3 Reliability and Validity 4.6.1 Internality as a Moderator 4.2 Results of Study 2 4.6 xii .6.5.5 188.8.131.52 Hypothesis 2: Driver Characteristics Influence Behaviour in Traffic 184.108.40.206.1 Results of Study 1 220.127.116.11.6.7 Hypothesis 7: Hopelessness Influences Behaviour in Traffic 4.1 Age.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. Skewness and Kurtosis Crash and Injury Occurrence Data Distal and Proximal Variable Data 4.2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Levenson Locus of Control Scale 4.1.6 Hypothesis 6: Locus of control Influences Hopelessness 4.CHAPTER 4: ANALYSIS OF DATA 4.3.6. Gender and Ethnicity 18.104.22.168 Results of Study 3 Hypothesis Testing 4.6.2 Parallel-Form Reliability 4.2.4 4.12.3 Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 2 4.6.13 Hypothesis 13: Demographic Factors Influence Hostile Automatic Thoughts 4.6.1 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the BIT Scale 4.1 Hypothesis 1: Behaviour in Traffic Influences Motor Vehicle Crash Outcomes 4.3 Hypothesis 3: Demographic Variables Influence Behaviour in Traffic 4.3.2 4.3 Validity Test Results 4.6.3 22.214.171.124.3.5 Hypothesis 5: Demographic Variables Influence Hopelessness 4.
3 A Contextual Mediated Model for Understanding Factors Influencing Unsafe Driving Hopelessness Locus of Control 5.3.5 What Can be Learned from Testing Contextual Models with SEM? Limitations of the Study and Methodological Considerations 126.96.36.199 Best Fit or Best Model 5.7.3 Differences between Motorcycle Drivers and Taxicab Drivers 158 159 163 163 169 170 173 173 173 174 174 176 176 177 177 179 CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION 5.1 Study 1C: Automobile Drivers 5.2 Study 2: Motorcyclists 5.5.1 5.1 Generalisability of Findings 5.3 Study 3 Testing Mediational Relationships Using SPSS 4.2 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Aggression and Crash Outcomes 188.8.131.52.3 Locus of Control and Ethnicity: Malay and Chinese-Malaysian Drivers Aggression Testing the Contextual Mediated Model Using Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) 184.108.40.206 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 Testing the Contextual Mediated Model 220.127.116.11 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hostile Automatic Thought and Crash Outcome 4.1 Study 1C 4.4 5.7.2 Locus of Control and Ethnicity: Indian-Malaysian Drivers 5.1 Differences between Automobile Drivers and Motorcycle Drivers 4.9. Motorcycle Drivers and Taxicab Drivers 4.3 Study 3: Taxicab Drivers 5.2 Study 2 4.7 4.2 Differences between Automobile Drivers and Taxicab Drivers 4.2 5.6 xiii .5.9 Relationship Between Aggression and Behaviour in Traffic 4.1 Internal and External Locus of Control as Determinants of Driving Behaviour 5.5.2 Goodness of Fit 5.2 Use of Self-Report Methods 5.5.8 18.104.22.168.22.214.171.124 5.16 Summary of Hypothesis Tests Testing the Contextual Mediated Model Using Structural Equation Modelling (LISREL Analysis) 4.4.4 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Crash Outcomes Comparison of Automobile Drivers.126.96.36.199 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hopelessness and Crash Outcomes 4.1 Advantages of Using SEM 5.8.9.
7.3 Education 188.8.131.52.7. Models in Traffic Psychology 5.1 Generating and classifying crash prevention interventions 5.7.4 Enforcement 212 215 215 218 220 221 221 221 229 230 CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION 233 REFERENCES GLOSSARY APPENDICES Appendix A List of Published and Research Scales Appendix B Personal Information (PIF) 237 287 294 297 xiv . Training and Rehabilitation 184.108.40.206 Driver Selection.2 Factors in Behavioural Adaptation (BA) 5.6.7 5.4 Measurement of Driving Frequency Implications and Areas for Further Study 5.4 Preventive Measures: “The Three E’s” 220.127.116.11.1 Theory vs.7.2 Engineering Interventions 5.7.
5 4.1 3.10 4.4 115 117 118 119 4.3 114 4.9 4. 2 and 3 States from Which Study 1 Participants Had Acquired Their Original Drivers’ Licenses States from Which Study 2 Participants Had Acquired Their Original Motorcyclists’ Licenses Summary of Internal Reliability Coefficient Results Parallel-Form Reliability for Form A and Form B (BIT) Validity of BIT scales – Summary of Confirmatory Factor Analyses Validity of the Levenson Locus of Control Scale – Summary of Confirmatory Factor Analysis Validity of the AQ scales – Summary of Confirmatory Factor Analysis Summary of LISREL Results on Validity for HAT (Study 1C) Normality Tests.1 4. Table Page 2.7 4.3 3. Gender and Ethnicity of Participants in Studies 1.2 4.8 111 121 121 122 4.5 4.4 3.1 2.3 3. 2002-2006 Numbers of Automobile Drivers and Motorcyclists Involved in Road Crashes by Age Group Key Value Clusters for Each Malaysian Ethnic Group Research Hypotheses Dimensions of the BIT scale The Five Subscales of the Aggression Questionnaire The Three Subscales of the Hostile Automatic Thoughts (HAT) Scale Statistical Methods for Hypothesis Testing Gender and Ethnicity of the Sample for Studies 1 and 2 Age.11 xv .6 4. Kurtosis and Skewness Statistics 13 14 57 91 95 97 98 101 112 114 2.LIST OF TABLES No.2 Malaysian Roadway Crashes and Casualties.2 3.
13 4.23 136 4.19 133 4. Gender and Ethnicity in Study 2 (N=122) 125 Means.14 4.27 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 1B (n=302) Means. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1A (n=301) Means.12 4.21 135 4.28 4.15 Crash and Injury Occurrence Crash Occurrence Frequency.22 136 4.17 129 4.20 134 4. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1C (n=252) Means.29 xvi . Gender and Ethnicity in Study 1 (N=855) 124 125 Crash Occurrence Frequency.16 128 4.25 138 4. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 2 (n=122) Means.26 138 139 144 145 4.4.18 131 4.24 137 4.
32 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 4.41 175 5.3 5.1 199 206 207 5.4 208 5.35 4.40 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Aggression and Crash Outcomes 174 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hostile Automatic Thought and Crash Outcomes BIT Mediates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Crash Outcomes Goodness of Fit Statistics for Model 1C5 and 1C6 (Initial and Subsequent Analyses) Distribution of National Population and Sampled Participants by State State of Origin Compared with Crash Frequency and Vehicle Registrations (Study 1) State of Origin Compared with Crash Frequency and Vehicle Registrations (Study 2) Spearman rank correlations for States of Origin for Participants in Study 1 and Study 2 Engineering Applications for Crash Prevention 174 4.2 5.36 4.4.39 4.5 209 225 5.6 xvii .33 4.34 4.37 4.31 4.30 4.
1996) Task-Capability Theory (after Fuller. 1989) The Haddon Matrix (Noy. 1996.2 3.3 4.3 3. Behavioral Predictors and Motor Vehicle Crashes (from Sümer.8 Proposed Contextual Mediated Model for Safety Research in Agriculture (from Downe.1 4. Hatakka. 2003) Inter-variable Relationships in Mediation Models Inter-variable Relationships in Moderation Models Page 36 37 40 42 44 46 47 2.6 2.1 2.4 2. 1997) Contextual Mediated Model of Personality.2 147 148 4.4 148 xviii . 2000) Contrast between Rotter’s Unidimensional and Levenson’s Multidimensional Conceptual of Locus of Control Research Model (Study 1A and Study 2) Research Model (Study 1B) Research Model (Study 1C) Research Model (Study 3) Interaction Effects between Ethnicity and Internality on BIT Interaction Effect between Ethnicity and Externality-Chance on Usurpation of Right-of Way Moderating Effect of BHS on the Internality-BIT Relationship Moderating Effect of BHS on the Externality (Chance)-BIT Relationship 2.4 4.10 64 80 81 82 83 146 3. 2. 2000) Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen.7 2.9 59 2.1 3.3 2.2 2.LIST OF FIGURES No.5 Figure Task Cube (from Summala. 2007) 50 Hierarchical Levels of Driving Behavior (after Keskinen.
5 4.13 xix .10 4.9 4.6 4.11 Interaction of Ethnicity and Verbal Aggression on Freeway Urgency Moderating Effect of Internality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship Moderating Effects of Externality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship Moderating Effect of Externality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship Contextual Mediated Model Study 1C5 Contextual Mediated Model 1C6 (Four BIT Factors) Contextual Mediated Model Study 1C (Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thoughts) Contextual Mediated Model Study 2 Contextual Mediated Model Study 3 153 154 155 158 165 166 168 170 172 4.4.12 4.7 4.8 4.
they are prone to other types of error as well. Then one evening into my office came a student from my first-year Critical Thinking class. I don’t cry much any more. but accidents or encounters with fairies or werewolves are random events. like encounters with fairies and werewolves. are factors that influence the likelihood of occurrence. I knew the fellow. or wouldn’t. And they crashed. Her hands and voice quivered. they were frustrated and angry with each other. is a matter of debate … Obviously. I sure felt like it as I sat there beside her. But. when humans are prone to imagine fairies or werewolves. just every so often. but she’d nagged him. How important these factors are. My research design needed a serious re-working. She was afraid she had missed too many lectures. I feel like it a bit right now. and his mental state. and this thesis is the result. I’m pretty happy with it. But sometimes. She had needed to go on an errand. They quarreled and then left on his motorbike. xx . LISREL couldn’t. 2004 Some three years or so into my Ph. they were focused on the errand.Talib Rothengatter & Raphael Huguenin. They were hurrying. I didn’t recognise her at first. they cut across a lane too quickly. at least not with real tears. The factors she described that evening were the same ones I’d been trying to study – freeway urgency. handle the latent variables I wanted to include in my structural equation model. She started crying and couldn’t stop. I like to watch boxing. He was very popular with other students.PREFACE Accidents occur. finally. lane deviation and all the rest. . programme. I told her not to worry. She told me about the motorcycle crash that had claimed the life of her cousin. I’m a fairly big guy. He was driving. she was riding pillion. He died instantly and she spent three weeks in the hospital. I was confused by the results I was getting. externally-focused frustration. I despair that we may never be able to snare this werewolf. things were not going well. I feel like it each time I think of that moment. The behaviour of the traveller. He’d sent me a nice card at Christmas. I hope it makes a contribution. to the weary traveler. I wanted to throw in the towel. Her face and arms had been bruised and lacerated. he’d taken the same course as she. She had been badly injured.D. only a trimester or two earlier. He didn’t want to go. I got back to work on them.
2001. Consistently over the years. perceptual (Hong. leading to a rich information base for regarding humancentred design as a “requirement for all elements in the traffic system. Drivers’ attentional (Most & Astur. 2000). perceptual difficulties and drink driving” (p. Notwithstanding the extensive literature that exists on safety design factors for automotive products (e. Even after decades of study. the most prevalent factors have been human failures associated with speed. policy-makers.. Stanton & Pinto. commented that. Peters & Peters. Olson. 11).2 million deaths in motor vehicle crashes worldwide (Peden.g. Verwey. Trick. scholars still search to identify the relative effects of vehicle. kinaesthetic (Zhang & Chaffin. 1996. Mohan & Hyder. 2001). 2004) have been studied extensively. where rates of roadway accidents and deaths have been consistently higher than in other parts of the world (Peden & Hyder. Mills & Vavrik. Enns. 2000). 2002) and road safety engineering (e. Sabey (1999). cognitive (Vaa. This is particularly salient in developing countries. 1999).1 Background of the Study With an estimated 1. Ogden. 2002). judgement. 2004). Green. Theeuwes. 2000. environment and human characteristics on the risk of accidental events and fatalities. road. perceptual-motor processes (Young & Stanton. including the 1 .g. 2007. Scurfield. Furuichi & Kadoma. Sleet. anticipation. 2007. 2004). 2002) and their impairment (de Raedt & Ponjaert-Kristofferson.CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1. for instance. much of the recent attention on causal elements in roadway crashes has focused on the human factors involved. “human factors play a major role in road accidents. 2002. Iwasaki. the quest for a better understanding of the causality and prevention of roadway mishaps has become an urgent task for safety researchers.. Graham. such as Malaysia. 2006. highway engineers and automotive design specialists. Drivers’ performance and avoidance of collisions depend on their skills. state of mind and physical well-being.
790.112).roadway. 1949) have since been replaced by more complex explanations that focus on the interaction between emotional. concludes by noting the delimitations of the research. A total of 10.2 Road Safety in Malaysia Malaysia is a nation of motor vehicle users. 2007). More challenging has been the attempt to link personality and psychosocial variables to driver behaviour and performance.732 motor vehicles were registered in 2006. p. 21).351. Malaysia is also a nation with a disproportionately high frequency of motor vehicle accidents. This dissertation is a report of research into relevant psychosocial variables and their effects on self-reported driving behaviour.252 accidents in 2006 and over 6. The research comprised five separate studies of Malaysian drivers aged 18 to 73 years. describes its significance and presents an overview of the methodology used. 2004. 2 . locus of control. McKenna. The chapter 1. This first chapter of this dissertation presents the background of the study. there are conflicting findings and associated problems with this research” (p. and as a “major public health problem” (Subramaniam. 2005). 1983). as a “social menace”(Abdul Kareem. 2002. The high rate of roadway accidents and deaths has been described in both scholarly and popular print or internet media in extreme terms.332 drivers and 15. often labelled as “tragic” (Koh. According to Dewar (2002b). hopelessness and other variables interacted to affect attitudes toward driving and the severity and frequency of participants’ self-reported involvement in motor vehicle crashes.000 fatalities were recorded (Ministry of Transport Malaysia. behavioural and attitudinal characteristics of drivers and the environmental situations in which they find themselves (Haight. There was a total of 341. Very early initial attempts to identify an “accident proneness” personality trait (Tiliman & Hobbs. the vehicle and the new technologies that are increasingly being deployed by the road and fitted in vehicles” (Carsten. including the study of a large number of variables. with the intent to determine the degree to which measures of aggression. 2003). 1989). “the literature on personality has a long history. However.
2004. often with widely varying results (Dewar. 2003. Hwang. integrative and international viewpoint based on application in order to address changing situations and objectives” (p. 2003). 1997). Rimmö. Lajunen & Summala. Hartos & Simons-Martin. Trimpop & Kirkcaldy. Ulleberg. 2002. risk-taking and sensation-seeking (Horswill & Coster. Gonzalez. 1994. Wu & Yen. Dewar. Lin. West & French. Wells. 2001. 1979. 1997). 2002. Wells-Parker et al. ethno-cultural background (Byrd. that allow for better prediction and explanation of roadway crashes (Risser & Nickel. Stewart.Trends toward high rates of motor vehicle crashes and fatalities have been observed in developing countries world-wide (Peden et al. Elander. leading many researchers and safety organisations to regard road safety as a leading international development issue (Garg & Hyder. Ball & Rizzon. 1993. Huguenin (2005) has argued that the field of traffic psychology arises from an “interdisciplinary. 2004). 1997. Vasconcellos. 2000. 2001. 2001). 1999. Verwey. Huang. 2007). Gidron. Severson. 1997). 2002) and many others. 2006. easily generalised to a variety of cultural and social settings. Gal & Syna Desevilya. and (b) the elimination or reduction of effects of task-induced or environmental stressors on human performance when driving (Brown. aggression (Parkinson. 2002b. there has been an increasing recognition of the need for theoretical formulations and specific models. locus of control (Arthur. 3 . attitudinal and personality correlates of roadtraffic crash risk. 2006. Draskóczy. 1991. Schwebel. Cohn. Parada & Cortes. 2004. Lajunen & Kaistinen. Sumala & Zakowska. 2005. Özkan. Barrett & Alexander. Blasco. Investigations of individual differences have included driver age and gender (Beck. 3). 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. Barjonet & Tortosa. 2000). 2005). Shinar. 2002. Loo. Many studies have been devoted to the examination of behavioural. 1997). Renner & Anderle. Hence. 2005. Historically. and the past twenty years has seen the emergence of the new discipline of traffic and transport psychology (Barjonet & Tortosa.
road and environmental conditions that comprise the driving situation. 1997). has recently proposed a promising contextual mediated model which distinguishes between distal (i. in turn. personality and demographic) and proximal (i. in particular. with the risk of roadway casualty? 4 . 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. Hampson & Morris. 1.. has been that such behavioural models have seldom been used as the foundation for developing an integrated.e. Speeding. in developing general and specific cognitive models of individuals’ interaction with the world around them (Brown. falsifiable hypotheses might be drawn (Summala. What demographic and personality factors are associated and interact with unsafe driving behaviour and. loss of attention and the deliberate usurpation of right-of-way are frequent behaviours in traffic. 2005).. however. A frequent criticism. Noy (1997). leaving the field with inadequate theory development from which testable. vehicle.e. 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. externally-focused frustration. it has been recognised that the psychosocial factors involved in driving safely differ greatly across the range of human. Parker. with resulting outcomes often involving crash and injury. 1997. drivers still operate automobiles and motorcycles in ways that reduce the likelihood of safe arrival at destinations. 1996. This has led to a growing interest in modelling human behaviour involved in the driving task and. aberrant driving behaviours) variables in predicting traffic accident involvement. for instance.Increasingly.3 The Problem Statement Given widespread awareness about the high rates of death and injury resulting from motor vehicle crashes worldwide and in Malaysia. theoretical basis for traffic psychology (Huguenin. Sümer (2003). 2004).
gender and ethnicity. (b) driving experience. Fifteen hypotheses are formulated to predict that distal variables including: (a) driver age. By focusing on not only demographic. 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. injuries and deaths. 1. situated as proximal variables. By better understanding the manner in which psychosocial characteristics of individuals might predispose them to engage in unsafe driving behaviour. Results of the resulting analyses are detailed in chapter 3. 2005. (d) driver hopelessness. “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.4 The Professional Significance of the Study With the frequency of roadway crashes. psychological and behavioural variables inherent in the dynamics leading motor vehicle crashes. (e) driver aggression. While there is no doubt that collective knowledge pertaining to the causality and prevention of roadway crashes is growing exponentially.The aim of the present research is to determine those factors contributing to traffic accidents on Malaysia roadways. 9). in which distal psychosocial factors exert an influence on behavioural tendencies more proximally related to the crash event. but also on their interactions. this research is important to organisations and people concerned with driving safety. 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. it becomes possible to construct a broader awareness of how demographic and personality variables contribute to motor vehicle crashes. This is both a key goal and a persistent challenge within the emerging field of traffic psychology. with a view to assessing which preventive measures would be most effective. 5 . p. and (f) drivers’ hostile automatic thoughts would not only affect each other but also four self-reported measures of behaviour in traffic. (c) driver locus of control. the present research might be seen as making a contribution to our growing understanding of that very interface.
2000). “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. There is a growing sentiment that. road safety measures and public policy. the plethora of theories available. the breadth of their scope and the complexity of key constructs raise concerns as to whether they actually stimulate or retard practical work in a specialised field (Huguenin. 2004. they also have implications for a broader “theory versus model” debate in traffic psychology. Hatakka. 2004). Rothengatter. 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. 6 . p. the development and adaptation of in-vehicle safety devices or intelligent transportation systems and the construction of models to foster additional research. 1997). Näätänen & Summala. 2004. 1993). Katila & Peräaho. Despite considerable popular attention to the problem of motor vehicle crashes and fatalities in the developing countries of Southeast Asia.Of particular interest may be variables related to driver affect. It is also the first attempt to examine closely the effects of the psychological construct of hopelessness on driver behaviour. 2005. Recent trends in the philosophy of science call conventional hypothetico-deductive processes into question (Becker. 1974). Moreover. all of which have been noted as purposes for traffic psychology (Brown & Noy. The present research adds to the growing body of literature dealing with driver aggression and its various forms of expression. Some authors have suggested that. 2001. Findings of the present research have implications for driver selection and training. in the applied sciences. Utzelmann. an area that some authors have argued is overlooked in the current literature (Keskinen. 1997. 94). the Malaysian setting has remained relatively understudied (Richardson & Downe. Laapotti.
To the author’s knowledge. and on the manner in which those factors interact to affect safety outcomes on the roadway. A multi-disciplinary approach has been generally considered one of the hallmarks of the new field of traffic psychology (Rothengatter. with emphasis on the importance of model comprehensiveness as a factor in addition to goodness-of-fit. 1. human motivation. in turn.. and is appropriate for this examination of psychosocial features of the Malaysian driver. It is useful. 7 . 2001). Radin Umar.g. 2005) and attempts to link driver performance to road engineering (e. This has left the door open for largely unsupported speculation about the character of Malaysian drivers and. which deals with methodology. attitude theory. although adding additional layers of variables and complexity to the analysis. this work represents the first instance in which Baron & Kenny’s (1986) widely-cited procedure for establishing mediation has been performed using logistic regression. This broader perspective. Che Ali. 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. 2001). Selection of alternate structural equation models is also discussed.g..5 Overview of the Methodology Questions about how the study was conducted and the choice of research methods are answered fully in chapter 3. incorporating cognitive ergonomics. may be limiting the development of effective public policy and intervention measures. this research draws on principles from a wide range of disciplines. 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. cultural anthropology and applied psychology. Certain methodological considerations add to the professional significance of this research.Notwithstanding a handful of well-founded reviews of statistical trends and risk factors (e. In doing so.
at the conclusion of Study 1C. in their capacity to predict outcomes and. Structural equation models were also used to explain the relationships between these variables. p. similar to a series of multiple regression equations. the effects of selected demographic (age. Structural equation modelling is a family of statistical methods that “examines the structure of interrelationships expressed in a series of equations. driving experience. The present research consisted of three studies: Study 1. The present research applied an ex post facto research design. 711). access to vehicle) and psychological (locus of control. but where differences which already existed between subject groups on independent measures were evaluated to determine their naturally-occurring influence on dependent. In each successive study. aggression. was a multi-dimensional path analysis depicting causal. hopelessness. Black. each entailing data collection from a different sample. Maruyama (1998) has argued that the two prominent reasons why researchers use structural equation modelling techniques lie. driving (experience. three separate phases were carried out (Study 1A. These equations depict all of the relationships among constructs (the dependent and independent variables) involved in the analysis” (Hair. gender. or outcome. in which there was no direct manipulation of independent variables in the laboratory or field setting. externally-focused frustration. This model drew on the similar conceptual theory used by Sümer (2003) in the construction of his earlier contextualmediated model. The final result. first. 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. in their capacity to explain which specific predictors 8 . 2003). different combinations of variables were added to the respective structured equation model and the level of complexity was examined. hostile automatic thoughts) on four self-reported measures of behaviour in traffic (usurpation of right-of-way. Anderson & Tatham. variables (Sekaran. cultural background).however. destination-oriented activity) and two self-reported measures of accidentrelated (crash occurrence and injury occurrence) outcomes were assessed. freeway urgency. In this case. Study 2 and Study 3. second. Babin. 1B and 1C). 2006. moderating and mediating relationships between variables.
to 45-minute trips. Student participants sampled for two of the three studies were selected from an undergraduate population at a single university. two additional studies (Study 2 and Study 3) were undertaken to test the resilience of selected components of the resulting structural equation model with different driver populations. In Study 3.6 Delimitations All research is confined by the boundaries of its scope and design. These are discussed in detail in chapter 5 of the thesis but relevant issues are introduced here. verbally administered psychometric instruments.are most important in predicting. in fact. Generalisability of the present study may be constrained by the single-setting of the subject pool and the limitations of the particular methods selected. leaving room for questions about the generalisability of findings to populations within and outside Malaysia. A team of researchers flagged down taxi drivers at random and. Again. 9 . a model was constructed using a sample of undergraduate participants for whom motorcycles were the primary mode of transport. representative of the characteristics of high-risk Malaysian drivers. This issue is discussed at some length in chapter 5 of the thesis. After the initial model-building had been completed. where it is argued that the “convenience sample” used in the model-building phases was. 1. this time sampling professional taxicab drivers in the Kuala Lumpur area. In Study 2. Such predictive capabilities were considered to be of importance in any examination of the dynamics leading to risks of roadway crashes and fatalities. a third model was constructed. 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. over the course of 30.
there has been a vigorous debate about the utility of self-report measures in safety research for several years. at least to a certain extent. 2001) and others down-playing them (Hattaka. Errors are a type of driving mistake involving failures of observation and misjudgement. close following or taking aggressive actions against another driver or vehicle. Finally. did not specifically compare these driving patterns within the context of participants’ self-reported behaviour in traffic. with some authors emphasizing methodological risks (af Wählberg. much of the recent driving safety literature has distinguished between errors. 2002. and (c) culpability for crash outcomes. Katila & Laapotti. The relationship between the manner 10 . Stradling. Violations are deliberate deviations from those practices believed to be necessary to safely operate a vehicle and include such behaviours as speeding. including: (a) test-retest reliability of predictors. Are the attitudes. The present research included procedural elements to mitigate. lapses and violations as differing behavioural responses underlying the crash event (Reason. In a meta-review of traffic safety research. Manstead. Keskinen. social desirability or response set biases? Indeed. The present research.Concerns with research of this nature also frequently centre around the question of self-reported data. while recognising the distinction. (b) time-period for calculating accident frequency. The prevalence of self-report measures in traffic safety research. such as failing to check the rear-view mirror before pulling out or changing lanes. However. 1990). Baxter & Campbell. accident histories and behavioural trends reported by participants really valid? Or are they prone to the influences of confabulation. as well. against the first two and these are covered in chapter 2. the research did not address the question of differences arising from the extent to which drivers considered themselves to be liable for the self-reported crash outcomes. Boyce & Geller. along with its implications for the validity of results and potential alternative methodologies. af Wählberg (2003) outlined three significant methodological deficiencies that have plagued the study of traffic accident predictors. is discussed in chapter 5 of the thesis. 1997). Lapses involve problems with attention and memory and include such things as switching on one thing when meaning to switch on something else.
in which behaviour in traffic was measured in this research and the dimensions offered by Reason et al is discussed in chapter 5. 11 .
2007). 2005).000 fatalities were recorded (Ministry of Transport Malaysia.1 Human Factors and the Motor Vehicle Safety Problem in Malaysia Roadway Crashes in Malaysia and Public Perceptions of Causality In 2006. 2007). in order of frequency. 2007). and as a “major public health problem” (Subramaniam.1. “friendly”. A developing country in Southeast Asia. industrialisation and motorisation. 2007).252 motor vehicle accidents in Malaysia. Malaysia has experienced remarkable increases in population. a sample of 348 first-year university students indicated. 2003). Downe and Loke (2004) reported that. the Minister of Health characterised Malaysian roads as “worse than a war zone”. or as “negligent” (“Malaysia Records Highest Single-Day Death Toll”. “impatient”. often labelled as “tragic” (Koh. “peaceful”. “laid-back” and “considerate”.CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 2. 2005). “selfish” (“Our Roads are Filled”. 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. “reckless”. economic expansion. in aggregate. “ugly motorists” (“Rude Drivers”.1 2. “bullies” and “selfish”. These are thought to have contributed. A succession of online weblogs and internet sites authored by tourists and local writers alike have condemned Malaysian drivers as dangerous. they indicated “angry”. inconsiderate and aggressive. when asked to provide five adjectives which would “describe what Malaysians are like”. 2006). there were 341. Nation-wide statistics seem to underscore the popular concern over safety issues. Recently. as a social “menace”(Abdul Kareem. to a rapid increase 12 . “patient”. Malaysian drivers have been consistently characterized as “confrontational”. 2005). 1989). In newspaper reports. pointing out that annual fatalities exceed the total deaths among American combat personnel over four years of fighting in Iraq (Zolkepli. Over 6. “discourteous” (Davin Arul. but when asked to “describe what Malaysian drivers are like”. “obnoxious” and “cowardly” (“Cowardly Malaysian Drivers”. The high rate of roadway accidents and deaths has been described in scholarly and popular print or internet media in extreme terms.
218 2005 6. 2005). 2003.425 2003 6. Studies 13 .741 38. in Malaysia.000 vehicles (Law. Table 2. from 189.109 in 1996 to a total of 341. Mohd Zulkiflee.417 47.1: Malaysian Roadway Crashes and Casualties. Generally.012 19. 2005).286 9.395 2006 6.in the number of road traffic crashes (Abdul Kareem.264 2006 341.415 52.252 in 2006 (Ministry of Transport Malaysia. higher than any other age grouping or combination of consecutive age groupings. Subramaniam & Law.236 49.815 2005 328. This suggests that studies.885 35.20 deaths per 10. 2005). Table 2.891 8.552 37.253 source: Royal Malaysian Police (2007) The road accident death rate in Malaysia dropped from 8.to 25-year-old age group (see table 2.304 in 1994 to 6.252 Motor Vehicle Casualties 2002 Fatalities Severe Injuries Minor Injuries Total 35. but still lags behind frequencies in developed countries which generally fall below 3 deaths per 10.645 54. one- third of all crashes in Malaysia involve automobile users or motorcyclists within the 16.000 vehicles in 2006. the number of crashes has increased 80% over the past ten years.2).7111 2003 298.425 5. 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. 2002-2006 Motor Vehicle Crashes 2002 Total 279. Radin Umar.200 9.653 2004 326. Abdul Rahman. 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.000 vehicles in 1996 to 3. & Wong. The number of road fatalities has decreased slightly from 6.040 2004 6.091 37.228 9.287 9. In Malaysia. 2007).1 summarises the five-year incidence of crashes and injuries.287 in 2006.98 deaths per 10.
15 43 0.85 2.05 1.341 12.953 17.29 708 3.07 2.37 337 1.94 625 3. or about 2.67 billion.56 3.92 1.22 150 0.11 2.315 17.07 2.94 1.27 458 2.005 15.99 164 0.26 463 2. Table 2.76 22.309 10.709 8.178 15. and particularly among younger drivers.49 450 2.97 1.67 206 0.68 3.023 5.08 2.431 7.40 1.81 3.31 3.378 11.329 100 source:Royal Malaysian Police (2000. 2005). in 1999 alone.205 11.48 323 1. with one road accident victim admitted to hospital every six minutes (Bernama.15 572 2.593 11.68 128 0.620 7. 2006).418 100 19.63 160 0.47 280 1.90 159 0.91 984 4.81 2.389 6.921 100 20.216 10. 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.85 147 0.64 135 0.81 1.034 4.4 billion to RM5. 2001).05 2.48 105 0.448 17.84 1.45 30 0.049 15. 2001.997 14.80 203 0. 2003).469 15.110 10.54 708 3.of university-aged drivers are critical to understanding behavioural and situational factors that predict the most commonly occurring class of crashes (Stevenson.65 2.08 541 2. Morrison & Ryan.7 billion. 14 .10 3.180 10. Some Ministry of Health estimates of medical costs alone have been as high as RM5.41 302 1. or an average of RM4.025 9.21 3.08 1. 2002.947 10. general insurers paid RM1. has resulted in considerable economic loss for the country.77 3.16 90 0.967 100 19.82 1.71 543 2.06 608 3. It has been reported that.94 2.05 2.803 9.08 585 2.15 3. Recent international analyses have placed the total economic burden at around RM7 billion yearly.4% of the Gross Domestic Product (Asian Development Bank.2: Numbers of Automobile Drivers and Motorcyclists Involved in Road Crashes by Age Group 2000 2001 2002 2003 Number % Number % Number % Number % 37 0.820 13. Palamara.416 6.551 12.61 99 0.65 121 0.72 554 2.50 979 4.29 2.086 9.6 million a day on motor claims (Abdul Kareem.23 2.038 13.92 2.
Criticisms of road configuration. and that alone justifies making concerted efforts to address the issue … The economic costs in property damages are huge. Public interest and political frustration has given rise to extensive speculation over the possible causes of the problem. There is no way to A popular measure the grief of those who have lost their loved ones. but miniscule compared to the expenses of medical care and rehabilitation. The economic consequences can be estimated. traffic congestion. But it is nothing compared to bringing down the number of road deaths. if people want to die? (Lim. economic figures and accident statistics provide only partial indications of the impact of the highway safety problem on Malaysian society. In 1999. In spite of numerous road safety campaigns the number of accident cases have been increasing. The loss of potential income of the dead and maimed in turn dwarfs those medical outlays (Bakri Musa.Yet. 2005). 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. What else can we do. lane definition. Some seven years later. the same frustration was apparent when his Cabinet successor told a group of assembled journalists that: When I became Transport Minister two-and-a-half years ago I thought the biggest challenge was to build ports and airports. (Bernama. 1999). or the pain of the maimed. physician and journalist has commented that: The human toll is unquantifiable. 2006). signs and lighting have been levied in certain quarters 15 . which is actually a nightmare. 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.
2007).693 deaths among motorcycle operators and pillion riders. given greater risks of accident. newspaper columnists. They don’t even stop to look left and right or look in the rear view mirror. Maybe these drivers just never realised how simple it is to avoid accidents (Looi. 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 . serious injury and death (Per and Al Haji. 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. 2005). Who they are.215 deaths among motorcar drivers and passengers. Krishnan & Radin Umar. most accounts have come around to commenting on driver demographic and behavioural characteristics as significant factors in motor vehicle crashes (Che Ali. for instance. though. 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. as compared with 1. how they think. 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. In a recent newspaper interview. 2006). 1997). is often mentioned as a factor. In 2006. approximately 45 per cent of all registered vehicles in 2006 (Road Transport Department Malaysia. 2007). The relatively high population of motorcycle riders.(Abdul Rahman et al. They are also bad in giving ample time to others and this is an example of non-defensive driving. the Royal Malaysian Police (2007) reported 3. Generally. 2005). Those countries have had a motoring culture for nearly a century but our road-users are relatively newer to motoring (Sadiq. Researchers. unlike in other countries.
conspicuity and excessive speeding. 2. rather than personality factors. 1996). Law et al. a needed focus in the analysis of programme effects. Radin Umar and Kulanthayan (1999) found that the same MSP had significantly improved motorcycle riders’ perception and understanding of safety issues. (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. Bartle & Truman. Conducting time-series regression analyses of police data. Ahmad Hariza. was personality or demographic factors of motorcyclist samples investigated. In a separate study.1.general understanding of the causes and potential prevention strategies related to the country’s traffic safety problem. or else on the evaluation of specific safety interventions. respectively. 17 . since studies in other parts of the world have found that individual differences play a significant role in determining rider training outcomes. Zulkaurnain and Kulanthayan (2005) examined the impact of economic variables on motorcycle-related crashes. perhaps. This is. In none of the studies of the MSP. however. causal factors underlying crash and injury rates on Malaysian roadways have remained largely understudied. Law. Chalmers & Langley. 2007). due to fewer trips and reduced traffic exposures as a result of slower economic activity. they reported that the Asian-wide economic recession significantly contributed to a reduction in traffic fatalities. Musa. 2007) and crash Type And liability (Clarke. risky behaviour (Chang & Yeh. Radin Umar. The research that has been undertaken has tended to focus largely on the contribution of broader economic and social variables. MSP interventions had been aimed at modifying motorcycle riders’ awareness and attitudes of safety issues related to helmet use. In the same study. injuries and fatalities. Mohd Nasir. Ward.2 Studies of Causal Factors in Malaysian Roadway Crashes Notwithstanding this public outcry. For instance. reasons and social contexts of motorcycle use (Reeder. with a 27% and 38% drop in the rate of motorcycle casualties and motorcycle fatalities.
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. 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. road engineers devoted their efforts to creating a public artery in which speed and limited stoppage were design priorities. He argued that. “many Malaysians claim that as drivers.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. resulted in a myriad of problems. he argued that national leadership intended it to be both a symbol of progress. generalising to all driving environments and situations. According to Williamson. a capacity that makes them distinct as a society” (p.122). 121-122). these conflicting aims of speed and safety seemed to exacerbate them. The very monotony of the road surface. however. the factor that made the high speeds possible. 110). including speeding and falling asleep at the wheel (“N-S Highway”. since 1994. 18 . motivated largely by the government’s fear of unregulated public assembly. This. Describing the expressway as a “stunning infrastructural achievement” (p. they are accident prone. 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. Although the expressway was meant to avoid both traffic and accidents. 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. 1996). has linked peninsular communities.
Christ. personality characteristics (Elander.2. the largest opportunities for harm reduction: A clear hierarchy of factors can be specified. Åberg. Panosch and Bukasa (2004) argued that: Road safety is less a technical but rather a human factors problem. 784).1 The Professional Background Human Factors in Roadway Crashes: A Vexing Research Challenge Attention to the demographic. experiential. This has included the examination of age and gender.2. etc. driver experience and skill and the relationship between risk and factors such as speed choice and alcohol consumption” (p. levels of driving experience and. “human behaviour makes a direct contribution to crash risk through the extent of knowledge and understanding of traffic systems. 1991). Among engineering factors. 1993. bad road conditions. 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. but rather 19 . 1993). 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. driver behaviour (what the driver chooses to do) has much greater influence on safety than driver performance (what the driver can do). roadway engineering has a much greater influence than automotive engineering (p. 62). According to the Commission for Global Road Safety (2006). Because at least one driver is involved in every traffic crash. by far. personality and behavioural characteristics of drivers has not been exclusive to the Malaysian scene. Among human factors. Human factors are far more important than engineering factors.2 2. Evans (1996) further argued that changes in driver behaviour offer. The majority of accidents are not caused by problems of the vehicle. West and French. particularly.
or at least predict. 2005). (b) the choice of time periods for calculating the frequency of crash-related outcomes. 2004) and other contextual variables. psychological factors may play different roles according to driver age (Dumais et al. However. 2002. as well as on the attitudes and behaviour of single drivers (p. to a large degree. 2004). The lack of progress in trying to identify psychological factors that cause. 1994). 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. in reviewing early findings on human factors in this field. 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. 377). 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. personality and traffic safety have been regarded by many as debatable.by the behaviour of drivers. conflicting or of relatively little importance (Iversen & Rundmo. Lajunen & Summala. Ranney. 641). He conducted a meta-analysis of some 136 previous studies researching the effects of at least one psychological predictor of 20 . Haddon (1963). Further. weak. empirical findings to date about the relationship between driver characteristics. unclear. prior accident experience (Lin et al. While the system-centered approach aims at creating those road conditions that reduce the chance of accidents in advance. 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. 1997. the individual-centered approach directly focuses on traffic relevant performance and personality aspects. organisational climate (Caird & Kline. and (c) the failure to differentiate between culpable and non-culpable crashes.
1961. the picture that emerges is indeed grave. psychologists have given scant attention to this topic. 2003).1 An Applied Perspective Ever since Tillman and Hobbs (1949) stated that “a man drives as he lives” (p. 1965) but did not really gain momentum until the 1980s (Risser.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. It would seem that very few of the studies on accident predictors are actually possible to interpret in any straightforward way. Wagenaar & van Koppen. accuracy of witness recall of crash details (Crombag.2 The Emergence of Traffic Psychology as a Scientific Discipline 2. 1996. 1993). 1997a).2. Other methodological factors that may cloud the relationship between psycho-social variables. 2003). especially considering the salience of transportation in the routines of daily life. 2002. the extent of exposure of drivers to the driving task (af Wahlberg. 482). 21 . The need for a more specialised focus by applied psychologists and ergonomists on driving-related research problems and roadway safety was raised throughout the 1960s (Cozan.2. motivation and behavioural performance as potential underlying causal factors in driver behaviour (Jonah. and we are left with a very vague knowledge of what psychological variables can actually predict accidents (p. Nevertheless. information processing. Novaco (2000) argued that: The field of transportation has always had a rich potential for psychology. the use of inconsistent crash definitions. 2005). there has been an interest in driver personality. Preston & Harris. driving behaviour and crash-related outcomes include: the use of self-reported crash data. Underwood & Milton.2. 321). and the influence of car and driver stereotypes on attributions of crash blameworthiness (Davies & Patel. 2. the lack of replication of many studies.
“the task of traffic psychology is to understand. 4) and describes it as an “interdisciplinary. Ochando. 2. transportation planning. conferences and coordination of professional affiliations ever since (Groeger.) The Traffic and Transportation Psychology Division of the International Association of Applied Psychology was established in 1994 and there has been a steady growth in publications. According to Rothengatter (2001). These interrelationshps provide a vast terrain for psychological research (pp. 246). as a general objective to minimise the harmful effects of traffic participation” (p.” (p. traffic and transportation. in a Spanish survey.2 A Multidisciplinary Approach From the outset. Temes and Hermida (2001) found. or peculiar to. anthropology and sociology.654-655.Transportation systems shape the structure of our communities and impact the well-being of individuals … People’s reactions to the inconvenience and discomfort of a particular journey depend on many intertwined psychological processes including personality disposition. traffic psychology has drawn from multidisciplinary perspectives.2. Huguenin (2005) defines traffic psychology as “the psychological intervention. ergonomics. eoncompassing engineering. psychology. but that complex traffic 22 . This includes the research that serves this purpose” (p. in the field of traffic. 3). or the psychological support for intervention. Groeger (2002) argued that there is “no psychology which is specific to. that individuals tend to combine their interests in traffic psychology with some other area of specialisation such as educational psychology. predict and provide measures to modify road user behaviour at the levels identified with.2. attitudes about the origin and destination of the trip and resources for choosing alternative travel modes and schedules. medicine. 2002). To wit. 4). integrative and international viewpoint based on application in order to address changing situations and objectives” (p. Indeed.
In a recent special edition. as well. Parker (2004) pointed to the role played by social psychology in the area of road safety. 1997. Johnston. 2007. a paradigm that has been applied increasingly to driving safety questions in developing countries (Dharmaratne & Ameratunga. and of cognitive control over vehicle and highway systems involved (Bridger. 2000). in particular. the design of vehicle automation and a deeper understanding of why drivers behave as they do” (p. the road infrastructure and other road users. surrounding environments and 23 . and that “ergonomics has much to offer in the design of driver education and training programmes. the road environment comprises the vehicle. which are sometimes expressed in road markings and road signs (p. 24). 1158). commented that: From the perspective of the driver. Much of the ergonomic research carried out to date has been focused on adapting motor vehicle conveyances. the study of cognitive processes. Ergonomics has made a contribution. It also includes the rules of the highway code Saad (2002) governing the use of the road infrastructure and interactions with other users. over the past ten years. Spielberger and Frank (1992) made similar comments with regard to the contribution of health psychology through the use of public health models and methodologies. the design of driver interfaces and driver assistance systems with motor vehicles. both by providing a better understanding of human-machine interaction. which she described as the two main planks of social cognition. 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. Garner and Zwi. 2004. Wilson. Stanton (2007) noted that. 2002). emphasising the primacy of attitudes and attributions. Odero.behaviour is a very important and worthwhile test-bed for psychology and psychological theory and. Peden & Hyder. there have been 103 papers published in the Ergonomics journal alone. 1995. 2003. Hyder & Peden.
Walker. in which the goal is to manage automation and dynamic function allocations. Stanton & Young. though. Neerincx & Schriebers. which assumes a necessary communication between person and machine led to a dialogue between the various designers of car interiors. 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. This involves the coherent grouping of general propositions for use as principles in explaining various classes of driving phenomena. 1997. particularly the notions of mental load.1 Theories of Driving Behaviour Concepts.3. Theories and Models In attempting to understand. traffic psychologists frequently engage in theory-building. a paradigm that Boff (2006) described as “Generation One” ergonomics. 2001). According to Barjonet & Tortosa (2001). 26). Noy. Concepts are the building blocks for theory and may be defined as: 24 . road signs and all the difference infrastructure and hence to a greater flexibility in their hitherto purely engineering approach which supposed that people would adapt to the machine” (p. These applications are consistent with the paradigms Boff (2006) has described as “Generation Two” ergonomics. 2004). 2006. error and cognitive modelling. 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. and “Generation Three” ergonomics. “This school of though. which focuses on symbiotic technologies that amplify human physical and cognitive capabilities.3 2.tasks to human capabilities and limitations. Increasingly. 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. 2. Jannssen.
2. often in mathematical form. which attempts to provide a generalised working construct that can account for empirical data or relationships” (Chaplin. 2000. 1969). “theory” is a term used interchangeably with the word “model”. often providing a category for the classification of phenomena (Theodorson & Theodorson. p. Ericsson & Bourne Jr. On the other hand. p. Concepts can be linked together to form a theory. A-18) Often. each ordering driving reality from its own particular set of empirical observations. 1985). generalisable understanding of the driving process can be deduced.3. this may be due to 25 . Reasons for this are likely several. there is no generally accepted theory which elucidates principles from which a broad. 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. the latter is defined more narrowly as “a set of assumptions or postulates. but for the purposes of this thesis. In traffic psychology. Ranney (1994) pointed out that it has never been clear.A word or set of words that expresses a general idea concerning the nature of something or the relations between things. 8) Any set of systematically interrelated concepts or hypotheses that purports to explain and predict phenomena (Robbins. or accident-causing behaviours.. 2005).2 Traffic Psychology: Slow Progress in Theory-Building Theory development in traffic psychology has not progressed well (Summala. Many of the theories that have been proposed have failed to generate testable hypotheses. Healy. Concepts are formed by a process of mental abstraction. which is then followed by a process of generalisation (Schneider. To a degree. whether theories should explain everyday driving. 1995). in traffic psychology. 2005. or both. many models have been proposed.
risk adaptation theories.. but it is also a reflection that the driving task is a highly sophisticated multi-factorial process involving perceptual. cognitive. minimise delay and driving time. These may be classified as: theories of individual differences. I believe it is but one of the goals a driver has. … Just because we as investigators have an understanding of safety as a goal.3 The Individual Differences Approach Placed in similar situations. and most of the time is not especially influential. social. Instead. given the complexity of human behaviour. it does not mean that the driver had safety as a primary goal. 2.the imprecise definition of concepts. it is highly improbable that a single theoretical stance is likely to be sufficient to account for behaviour in traffic. 2004. the driver’s aspirations are to reach destinations. Groeger (2000) took a similar position with regard to the range of driver motivations: Although any rational analysis would surely place preservation of one’s own personal safety at the heart of the concerns of a driver. For over ninety years.3. feel in control. perceptions. or ever had sufficient knowledge of possible outcomes on which to base a deliberate action (p. enjoy driving. 189). attitudes. not all people act exactly alike and this is a function of their differing values. 26 . Rothengatter. motives and personalities (Robbins. hierarchical theories of driver adaptation. and emotional determinants. etc. Groeger and Rothengatter (1998) argued that. Notwithstanding these difficulties. five areas of theory attempt to explain and predict driving behaviour. 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. taskcapability frameworks and attitude-behaviour models (Keskinen et al. avoid obstacles. 2005). 2002).
anxiety and driving anger. the extraversion variable has been associated with a higher frequency of traffic offences (Renner & Anderle. Lajunen (2001) reported that countries with high extraversion scores had more traffic fatalities than those with moderate or low extraversion scores. or “Big Five” personality model (Costa & McRae. 1990). without driving violations had lower scores on measures of risk-taking behaviour. aggression. 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. crash frequency (Pestonjee & Singh. 1980) and other safety outcomes. McRae &Costa. In a large number of studies of specific samples from various countries. extraversion was found to predict traffic accidents. 1979). conscientiousness. aged 16 to 29 years. 1995. 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). Drawing from a large pool of data that included personality measures and both traffic and work-related statistics for 34 nations. for instance. thrill and adventure seeking and tended to avoid socially stimulating situations when compared with violators. According to Rothengatter (2002). poorer perception of traffic signs (Loo. Ulleberg (2001) found two high-risk groups. irresponsibility and driving related aggression.Trimpop and Kirkcaldy (1997). while the second high-risk group reported high sensation-seking. Similar studies of driver risk-taking and other individual differences have been largely absent with Asian populations and non-existent in Malaysia. However. Of the five factors examined – extraversion. but not occupational accidents. found that a sample of young Canadian automobile drivers. neuroticism. In an attempt to identify subtypes of young Norwegian drivers. There have been theories of crash causation that have focused on particular groups of 27 . the search for individual differences relevant to crash involvement continues to yield a large body of literature. “these findings have yet to be embodied in a general theory of differential crash risk. 2000). the first of which was characterised by low levels of altruism and anxiety and high levels of sensation-seeking.
and that this is due to some characteristic or summation of characteristics associated with corporeal dexterity. 1993. in response to concern over the number of accidental deaths and injuries in World War I production industries (Blackler & Shimmin. found first that the frequency of accidents. but persists today. could be modelled almost exactly by the Poisson distribution but then that.3. λ. but none have attempted a more general integration” (Elander. p. “irrespective of environment. p. it should be a reasonably simple matter to find 28 . The difficulty was that no one knew how to determine its value for a given individual. The individual values of each worker’s λ became known as the degree of accident proneness. 290). differed from person to person (Greenwood & Yule. personality. in certain cases. If each individual has a unique λ-value. during and following the war years. the average number of accidents.152). 1984). The designation of a high-λ individual as “accident prone” implied that. an idea that has had an uneven level of acceptance by ergonomists and traffic psychologists through the years. Research by board statisticians. ‘Accident proneness’ had a nice ring to it. weight and perhaps even intelligence. his or her accident proneness. or higher conative or cognitive function” (Cresswell & Froggat. 1962. that individual is more likely at all times to incur an accident than his colleagues even though exposed to equal risk.1 Accident Proneness One concept that sought to integrate individual differences within a predictive theory relates to the “accident-prone personality”. 1920).finding. just as one can meaure height. In 1917. It provided a challenge to the psychology profession to devise a way to measure it. sensori-motor skill. According to Haight (2004). occupational and otherwise. West & French. the British government established the British Industrial Fatigue Research Board.3. 2.
perhaps physiological. subjects reported significant. with a series of tests constructed by Greenwood and Woods (1919). 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. in traffic or when playing 29 . The theory of the accident-prone individual also came under attack on a conceptual basis. that high-λ group would be comprised of the same individuals or of an entirely new cohort (Haight. 2004). by devising clever tests. 422). in successive years.out what that value is. Farmer and Chambers (1926. a certain percentage would experience a higher accident frequency than would other groups year after year. Hale and Glendon (1987) concluded that the evidence for the transfer of accident liability differences across different work tasks or different working environments is quite weak so that accident proneness would appear to be largely task specific. inappropriate. in a Finnish telephone survey. as well. 195). replicable result that correlated substantially with the accident experience of individuals (Haight. inadequate or irrelevant. Arbous and Kerrich (1951) and much later McKenna (1983) systematically destroyed the supportive literature. A study by Salminen and Heiskanen (1997) provided empirical support for this position. 1929. but did not take into consideration whether. 1997). produced a positive. 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. but very low correlations between accident frequency at work. Johnson (1946). p. “Because crashes are so infrequent. at home. 1939) and many others. more probably psychological (p. 2004). noting that. The accident-prone concept. motivated largely by a desire to select lorry drivers in Europe who were less likely to become involved in costly roadway crashes (Barjonet & Tortosa. in any sample. 1991. however. 1956). with extensive critiques that concluded statistical analyses were almost all invalid. 294). with shorter periods giving sharper contrasts (Moore. Early work on the concept attempted to do just that. None of the experiments. Scores on the λ dimension. made an assumption that. it was pointed out are highly sensitive to the length of the survey period.
562). therefore. 2. no stable personality characteristics that can be identified with accident-proneness have been discovered. Pijl. Visser. 8-9). Ultimately. Alternative explanations must be found for persons experiencing multiple accidents (Lindsey. 1993).. 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. 1998). it denotes an area of study rather than a theory. pp. but the authors reported that the heterogeneous nature of sub-groups did not permit comparisons. 1980. screened for operational and prevalence rates related to accident proneness within work. sports and family settings. It is seen as preferable to earlier formulations because it places more emphasis on contributing factors outside the person.3. While their stated conclusion was that an accident prone group definitely existed. it is still generating research and controversy (Vavrik. Neeleman and Rosmalen (2007) have published a meta-review of 79 studies.sports. Only 15% of the studies included in their analysis had been conducted on road user crash experience.3. in no case did correlations between traffic crashes and other types of accidents exceed r =. the consensus position became that: Accident proneness as a concept has little use in practical accident prevention. Stolk. moving away from the main conceptual criticism of traditional 30 . The concept itself is ill-defined. “it is still difficult to identify the accident prone individuals that compose this group.2 Differential Accident Involvement McKenna (1983) suggested that the accident proneness concept should be replaced by the less historically loaded term “differential accident involvement”. roadway. 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. This concept does not prejudge the issue of causation. and assumes that individuals may vary along a continuum with regard to factors that affect their risk of crash (Elander et al.05. Despite the low repute in which many have regarded the accident proneness concept.
Wilde (1982. but avoids the assumption of a stable phenomenon that accounts for more accidents in all situations. However. After the relatively easy engineering measures were implemented to reduce the seriousness of the consequences of driver behaviour. they adjust their behaviour to eliminate the discrepancy. The introduction of divided highways. 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.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. That is. Dewar (2002b) noted that the notion of differential liability allows for the observation that some individuals do. substantially. 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. 1988) proposed that a control mechanism operates to keep overall risk per unit time constant. and that transient factors probably interact with stable traits of the individual in their causation. 2.4. researchers began to turn their attention to not-so-easy measures for changing driver behaviour. Elander et al. A driver who enters a construction zone. concluded that differential crash risk is not readily accounted for by previous crash rates.accident proneness (Chmiel. experience more accidents than others.3. following their review of the literature. albeit not crash occurrence. compulsory seatbelts and vehicle design improvements reduced motor vehicle crash fatalities. crash barriers. when they perceive a discrepancy between the observed level of risk and the desired target level of risk.1 Risk Homeostasis Theory (RHT) In an attempt to explain these findings.. 2. large earth-moving 31 . in fact. people strive to maintain a target level of risk all the time and. For example. suddenly confronted with uneven pavement. 2000). in a study of driving on icy roads.3.
RHT research of this nature has been used to argue that most engineering interventions and roadway regulations have little or no benefit (Smiley. Conversely. Michon. When others (Haight.vehicles and warning flags. at least until the target risk level was reached. flat. is if the level of target risk is reduced. 1994) argued that this made the theory essentially untestable. according to the theory. 1988. 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. 2001. 1997). according to the theory. Initially. 14). Fosser & Sætermo. 2002). reduced the predicted safety benefits of such systems (Wilde. given that human behaviour will continue to be motivated by internal homeostatic processes. Ranney. postulating that the number of accidents in any given country would only depend on the accident rate which the population is willing to tolerate. 1994. 1986. Huguenin (2001) noted that RHT has spawned a considerable number of studies. Wilde. 2002) and that driver education programmes need to be extensively revamped (Wilde. would perceive a level of risk above his target and would tend to reduce speed and increase vigilance.” (Fuller. Collectively. in turn. “the aggregate target risk in a community is what produces the accident toll and the only way in which this toll can be reduced. 2005). That is. for example. 1989. and not on the specific measures taken in other sectors of the control system. RHT proponents argued that drivers were adapting behaviourally to the effects of ABS by driving less safely and that this. Sagberg. McHugh & Pender. performing more dangerous manouevers and driving with significantly shorter headway distances than those driving without ABS (Aschenbrenner & Biehl. Wilde’s theory was couched at a societal level. p. a driver motoring along a wide. observers posing as passengers rated German taxicab drivers in vehicles equipped with anti-lock braking systems (ABS) as driving more aggressively. many of which have attempted to observe and comment on individual behavioural change after the risk variable is manipulated. In two separate studies. The central implication of RHT is that safety interventions need to be values-oriented and aimed at lowering the level of 32 . 2008. Wilde (1994) reframed the concept of target risk as an individual variable based on four perceived utilities.
the community.target risk that people are willing to tolerate. 2004). 223). 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. p.. 1977). More than any other driving theory. General consensus is that behavioural adaptation to vehicle and environmental conditions often does occur (Rothengatter.” (Vaa. 1989. but that the RHT neither adequately explains nor predicts the circumstances under which it does. a tenet for which no convincing support has been yet generated (Michon. and not on the available technology” (Wilde. The notion that people have a constant point of acceptable risk. Lichtenstein. the notion of target risk implies that drivers are constant “comparers”. 2002). 1151). To the contrary. “Costs and benefits are central to the model. 2001. Slovic.. 2002). Robertson and Pless (2002) made the case forcefully that: … some drivers may sometimes slow down in rain. but they are not defined in psychological terms. Rothengatter. p. 2008. “It is unclear whether risk homeostasis occurs at the level of the individual. 53). Fischoff. 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. Also. In a review of research offered as support of the RHT. it has been argued people are not sufficiently sensitive to changes in low risk probabilities to react behaviourally as RHT predicts (Fuller et al. Criticisms have been aimed at Wilde’s theory on empirical as well as conceptual grounds. Considerable criticism revolves around the imprecise nature of the theory itself. or the nation” (Brown & Noy. Corrigan & Coombs. (p. “The extent of risk taking with respect to safety and health in a given society ultimately depends on values that prevail in that society. 2004). pay sufficient attention to risk. 1994. psychologically weighing at every moment the perceived and targeted risk levels inherent in every environment. Evans 33 . Wilde’s RHT has generated controversy and opposition (Keskinen et al. however.
experience ‘zero-risk’) when they drive by anticipating.3. and 34 . 1987. Rather.(1986) concluded that “risk homeostasis theory should be rejected because there is no convincing evidence supporting it and much evidence refuting it” (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. In addition. 26). 1988) proposed that drivers do not constantly assess risk while driving. drivers compare the distance from hazards or time-tocollision to a subjective safety margin threshold and take action only when the threshold is exceeded.2 Zero Risk Theory Another risk-based theory. they experience uncomfortable feelings of fear and abruptly change behaviour. While overcoming many of the criticisms levied at RHT with regard to the concepts of target risk and the risk discrepancy comparative process. O’Neill and Williams (1998). In other words. some degree of risk during the performance of this task. for example. zero-risk theory still retains some of its conceptual shortcomings. 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. Summala. or expecting. Fuller (2005) has argued that the theory’s premise that safe margins are learned creates an implausible requirement to recognise. a necessary and highly controversial assumption in Wilde’s theory. 92). is a very basic human skill that can be carried out in the absence of extensive conscious processing. At this point. 2004. increasing safety margins” (Brown & Noy. Rothengatter (2002) has questioned how drivers can determine that a threshold has been exceeded if they do not constantly assess risk. 2. drivers avoid ‘feeling fear’ (hence. after a similar review. Only when the subjective risk reaches a level that was not anticipated will the drivers change their behaviour. p. 81). Michon (1989) noted that most studies attempting to support the RHT deal with data only at the aggregate level. Summala’s zero-risk model of driver behaviour (Summala & Näätänen.4. Summala (1986) suggested that estimating time-to-collision.
learn how to respond safety to. 35 . and when confronted with various environmental conditions or psychological processes. it may not manifest itself as a less cautious speed or headway choice but rather as a conscious. for instance.3. In an attempt to deal with this and to expand on the role of extrinsic and intrinsic motivators. 1997) refined his earlier theory into a hierarchical model of driver behavioural adaptation. level of psychological processing and a functional taxonomy of driving actions (see Figure 2. would vary depending on the combination of factors from the three dimensions. 1998. 1996. age and social variables. Gregersen. Hataaka. Reeder et al. do appear to affect drivers’ willingness to accept risk levels that approach thresholds and.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. in which he introduced a “task cube” to explain the driving process. Summala argued that behavioural adaptation. such as time pressure. 2. used to explain drivers’ tendencies to approach as closely as possible to the risk threshold. much of which arises from personality. what is a virtually infinite number of roads and traffic scenarios. pre-meditated decision not to wear seatbelts. and specific driver actions. The cube presented three dimensions of driver behaviour: a functional hierarchy. A major element in the zero risk theory was the influence of motivation. very little if any research has been carried out with respect to intrinsic motivation. Glad & Hernetkoskis. Keskinen. 1999). their behaviour becomes less adaptive to prevailing circumstances (Delhomme & Meyer. as a result. 2002. Meijman & Roghengatter. On the other hand. A large number of studies show that external motives.1). If behavioural adaptation were to take place in response to the presence of a supplementary restraint system (SRS). Summala (1996. Van der Hulst.
Headway control Obstacle avoidance Crossing management Passing and other maneuvers FUNCTIONAL TAXONOMY Figure 2. for example. but that is not 36 . 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. Even though it is true that the performance on one task can bear consequences for the performance for the other. 15). at the same time. seemingly concurrently. Automated) Navigation Speed and time control Guidance Vehicle control Lane keeping etc. a property absent within the task cube concept.MOBILITY NEEDS LEVEL OF PSYCHOLOGICAL PROCESSING Decision making Supervisory monitoring FUNCTIONAL HIERARCHY Vehicle choice Trip decisions MOTIVATIONAL MODULE: MOTIVES EMOTIONS Attention control Perceptual-motor Control (constant mapping. Rothengatter (2002) questioned the concept of a hierarchy.1: Task Cube (from Summala. 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. criticised the model for being overly complicated and resembling “more a description or a list of important variables than a solid model” (p. 1996) Keskinen et al. (2004) noted that Summala’s task cube achieves its goal of conceptualising the driving process in ergonomic terms and praised the prime role given to motivational factors but.
2000) 37 . 1982.. high speeds. Loss of control occurs at the point where capability is less than that required to carry out the task safely.g. However.1). Safety Compensatory action by others Crash! Capability (C) Loss of control C>D Control C<D Task Demands (D) Safety 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. drivers are able to manage the interface between demands and capabilities (see Figure 2. this becomes more difficult when factors external to the driving task (e.3.sufficient reason to presume they are two distinct levels of the same task rather than two different tasks (p. 1988) and the zero risk theory (Näätänen & Summala. 252). affective states). 2005) integrated competing components of the RHT (Wilde. Fuller (2000. Most of the time.2: Task-Capability Theory (after Fuller. Fuller argued that loss of control occurs when task demands exceed drivers’ capabilities.6 Task Capability Interface (TCI) Theory In perhaps the most ambitious of the leading driving behaviour theories. 1976) by proposing that drivers attempt to match task demands with their capability to maintain control. 2. either by modifying task demand or by altering their capability. unexpected changes in task demand (decreased visibility.
the notion of matching competence with task demand promises to be very useful in understanding driver behaviour. Intention is the cognitive representation of an individual’s readiness to engage in a given behaviour. (2004) have argued that it is deserving of more attention than it has received to date. objects.Fuller’s theory has. such that it is not capability but perceived capability that interfaces with task demand.7 Attitude-behaviour Theories 2.6. for the most part. Since 1985. 1975) and the subsequent theory of planned behaviour (TPB: Ajzen. Langdridge (2004) describes the theory of reasoned action as one of the most important theories in attitude-behaviour research. It generally refers to the thoughts and feelings that impel us to behave in one way and not in another” (Parker. 40). According to the TRA. Generally. 126). largely due to the focus that has been provided by the theory of reasoned action (TRA. been regarded as potentially more productive than earlier risk-based theories. 1985. and Keskinen et al. providing an account of the way in which attitudes. and is considered to be the immediate antecedent of behaviour. p.3. 2004. 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. however. 1991). time pressure). neither of which was originally intended as a way of explaining driver behaviour. 1985. Fishbein & Ajzen. institutions or issues (Chaplin. p. Rothengatter (2002) has stressed that the perception of capability is often influenced by external factors (impairment.3. simply because it is more straightforward to establish the parameters that drivers use to assess their competence than it is to measure target or subjective risk. generally referring to a positive or negative 38 .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. Two limitations have been noted. Intention is determined by the summed effects of: (a) attitudes toward the behaviour. emotional state. 2. people’s behaviour is determined by their intention to perform the behaviour. subjective norms and behavioural intentions can be used to predict behaviour. traffic psychology has seen a resurgence of interest in the role played by attitudes.
” (Azjen. behavioural intention is the result of attitudes (“do I feel like this is a good thing to do?”). which can usually be performed (or not performed) at will. are sometimes subject to the influence of factors beyond one’s control. then. According to the TPB. Hartwick and Warshaw (1988) found that the theory had strong predictive utility. 1985.2). however (Sharma & Kanekar. and a meta-analysis carried out by Sheppard. he incorporated the concept of “perceived behavioural control” (PBC).7.2 Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) Complications hindered the application of the TRA in circumstances where behaviours were not fully under volitional control.judgement with respect to behavioural performance (“accelerating to pass through a cross-junction against an amber light is bad/good”). subjective norms (“do others feel this is a good thing for me to do?”). 2007). This extended framework was introduced as the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB.3. such that every intended behaviour is a goal whose attainment is subject to some degree of uncertainty. 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”). see Figure 2. 39 . p. and perceived control (“do I really believe that I can do this?”). “Even very mundane activities. 24). denoting the subjective degree of control which individuals perceive themselves having over the performance of a behaviour. Ajzen and Fishbein (2000) argued that intention is the best predictor of behaviour. 2. To deal with this uncertainty.
1989) Within the theory. Further. when intention is held constant. it will directly influence behaviour (Armitage & Christian. greater perceived control (i. 253). or sense of self-efficacy. Forward (2006) used semi-structured interviews to examine the degree to which beliefs differentiated between Swedish drivers who did or did not intend to speed in an urban area.. speed on a major road or overtake dangerously. including driving and “it has to be admitted that the theory of planned behaviour has stood up well.e. In one study. creating a proxy effect that increases the likelihood that behaviour will be successfully performed. Its inclusion as a predictor of behaviour is premised on the notion that. 2003). PBC is considered a determinant of both the individual’s intentions and the individual’s behaviour.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. stronger feelings that “I can do it”) will heighten an individual’s confidence level. 40 . 2002. A belief that the described violations were not all that serious (attitudes).3: Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen. 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. on the performance of a wide range of behaviours. 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. p. The TPB has spawned a huge body of research. to the extent to which PBC reflects an individual’s level of actual control.
2. Attitude toward speeding. roadway configuration and crossing design were weighted. it was not significant (Scuffham & Langley. Gross Domestic Product per capita and alcohol consumption. but after controlling for distance travelled. they found that real GDP per capita was related to the number of crashes.2). Wállen Warner and Åberg (2006) used structural equation modelling to predict drivers’ everyday speeding behaviour using the TPB as a frame of reference. there has been no shortage of empirically-based models that show statistical relationships between specific variables related to given situations.4. Scuffham (2003) used a different approach to model the changes in seasonal patterns of fatal crashes in New Zealand according to unemployment rate. based on data extracted from police record forms. This might be seen as evidence of the proxy effect earlier described by Armitage and Christian (2002). (2005) in their Malaysian study (see sect. A large number of studies have reported epidemiological characteristics of drivers. vehicles. 2. for instance. Edwards (1996) developed a spatial model.1 Descriptive Models of Driver Behaviour Statistical Models If traffic psychology lacks a general unified theory of driving behaviour.1. to predict weather-related crashes in England and Wales. 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. Austin and Carson (2002).In another study. 2002). 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. pedestrians and road environments in a range of 41 . Similar to later findings by Law et al. 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. while Rautela and Pant (2007) modelled crash risk on mountain roads in India using geographical information system (GIS) data. subjective norms and PBC were all significant determinants of self-reported speeding.4 2.
2000). the vehicle (V).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). and have proposed expanding the matrix to better provide for the analysis of inter-relationships between each of the four basic elements. 1998.4. Haddon (1970) proposed a framework in which each of these elements could be examined as part of an analytical matrix (see Figure 2. 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. Mahasakpan. R. More recently. E and especially H factors. 1999). 1997. 2. Law.g. within specific situational contexts. Nguntra. 1994). Seow & Lim. Koonchote & Tantiratna.4: The Haddon Matrix (Noy. the road (R) and the environment (E)..2. 1997) 42 . concealing the interactions that underlie the behaviour of real traffic systems (Noy. Swaddiwudhipong.4).4. Richardson & Downe.2 Process Models 2. some researchers have argued that the Haddon Matrix is limited by the way it considers each element independently. This model has been instrumental in stimulating research designs and accident interventions for the last thirty yeasrs (Williams. however.locations and settings (e.
it may happen to correlate with some other factor that influences crash risk but play no role itself. Factors within the distal context include not only road. gender. age..5). relevant factors are grouped as occurring within either the distal context or the proximal context of the accident (see Figure 2. are affected by specific or collective factors from the distal context and. when one observes a correlation between a behavioural measure and crash risk. extraversion. Therefore.g.2 A Contextual Mediated Model of Personality and Behavioural Predictors of Motor Vehicle Crashes Elander et al. as well.g. Sümer (2003) used this as a point of departure for the construction of a contextual mediated model for predicting the effects of personality and behavioural variables on roadway crashes. on one hand.4. the proximal context is made up of driver behaviours and attitudes (e. arguing that: Correlational studies suffer from the inescapable problem that causality cannot be established. 283). By contrast. on the other hand. more proximal variable. contribute directly to crash outcomes. 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.g. driving experience) and psychological characteristics (e.. substance abuse) that. vehicle and environmental conditions related to accident causation but a range of driver demographic (e. Personality factors within the 43 . reckless lane transitions or overtaking. there are four possible explanations: the behavioural measure may directly influence crash risk. aggression). (1993) discussed the problem of choosing predictor variables in studies of behavioural and personality influences on road-traffic crash risk. sensation seeking.2.. or crash risk may influence the behavioural measure (p. speeding.2. it may influence crash risk through some other. Within the generic model.
g.5: Contextual Mediated Model of Personality. sensation seeking. it would be expected that relationships between the distal and proximal contexts would be stronger than those between the proximal context and crash outcomes.g. Behavioural Predictors and Motor Vehicle Crashes (from Sümer. PROXIMAL CONTEXT Safety skills Aberrant driving behaviors Violations Errors Speeding Drinking and driving Dysfunctional drinking e. 2003) 44 . psychological symptoms. hostility and psychoticism) – both on three proximal elements – aberrant driving behaviour. aggression Attributions regarding CRASH OUTCOMES accidents Fatalism Enforcement Figure 2. As such. depression. such that direct effects of distal factors would be most likely insignificant or weak. DISTAL CONTEXT Road and vehicle condition Demographic characteristics Culture-specific factors. aggression and psychological symptoms (anxiety.distal context were assumed to be capable of creating generalized tendencies that increased risks of accidents within behavioural variables measured within the proximal context. 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. 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. e. risk taking. choice of preferred speed and dysfunctional drinking habits – and on the frequency of self-reported accidents. Sümer examined the effect of three distal elements – sensation seeking.
called the outcome. Tix and Barron.4. Mediation can be said to occur when some mechanism. In Sümer’s (2003) generic contextual mediated model. 1986). moderating or mediating effects.6(ii) illustrates the basic causal chain involved in mediation.3 Core Concepts in the Contextual Mediated Model: Moderation and Mediation Inter-variable relationships within the contextual mediated model can have direct. In Figure 2. the variable X is called the initial or predictor variable and it causes the variable Y. then it can be concluded that complete mediation occurs. M. 2003). in which there are two causal paths feeding into the outcome variable: path c′ depicts the direct effect of X on Y. Regression analyses can be used to test these causal paths to the outcome variable. process or transformation exists through which one variable influences another (Frazier. for instance. while path a represents the effect of X on some mediator variable. drivers’ safety skills were a mediator of the effects of personality or cultural background on crash frequency. 45 . which in turn exerts an effect on Y through path b (Baron & Kenny. Heppner & Mallinckrodt.2. driver impairment and so on) were hypothesised to mediate the effect of distal variables on the frequency or likelihood of crash outcomes. In the case where X no longer affects Y after M has been controlled. Figure 2. 2004). such that path c′ is zero. mediators are variables that represent constructs proposed to explain the association between two variables (Hoyle & Robinson. then the significance level of path c would be reduced to insignificance or a less significant level (path c’). Also termed intervening variables. If. 2006). proximal variables (including safety skill levels.6(i).2. Partial mediation is the case in which the path from X to Y is reduced in absolute size but is still different from zero when M has been controlled (Kenny. driver propensities to commit errors or violations. 2004) and a distinction can be drawn between partial mediation and complete mediation (Wei.
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. there are three causal paths that can effect the outcome. 46 . variable (see Figure 2. Only if the interaction (path c) is significant.6: Inter-variable Relationships in Mediation Models In contrast. the impact of a moderator (path b). can the moderator hypothesis be concluded as supported (Baron & Kenny. these are not directly relevant conceptually to testing the moderator hypothesis. Baron and Kenny have further added that although the predictor and moderator can have significant effects on the outcome variable. and the interaction or product of these two (path c). 2003).(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 2.7): the impact of a predictor. or independent variable (path a). 1986). or dependent.
7: Inter-variable Relationships in Moderation Model 2. sensationseeking and risk-taking (novelty. more relevant to the model he proposed. psychoticism). Further.4 Studies of Driving Behaviour Using the Contextual Mediated Model In his initial study. He examined their effects on three proximal variables: aberrant driving behaviour (violations. a proximal variable significantly mediated the relationship between the three distal variables and the frequency of crashes. while psychological factors did not predict speed choice. given wide 47 . His sample of 321 participants combined both professional drivers. verbal aggression. anxiety. No attempt was made to differentiate between these two groups. and non-professional students who were mostly students. anger). errors). he found that. Sümer also find that aberrant driving behaviour. hostility. dangerous drinking). intensity) and aggression (physical aggression. A number of questions may be raised about Sümer’s (2003) analysis. However. the effects of the proximal variables on the number of crashes experienced within a three-year period was examined. Using structured equation modelling.4. choice of speed and alcohol use (antisocial drinking. they did have a significant association with both dysfunctional alcohol use and aberrant driving behaviours.Predictor Variable X a Moderator Z b Y Outcome Variable c Predictor X Moderator Figure 2.2. hostility. In turn. mostly from taxi and heavy trucking. Sümer (2003) identified three classes of distal variables: psychological symptoms (depression.
Edward. 2002. al. 1993). 1990) to a similar analysis. Day. tends to fit a Poisson distribution or. lapses. applied the five factor. broad-mindedness). Arthur. Notwithstanding these methodological considerations. Watson. Sümer. Results indicated that all five of the personality factors had indirect effects on crash risk through their effects on 48 . sensation seeking patterns. responsibility.. It is questionable whether crash details can be recalled accurately for up to 36 months and requires the assumption that the psychological characteristics. 2005. Sümer’s decision to use self-report data is subject to the usual validity considerations raised by several authors (af Wahlberg. 2003. 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. Greenwood & Yule. or “Big Five”. the distal factors were: neuroticism (a tendency to experience negative affect and anxiety). in most cases. it was somewhat surprising that no attempt was made to control for differing levels of traffic exposure. for high-λ individuals. (1993) and others. Bell. Sümer’s model construction might also be questioned. McRae &Costa.variation in the number of kilometres driven annually by participants (SD = 14. Elander et. a negative-binomial distribution (Greenwood & Woods. conscientiousness (dependability. 1998). 1919. 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.739). Tubré & Tubré. trust). Lajunen and Özkan (2005). Here. 1995. self-discipline) and openness (adventurousness. agreeableness (helpfulness. Finally. in that the standard multivariate correlation methods applied as part of his LISREL analysis assumed a normal distribution of crash frequency scores. personality model (Costa & McRae. including the three-year time-frame over which drivers were asked to report crash occurrence. as recommended by Elander et al. sensation seeking). In a subsequent study. while it has been accepted since the early accident proneness studies of the IFRB that crash frequency. extraversion (interpersonal warmth. The proximal factor was again aberrant driving behaviour (errors. 1920). violations) and the outcome measure was expanded to include the self-reported number of crashes and traffic offences committed over a three-year period.
for instance used the concept to examine predictors of psychological distress following the 1999 earthquake in Turkey. reported that driver anger. optimism. phobia. sensation seeking and normlessness (all of which which might be classified as distal. air force and gendarmerie. Both studies were concluded to have demonstrated support for the use of the contextual mediated model.4. psychotic tendencies and psychosomatic complaints among a large sample of noncommissioned officers in the Turkish army. yielding support for the contextual mediated model. proximal behavioural variables mediated personality factors. using a similar research design. perceived threat and gender on distress levels were partially or fully mediated by individuals’ feelings of coping self-efficacy. material loss. They found that the effect of proximal variables. In another study. self esteem.2. have acted on those recommendations. while the risky driving variables had strong and significant effects on accident involvement. The authors recommended that “the contextual model should be refined considering other potential mediators. Berument and Gunes (2005). anxiety. moderators and bidirectional associations between personality and accident involvement to better understand the underlying mechanisms” (p. prior to the present one. In other words.5 Use of the Contextual Mediated Model in Other Research Sümer’s model has been applied outside the traffic psychology domain. hostility. Iverson and Rundmo (2002). 2. Although no other studies of driving behaviour. navy. including perceived control. Bilgic. 49 . Sümer and Erol (2005) found that a contextual mediated model was successful in showing relationships between distal and proximal predictors of depression. Sümer. but weaker significant effects on self-reported accident involvement. Sümer. Karanci. for instance. some researchers have worked with models that are conceptually consistent with the contextual mediated model.aberrant driving behaviours. within Sümer’s contextual mediated model) had direct effects on measures of more proximal risky driving tendencies. 225).
Campbell & Williams. but young drivers are more likely to sustain crash-related injuries and to die in vehicular crashes (Massie. Odero et al. Yet. Williams & Shabanova. in a study of safety training methods and personality factors in Malaysian rubber and palm oil plantations. Retting.Downe (2007).1.1 Distal Variables in the Present Study Demographic Variables 2..8). 2003. 1995). proposed the use of a contextual mediated model for further research on agricultural safety (see Figure 2..g. uncertainty avoidance) temperamental factors (e. 1997..5. 2002. 2003). Weinstein & Solomon. heterogeneity in group composition: Part of this may be due to 50 .5. they have been less well studied than other groups and the general understanding of age effects is not clear.1 Age Young drivers are significantly over-represented among those injured or killed in road traffic crashes (Ballesteros & Dischinger. 2007) 2.8: Proposed Contextual Mediated Model for Safety Research in Agriculture (from Downe.g. 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.5 2. Type A. 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.
Matthews & Moran. Several reasons have been proposed for high age-related crash risk levels. 2001. 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. drive while fatigued. p. This was consistent with many other studies in which young drivers tended to overestimate their own skills and under-estimate crash risk (Dewar.to 29-year old drivers in New Zealand and found a marked crash-risk optimism. this is a reflection of lifestyle. Harré. In fact. in many cases. not all young new drivers are alike (Dewar. Younger drivers tend to have a riskier driving style than others. The problems encountered by novice drivers are often attributed to age and inexperience together. for these difficulties. Connery & Stiller. comfort eating and time spent in non-organised activities with friends. the contrary appears to be true. Jehle.The “young” category typically ranges from 16 to 25. Vassallo et al.. 1997b. Moscati. are more likely to engage in alcohol use when driving and are less likely to use seatbelts when compared to other drivers (Lerner. Billittier. less emotionally mature. but there are a great many differences between a 17-year-old and a 23-year-old driver. irresponsibility and driving related aggression. specifically more likely to drive too fast. tobacco smoking. in which they believed that they were better drivers and luckier in avoiding crashes. 2002a. Graziano and Bonino (2006) have argued that. 2002a. Foster and O’Neill (2005) studied self-rated driving attributes of 16. 221). overtake dangerously. Jonah. However. at least in part. McDonald (1994) reported 51 . Bina. 2007). follow too closely. 1986). The factors of driving style and driving skill may account. Ulleberg (2004) found that drivers reporting higher preference for risk-taking were also characterised by low levels of altruism and anxiety. less experienced with the use of alcohol and has different social and motivational needs that may contribute to risk taking on the road. The former is less experienced at driving. and by high levels of sensation-seeking.
In the present study. risky driving and crash frequency (Lourens. Justification of age-related hypotheses. Stevenson et al.that young drivers are less skilful in vehicle control tasks than older drivers. particularly under conditions of heightened emotionality. 52 . 74 per cent had seen tem drive while very happy or excited (strong positive emotions). 2007). managing velocity and regulating acceleration. capable of distracting attention from driving and increasing crash occurrence. 1999. so they have little spare attentional capacity” (p. Similarly. and 55 per cent had seen them exhibit behaviour described as “road rage” (Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and State Farm Insurance. Young drivers may also be more prone to drive under the influence of strong emotional states. age was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. This means that “young drivers must devote a greater proportion of their attentional resources to conscious decision making and monitoring their driving. are like to perceive the driving task with overconfidence and inadequate attention to risk. and that young drivers. Ulleberg. 2002). it was hypothesised in the present study that. behaviour in traffic would become less safe and crash occurrence would be more likely.39). as age decreased. 76 per cent had seen peers drive while very upset stressed. angry or sad (strong negative emotions). particularly with respect to controlling deviations. Since many of the violations commonly committed by younger drivers – speeding. since safe driving among younger drivers has been shown to be more prone to the effects of emotional states. They have generally lower skill levels in acquiring and integrating information. and have poor information processing and attention-switching skills. indirectly. they have cognitive schemata that are inaccurate and relatively undetailed. (2001) reported that drivers’ perceptions of their confidence and adventurousness in the road environment play a part in the causal pathway leading to a motor vehicle crash. Vissers & Jessurun. Since previous research had highlighted the association between age. age was hypothesized to interact with emotional states such as hopelessness and aggression. In a nation-wide survey of American teens. on crash and injury occurrence.
. and behaviours predictive of fatalities.g. Chipman. without exception. Waller. p. Raghunathan and Little (2001) noted that. Kuhn and Layde (2001) found. darkness)” (p. as well. Dewar (2002b) stated that “some of the reasons for this are obvious – men drive greater distances. but is also evident among older drivers” (Social Issues Research Centre [SIRC]. “In all studies and analyses. 2004. in addition to having a higher number of crashes. Åkerstedt and Kecklund (2001). that males were significantly more likely to be involved in a loss-of-control accident. 2. found that men had twice as high a risk as women of being involved in a motor vehicle crash during the late night hours. Laapotti and Keskinen (1998) showed that when male drivers lost control of their motorcar. for instance. for instance. 129). as age decreased. it 53 . Smiley and Lee-Gosselin (1992). Shope. male drivers incur their first crash earlier in their driving careers and are more likely to be held to blame for the incident. Elliott.g. self-reported injury would also increase.2 Gender A large number of studies have found differences between males and females. However.1.failure to use seat-belts. There appear to be differences in the types of crashes experienced. with respect to both driving behaviour and to crash involvement. reported that crash incidence for men in the United States was nearly double that of women. it was also hypothesised that. rush hour) and in hazardous conditions (e. Hasselberg and Laflamme (2006) analysed Swedish police records and found the same ratio. MacGregor. Williams and Shabanova (2003) found that young American males were significantly more likely than young females to be responsible for crash deaths. This gender difference is most marked in the population under 25 years. Monárrez-Espino. for instance. men have been shown to have a higher rate of crashes than women. more often at hazardous times (e. and so on – were associated with greater risk of injury.4). Tavris. Marked differences also occur between the genders in terms of the number of fatalities..5. 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.
(a) the number of female drivers is increasing. Male drivers drove too fast and under the influence of alcohol more often in loss-of-control crashes. they did not differ from female drivers in reported driving 54 . 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. as marked changes in the roles of women in society have profound implications for the design of transportation systems (Waller. 2001). At the same time. Laapotti and Keskinen (2004a) indicated that. and (c) female drivers are involved in more motor vehicle crashes than ever before. worldwide. Ball. Welsh. 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. Brown. Dobson. 1997. state of Washington. Lonczak. While there is much of value in such an approach.usually led to a single-vehicle crash. which typically took place during evenings and nights. for instance. This is important. reported more traffic citations and injuries. Female drivers’ loss-of-control crashes usually took place under slippery road conditions and were more likely due to deficient vehicle handling skills. 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. in a sample taken in the U. (b) females drive increasingly more. 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. 525526).S. found that while male drivers. Flyte & Garner. Woodcock. to date. but for female drivers the loss of control usually resulted in a collision with another car. Lenard. Neighbors and Donovan (2007).
Justification of gender-related hypotheses. In the present study. alcohol consumption and for risky driving. In other research. on crash and injury occurrence. Waylen and Burke (1998) disagreed. Linderholm and Järmark (1998) reviewed studies dating from 1970 to 1984 and compared them to results obtained between 1985 and 1997. et al. it was hypothesised that males and females would differ on measures of behaviour in traffic. were less frequently involved in crash situations. as per the traditional pattern. commenting that “despite the fact that there has been a massive shift in the population of women drivers. In a study of Dutch drivers. gender was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. though. (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. control of traffic situations. Lourens et al. (1998) and Laapotti and Keskinen (2004). Since previous research had highlighted the association between males. involved in proportionally more crashes connected to speeding. Laapotti and Keskinen (2004b) provided evidence in support of this view. Laapotti. McKenna. just as they had in 1978. committed fewer traffic offences and had a more positive attitude toward traffic safety and rules than males. Turner & McClure. on the other hand. 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. Forward.anger. 2006. In a study of male and female drivers in Finland.. had proportionally more crashes connected to inadequate vehicle manoeuvring. and loss-of-control incidents. there is little evidence that the sex difference in the pattern of accident involvement is changing over the years” (p. 11). In a subsequent report. Consistent with the findings of McKenna et al. crash frequency and risky or aggressive driving behaviour (Monárrez-Espino. showing that male drivers were. 55 . Female drivers. evaluated their driving skill lower. Keskinen and Rajalin (2003) reported that Finnish females in 2001 drove less than males. 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. 2003). indirectly.
Conducting curb-side inspections of taxicabs in Kuala Lumpur. Lezotte and Lowenstein (2000) compared Hispanic and non-Hispanic white motorists in the state of Colorado. differences in fatalities persisted. Goldweig and Warren. nonCatholic countries. Being a non-wealthy Catholic country was associated with higher fatality rates than being a wealthy Catholic country.S. Hauswald (1999) studied the incidence of covert non-compliance with seat belt regulations among Malaysian taxi drivers. being a wealthy Catholic country was associated with more traffic fatalities than were wealthy. reported few differences between Australians and Finns. Levine. In one of the few studies reported. A few studies have endeavoured to compare national driving cultures in terms of crash risk. On the other hand. finding that the former group had higher fatality rates.2. more frequent histories of speeding offences and more extreme alcohol use.1. Very little cross-cultural research related to traffic safety has been carried out in Southeast Asia. Melinder concluded that the type of religion and wealth were important distal factors. Romano. Marine. 2005). Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS). Garrett. he found that 60% of drivers had positioned belts or shoulder straps in a manner that appeared to 56 . Melinder (2007) compared 15 Western European countries with regard to the relation between different sociocultural factors.5. Haliburton. Harper. traffic safety regulations and traffic fatalities. this has been the result of a change in reporting protocols within the U. Despite the fact that countries’ regulatory frameworks were becoming increasingly similar. Schlundt.3 Ethnicity A growing number of studies have examined the effect of ethnic differences on driving behaviour and crash outcomes. White and Hispanic drivers regarding red light violations. Summala and Hartley (1998). Tippetts and Voas (2005) found no differences between African-American. Lajunen. But. Corry. lower rates of safety belt use. that expanded the standards for collection of data on race and ethnicity in 1999 (Briggs. for instance. To a large degree.
3: Key Value Clusters for Each Malaysian Ethnic Group Key Value Orientations Man’s relationship with God. on crash and injury occurrence. 2000. In a study of 324 employees sampled from a cross-section of Malaysian industries. peace. there was no statistical differences between ethnic groups in the frequency of this practice. cooperation. Fontaine and Richardson (2005) found that 82% of values were shared by all three ethnic groups. respect for elders. harmony with nature. respect for elders. Chinese-Malaysian Pre-determined future. dependence on family for direction in social and career decisions.. filial piety. Indirect communication. piety. 2005). 1999). respect for knowledge. Fatalistic. Education. Table 2. Justification of ethnic difference hypotheses. respect for elders. In the present study. Roman et al. Strong relationship orientation. polite behaviour. gender was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. Indian-Malaysian Pre-determination.have them restrained but had not fastened the latch. family honour. Spirituality. While religious affiliation. They concluded that there were. shame-driven. in fact. Malay Differences have not always been consistent. family ties. Strong relationship orientation. Abdullah and Peterson (2003) have outlined value orientations for each ethnic group (see Table 2. indirectly. regional distribution and socioeconomic status differs considerably between the three groups (Gomez. Based on studies that have demonstrated ethnic differences in driving behaviour (Harper et al. it was hypothesised that ethnicity would have a significant effect on 57 . 1999).2). prosperity. humility. Karma. Family centeredness. Conscious of what other people say about us.. religion. prosperity and integrity. The Malaysian population is comprised of three distinct ethnic groups: Malay. courtesy. face saving. However. ethnic-Chinese and ethnic-Indian (Williamson. hard work. cultural differences can be more subtle. hierarchical. brotherhood/sisterhood. few significant value differences between ethnic groups.
increased experience usually. inexperienced drivers may (a) not know the correct manoeuvre so they try a different manoeuvre which turns out to be unsafe. Groeger (2000) reviewed the reasons for this: … the weight of practice more experienced drivers have makes much of what they do routine. 1995. 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 . (c) not have had enough practice in carrying out the manoeuvre correctly. in a given road and traffic scenario. as drivers become more experienced. 2001). the motorist is less likely to encounter situations very different from those they have encountered before (p. allows many otherwise incompatible tasks to be performed together. As experience grows. Allied to this. Given the absence of relevant prior research on Malaysian cultural groups. journey lengths. such as driving at different times of the day or days of the week.g. implies the driver has had a broader variety of driving experiences.. or (d) not have had enough experience of dealing safety with the effects of human factors on their performance (Fuller. and as such.5. although not always. with different weather conditions. A large number of studies have shown that. etc. Lajunen & Summala. On the other hand. directionality of the effect was not predicted.2 Driver Characteristics 2. 2. Keskinen. passenger distractions different vehicles. (b) not know how to carry out a particular manoeuvre correctly.1 Experience Driver experience makes a difference in crash risk.2.behaviour in traffic. Laapotti. Hatakka and Katila. 1971). 2002).5. and indicating that those recording higher mileage per year have fewer accidents per mile (Pelz & Schuman. they are less likely to make errors and commit violations that result in crashes (e. 166).
59 . 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 young drivers generally have less experience than their older counterparts. 1996. experience effects have not been controlled (Rothengatter.9). Hataaka and Katila (1992). 2000) The effects of driving experience and age are closely linked.by Keskinen. environment. or most important facets of driving at different levels (see Figure 2. Internal models have connections to motivational and emotional systems of the driver. as well as knowledge of risk elements and a cognitive map of control equipment in the vehicle and how it behaves.9: Hierarchical Levels of Driving Behaviour (after Keskinen. 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. as individuals acquire experience. including start and destination point and corresponding visual scenes. Hatakka. but also through verbal and pictorial description or by imagining the course of traffic events (Keskinen et al. and sometimes confounded by gender differences. Experience can be gained through personal participation in traffic as a driver and through observing the behaviour of others. When using those at the top of the hierarchy. social context company MASTERING TRAFFIC SITUATIONS Adapting to the demands of the present situation VEHICLE MANOEUVRING Controlling speed. 2001). It assumes that. Yet. 2004). Internal models contain knowledge of route. direction and position Figure 2. in many studies of age and gender differences. they take actions based on whether they are perceived to reflect lifestyle priorities and values. and can be organised in a hierarchy that reflects the key purposes. When drivers tap into models at the base of cognitive hierarchy. they tend to priortise conscious control of the vehicle over other elements of the driving experience.
Ghiselli & Brown. Peltzer and Renner (2003).g. Burns and Wilde (1995) found no relationship between collision history and personality when they studied sampled male taxi drivers in a small Canadian city.Laapotti et al. many studies have focused on the effects of experience. was inversely correlated with driving experience and numbers of accidents witnessed. 2004). 1954). found that risk taking within a sample of 130 drivers of minibus taxis in the Pietersburg area of the Republic of South Africa. 2007). on the other hand. showed more problems than males connected to the lower cognitive levels of the driving hierarchy. was used in this study. explained because adult identity is still under construction so life goals and living skills are still under development. Brown & Ghiselli. Driving experience was considered a distal variable that would have an 60 . Justification of driver experience hypotheses. such as problems in vehicle handling skills. frequently showing that they are lest frequently involved in motor vehicle crashes than other classes of drivers. Female novice drivers. 1949. for instance. age and gender on motor vehicle crash risk. Mintz. A simple measure of driving experience. and that taxicab drivers are more likely to regard low. While motivational and differing skill levels are also important predictors of professional drivers’ crash risk. the number of years since a driving licence was first obtained. 1948. and especially young male drivers.and medium-severity traffic violation penalties as unjust than are non-professional drivers (Rosenbloom & Shahar. (2001) used the cognitive framework to explain the differing effects of experience. Young novice drivers.. One way to understand experience effects is to study occupations for which driving is an important work component. Studies of crash predictors among professional drivers have been undertaken for over fifty years (e. 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. all of which were seen to reflect deficient self-control and lifestyle management abilities. 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. showed more problems connected to showing off driving skills to peers.
technical or legal changes relating to road safety.2. 1984. on crash and injury occurrence. it was hypothesised that driving experience would have a significant effect on behaviour in traffic scores. crash risk is affected greatly by the time of day when. Åkerstedt and Kecklund (2001). Pelz & Schuman.effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. Based on research indicating that more experienced drivers tend to have fewer crashes (Lajunen & Summala.. All of these will affect the likelihood of crash involvement. (1993) noted that: People vary in the time they spend on the road. the concept is much less well developed. and the traffic conditions to which they are exposed. 282). Second. for instance. with greater experience associated with safer self-reported behaviour. the miles they drive. 2001. there may be considerable random or systematic error in subjective reports about distance travelled (Elander et al. First. indirectly. McKenna. but measuring exposure is not always as simple a matter as computing asking for an estimate of distance travelled per unit time (Evans.5. 2002a). 1995. it is accepted that the more one travels. Duncan & Brown. and the problem of taking adequate account of individuals’ exposure to risk is only beginning to be properly addressed (p. and type of route where. Rothengatter. 1993). 1991). the more one is going to be exposed to traffic situations in which a crash could occur. 1986. The concept of risk exposure has been examined in some detail from the point of view of comparing regional crash rates over different periods to assess the effects of demographic. In individual differences research. 2.2 Driving Frequency and Traffic Exposure Many authors have discussed the effect of traffic exposure on crash risk and outcomes (Evans. 1971). showed that the risk of crash involvement is five to ten times higher during late night 61 . Elander et al. Wilde. Generally. 1984). driving occurs (Dewar.
This was taken to be representative of traffic exposure. 62 . Because of earlier trends reported by Evans (1984) and McKenna et al. although much research does not (e. 2007. 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. Mercer (1989) showed that. and found that approximately one-third of all traffic injuries occurred during the night. Justification of exposure hypotheses. young male drivers were strongly over-presented in terms of both crash frequency and traffic-related fines. Yet. (1997) reviewed published and unpublished reports on roadway crashes in developing countries from 1966 to 1994. nor are there valid category weightings that would allow the prediction of risk. In the present study. Canada and Germany where a legal penalty point system is in place to track drivers’ violations and involvement in road crashes. 2006. indirectly. Williams & Shabanova.. 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. as defined 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. however. 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. without correcting for annual mileage.hours than during the forenoon. Bina et al. 2007). (1999) have argued that. Cairns. with the highest incidence being between 6:00 pm and midnight. Ferguson.. Lourens et al. 2003).. After correcting for the number of kilometres driven. Christie. Evans (1991) and others. 2007. (1993).g. Teoh & MCartt. in countries like the USA. Towner and Ward. (1986). In keeping with recommendations made by Elander et al. female drivers came out higher in number of crashes and in some types of traffic violations. the resulting ‘driver records’ in combination with exposure data turn out to be the best predictors of future crashes. on crash and injury occurrence. Odero et al.
Hyman.1 Locus of Control 2. people who attribute behaviour to an internal locus of control.1. 1975. In contrast. 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. Holder & Levi. Levenson (1975.g.2. she separated the externality dimension into two. 63 . bipolar continuum along which individuals could be placed. or internals.5.3.. 15). people are thought to vary on a continuum between the two extremes of external and internal locus of control.5. one to reflect the influence of fate or chance (C) and the second to reflect the influence of powerful others (P). Lefcourt defined internal control (I) as the perception that positive or negative events are a consequence of personal actions and thus may potentially be subject to personal control. 1990). 2006. according to the strength of their tendencies toward making attributions of internal or external 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. 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.3 Psychological Variables 2. 1999). 1981) extended this concept in two ways: first.3. such that it could be possible for an individual to score high on all three (see Figure 2. 1991. Based on this multidimensional conceptualisation. believe that very few events are outside the realm of human influence and that even cataclysmic situations may be altered through human action. Levenson constructed a scale has been used widely in studies of locus of control (e. Originally conceptualised by Rotter (1966.5. and second. view most events as dependent on chance or controlled by powers beyond human reach.10). Stanley & Burrows. Rotter’s (1966) original I-E conceptualisation of the locus of control construct viewed it as a unidimensional. or externals . she assumed that the three resulting dimensions were conceptually independent.
Liverant and Scodel (1960) studied betting preferences using a simple dice-throwing task.3. Multidimensional Model Low Internality High Low Externality .1.Luckner. They also tended to bet more on safe outcomes than did the more externally oriented subjects. 64 .2 Locus of Control and Driving Behaviour Very early studies examined a link between locus of control and risk taking. 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. E Unidimensional Model I Externalizers Individuals believe that what happens is determined by fate.Chance High Low Externality – Powerful Others High Figure 2. Sinha & Watson. They found that subjects with high internal control seemed to prefer intermediate probability bets or extremely safe bets over so-called long shots.5. According to Phares (1976). 1989. 2007) and has given rise to a number of other instruments measuring multi-dimensional locus of control. luck.10: Contrast between Rotter’s Unidimensional and Levenson’s Multidimensional Conceptualisations of Locus of Control 2.
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. 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. believing that fate will achieve its goals no matter what the individual does (p. Serious methodological problems may have plagued this study. If an individual views herself or himself as being responsible for both positive and negative outcomes. only partially represented the original locus of control concept. A great many studies have investigated the effects of locus of control on driving behaviour. however. On the other hand. 1987). which focused heavily on situational scenarios. 1999). however. those who see themselves as playing little or no part in the unfolding of evens will act in a less cautious manner. Attitudes toward fate have been shown to be instrumental in determining the level of risk that persons will take with regard to delaying treatment for illness (Chung. According to Brown and Noy (2004). but results have been inconsistent.More recent studies have examined the relationship between an external locus of control and risky behaviour within driving or workplace behaviour. Iversen and Rundmo (2002) also failed to find an association with risky driving or crash involvement. French & Chan. Dixey (1999) found relationships between road crashes and fatalist attitudes in Nigeria. as Cronbach’s alpha values for the scales of their transitional instrument were below accepted criteria and scale content. Other authors explained an apparent link between external locus of control and crash risk on a motivational basis (Montag & Comrey. 65 . s/he will be more likely to take precautionary measures such as wearing a seat belt and being vigilant to roadway cues. Harrell (1995) sampled Canadian wheat farmers to show that those incurring injuries in the field were more likely to score high on a measure of risk taking and to believe that their accidents had been caused by fate. 39).
In an important study. 1260). This study provided support for the view that the effects of personality traits on driving 66 . Gidron. rather than examining its interaction with other predictors. offences. (p. although scores on externality dimensions did not relate significantly to any of those dependent variables. (1991) argued that these equivocal results were due to overly simple research designs which tended to investigate direct effects of locus of control. They found that. In a much earlier study. Gal and Desevilya (2003) investigated the interaction between road-hostility and internal locus of control in predicting the occurrence of self-reported dangerous driving behaviour (DDB). personality and demographic/biographical predictors of vehicular involvement. Hoyt (1973) reported that internals reported wearing seat belts more often and experienced highway travel as more interesting and involving. hostility was associated with worse DDB to a greater extent among drivers scoring low on internality than among drivers scoring high on internality. driving skills were negatively correlated with externality scores. That is. it may not be of sufficient magnitude to be of value. aggressive and ordinary traffic violations and driving errors. In a similar study investigating personality attributes and driving behaviour. an internal locus of control was found to be associated with lower levels of crash involvement and with higher levels of cognitive ability. In a meta-analysis of information-processing. 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. leading the authors to conclude that “if a relationship exists. when Lajunen and Summala (1995) gave Finnish university students a series of questionnaires that assessed driving abilities and personality. although internality was unrelated to DDB.Although externals reported more risk taking this trend was not significant. Özkan and Lajunen (2005) found that internals reported a higher number of total crashes. The same driving skill scores were positively correlated with an internal locus of control. cognitive. it strongly moderated the relationship between hostility and DDB. On the other hand. Arthur et al.
Israel. reinforcement and sociocultural processes created fertile ground for cross-cultural studies using the locus of control construct. (1991). whereas Americans scored high on internal control and Chinese-Americans were somewhere in-between. Parsons and Schneider (1974) administered Rotter’s (1969) I-E scale to 120 male and female students in Canada.3. Noting that Chinese culture. 2. More recent research has continued to find differences in locus of control between cultures and between sub-groups within cultures. is based on the notion that … luck. which is considered to be full of ambiguity. Crittendon (1991) found that female university students in Taiwan were more 67 . This point had also been argued earlier by Arthur et al.3 Locus of Control and Ethnicity Dyal (1984) argued that post-War geopolitical expansion and a growing interest in the role of attributions. Hsieh. Life situations may be viewed as being largely determined by circumstances outside personal control (p. Shybut and Lotsof (1969) sampled three groups of high school students (Hong Kong Chinese. and the USA. Canada and Japan. France. Japan. Their results. with situation-centred Confucian foundations. US-born Chinese and Caucasian Americans). Germany. moderating and mediating relationships are investigated. complexity and unpredictability.5. while externality scores for Indian students were significantly lower than those in France. India. Richardson and Downe (2000) and others.1. as hypothesised. Noy (1997). chance and fate are taken for granted in life. indicated that. Hong Kong Chinese students were more externally controlled on Rotter’s (1969) I-E scale. In very early research. after correction for differences in socioeconomic status. Italy.behaviour can be better understood by adopting a more holistic approach in which interactions. 122). Japanese students had significantly higher external scores than in all other countries.
In very early research. although there were no differences in internality nor externality involving powerful others. Using an English version of the Cross-Cultural Chinese Personality Assessment Inventory (CPAI-2). Chinese of Malay extraction. skill and ability. To the author’s knowledge. where no significant differences were found between those of Indian. all internal characteristics. 68 . Chinese and Indian ethnic groups were found. He attributed this to the belief that dealing with widespread nepotism. but all three groups differed from the sample drawn in China. This was very true for the locus of control variable. 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. due largely to high scores on items measuring political ideology and social system control. a finding Carment interpreted as reflecting greater dependency on and conformity within the somewhat indulgent and closely-connected Indian family structure. ingratiation and bribery found in India requires effort. Chinese and Indian populations. 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. Indian students were more external than Canadians on personal control factors. Cheung. No published accounts of research conducted in Malaysia with regard to locus of control differences among members of Malay. 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. only Cheung. Much more recent research by Sinha and Watson (2007) used Levenson’s (1984) multidimensional model to show that Indian university students are significantly more externally controlled by fate and chance than Canadian university students.externally-controlled and more self-effacing than either American females or Taiwanese males. Howard and Lim (2006) have offered research evidence related to cross-cultural differences in locus of control within Malay. At the same time.
Based on the findings reported by Gidron et al. 1991. Montag & Comrey. hopelessness has been consistently shown to be a predictor of suicidal intent (Beck. without objective basis. Gilbody. Özkan & Lajunen.Justification of hypotheses about locus of control. Beresford & Neilly. it was hypothesised that internality would have a negative association with unsafe behaviour in traffic. Given the strong research evidence suggesting an association between internal locus of control and less risky driving behaviour (Lajunen & Summala. Finally. 1975). but there are two conceptual arguments for doing so. 1973). indirectly. et al. Cases usually 69 . anticipate a negative outcome to any attempts that may be made to attain the individual’s major objectives or goals (Beck. 2005). 2007). Kovacs and Weissman.2 Hopelessness Rothengatter (2002) and Groeger (1997) have both noted the paucity of research on affect and driver behaviour. Weissman. Fox & Klerman. McMillan. Ohberg. while the two dimensions of externality would have positive associations. Niméus. First. Personality traits closely aligned with given mood states might well be expected to have an impact on the performance on driving tasks. on crash and injury occurrence. 1975. In the present study.9% could be classified as having an intentional suicidal component. Sinha & Watson. it was hypothesised that Chinese participants would tend toward higher externality scores while Indian participants would tend toward higher internality. 2007. 2. Pentilla and Lonnqvist (1997) studied all fatal car crashes in Finland from 1987 to 1991 and found that 5.5. 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. Hopelessness has not been previously studied as a predictor either of driving behaviour or of crash risk. 1995. (2003). 1997. Träskman-Bendz & Alsén. locus of control was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. given the large number of studies indicating ethnic differences in locus of control (Crittendon. 1987. it was hypothesised that locus of control would moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic.3.
Prociuk. Selzer & Payne. 1997. and negatively predicted by extraversion. and crash risk (Ohberg et al. Firestone & Seiden. 1998. chance or fate not only expressed greater pessimism about the future but were more likely to report depressive states. 1962). In the present study. finding that persons who perceived reinforcements to be a function of powerful others. usually when impaired by alcohol or drug use. including risky driving. 1976. mental disorders and alcohol misuse. Second. on crash and injury occurrence.. Very early on. 1990. in which hopelessness plays a significant part. assertiveness and positive emotion. luck. Based on earlier findings about the relationship between depressive-suicidal states. Mendel. indirectly. Justification of hopelessness hypotheses. in a more detailed study. 1962). hopelessness was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. it was 70 . They also classified a group of drivers whose highly negligent actions. found that the most commonly reported mental state among Finnish drivers dying in crashes classified as suicidal had been “depression” and “hopeless”. hopelessness has been associated with personality and behavioural factors that have been shown to be good predictors of driver behaviour and crash risk. Chioqueta and Stiles (2005) showed that hopelessness in Norwegian university students was positively predicted by high scores in neuroticism and depression. in fact. Hernetkoski and Keskinen (1998). 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. Several authors. locus of control and depression with university students in western Canada. investigated the relationship between hopelessness. Breen and Lussier (1976). Henderson. 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. 1974). whose crashes had resulted from extreme risks.involved head-on collisions between two vehicles with a large weight disparity and victims had often suffered from life-event stress. have proposed that potentially self-destructive behaviours. for instance.
Wright & Crundall. learned cognitive scripts. it is difficult to accurately assess whether the problem is becoming more common or whether greater visibility has been due to a growth in awareness and reporting (Galovski. which acts to counter the influence of normative moral codes and to increase people’s impulsive responses to stimuli as one such disinhibitory cue. Wells-Parker et al. Novaco (1991) proposed that driver aggression is produced when environmental triggers interact with a variety of predisposing factors. O’Connell (2002) has described the use of alcohol. 1999. 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.5. there is no shortage of evidence to suggest a consistent and reliable association between aggressive driving and motor vehicle crashes (Blanchard. Although uncertainty persists as to whether road aggression is actually increasing. 2002). and deindividuation. 1999) have argued that there has been a marked increase in the frequency of aggressive incidents and anger-related crashes. It was hypothesised here that hopelessness would moderate the manner in which locus of control affected behaviour in traffic. learned disinhibitory cues. Lynch & Oetting.3 Aggression Since the 1980s. Underwood. Demakakos. Filetti. Richards. Tzamalouka. sparked by a number of highly publicised accounts of road rage and improved techniques for measuring anger and aggression in drivers. 2000.3. attention to the issue of aggressive driving has grown exponentially. this concept became the basis for what is now known as the frustration-aggression hypothesis of aggressive driving. physiological arousal. including subjective feelings of stress. 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. Barton and Malta. 2. 2002. Koumaki. 2003. & Darviri. Chliaoutaks. Mizell. 71 . Deffenbacher.. 2000. In a largely unrelated study. Chapman. Bakou. 2006). Malta & Blanchard.hypothesised that participants scoring high on a measure of hopelessness would be likely to engage in behaviour in traffic that was less cautious. While media reports and some authors (James & Nahl.
it may equally be that the people involved would be aggressive in situations beyond driving – with driving being an opportunity for. More recently. Crowson. cultural driving norms and situational conditions. Schwebel et al. Groeger (2000). and frustration of goals that comprises the driving task in the modern world. Bettencourt. to better cope with stress and achieve behavioural change. does indeed have all the ingredients that might give rise to increased levels of anger and hostility. Meichenbaum (1977) pioneered the use of cognitive restructuring. threat to own safety and self-eesteem. such as TAPB. but needed to be expanded to account for the influence of personality factors such as Type A personality behaviour (TAPB). angry thinking and trait anger influenced aggressive behaviour only under conditions in which the individual was provoked. stress induced by time pressure. rather than a cause of. (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. as another. Benjamin and Valentine (2006) conducted a meta-analysis of studies assessing personality variables and aggressive behaviour. the display of aggression (p. However. 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.which creates a sense of anonymity and diminished personal responsibility. 1962). Houston. Snyder. Talley. They reported that trait aggressiveness and trait irritability influenced aggressive behaviour under both provoking and neutral conditions but that other personality variables. lack of control over events. Ellis. though. Shinar (1998) argued that the frustration-aggression hypothesis provided an appropriate model for aggressive driving. raised the point that: It seems to me possible that the peculiar cocktail of personal challenge. 1976. Kurylo and Poirier (1997) created the Hostile Automatic Thoughts Scale to reflect the frequency 72 . through the use of self-statements. 163).
Oetting and Swaim (2003) used the same approach to examine angry cognitions made by drivers under varying conditions of provocation. Later still. on crash and injury occurrence. Rice. impatience.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. consistent with earlier research by Deffenbacher et al. 2006). indirectly. 73 . Carbone. hostility and difficulty achieving states of relaxation (Ben-Zur. Blumenthal. 2002. 2006. Thurman. 1999). 1998. 1981. Frueh & Snyder. 2. Based on the extensive research on the association between aggression and unsafe driving behaviour (Galovski et. Lynch. (2003). 2001). They found that perjorative labelling and vengeful or retaliatory thoughts correlated highly with self-reported aggressive driving. McKee. Undén. Bettencourt et al.with which individuals make cognitive statements reflecting aggressive sentiments. It was also hypothesised. Justification of aggression-related hypotheses. Sani. aggression. Karlberg. Elofsson & Krakau. Petrilli. of hostile automatic thought would moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic.6 2. Dewar (2002b) noted that TAPB has been one of the variables most consistently linked to driving performance. Williams & Haney. TAPB is characterised by a sense of time urgency. Kumashiro & Kume. and specific content. 1985). that the total amount. insecurity about status. 1999. Those authors used the instrument to assess hostility and negative affect within a population of veterans diagnosed with combat-related posttraumatic stress disorder (Crowson. Deffenbacher. competitiveness. James & Nahl.6. it was hypothesised that aggression would have a negative effect on behaviour in traffic. In the present study. 1999. Narda. al. Originally identified by Friedman and Rosenman (1974). Magnavita. Sato.. aggression was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. 2000. Kamada. Miyake.
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. Raikkonen. tested drivers on a TABP questionnaire in 1993 and then tracked their driving behaviour to record crash history from 1994 to 2001. however. violations and self-reported driving impatience in a sample of 54 American students. where Type A drivers were 4. Perry (1986) fond significant simple correations between scores on a commonly used measure of TAPB. Elander and French (1993) found that TAPB had a strong association with excessive driving speed. Chiron. Zzanski & Rosenman. West. the Jenkins Activity Survey (Jenkins. 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. In a correlational study of British drivers. Lafont and Lagarde (2005). focused on the time urgency component 74 .DeLorenzo and Sacco (1997).2 times more likely to have an accident than others. Consoli. 1989. and drivers’ attitudes toward traffic regulations – when examining the association between motor vehicle crashes and Type A scores in a prospective study of 20. Chastang. Other authors have examined which of the behavioural dimensions of TAPB has the strongest impact on driving outcomes. similarly. did control for the effects of a range of potential confounding variables – annual mileage. Karlberg et al. alcohol consumption. Nabi et al. 1990). Nabi. however.000 employees of a French oil and gas company. They found a robust association between scores on a measure of TAPB and later serious crashes. gender. 1979) and number of accidents. category of vehicle. Although there is some evidence as to the long-term stability of TAPB (Keltikangas-Jarninen. was driving frequency. (1998). it may have been flawed by methodological deficiencies discussed by af Wählberg (2003) and by Elander et al. studied police officers in Italy. but not with accident risk. driving style. socio-professional category. Although their research design accounted for the influence of potential confounds. age. particularly in driving situations that require prudence. In none of these studies. traffic exposure or driver gender controlled as variables. (2003) with respect to data collection time periods. for instance.
with higher BIT scores reflecting a stronger Type A orientation. Papacostas and Synodinos (1988) reported several further analyses of their original data. driving exposure and the place where they had learned to drive all had direct effects on Type A results. ethnicity. 1977). only externally-focused frustration was consistently correlated with Type A behaviour. Of the four BIT factors. freeway urgency (excessive speed choice). The BIT scale was positively correlated with the student version of the Jenkins Activity Survey (SJAS. all four BIT factors significantly predicted participants’ self-reported driving characteristics. Papacostas and Synodinos concluded that: Type A/B behaviour is consistently related to only one of the four driving factors obtained by the BIT.6.2 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. Using an instrument with items at extreme ends of the Type A/B continuum. Gender. as measured by the student version of the SJAS.of TAPB that had the most significant influence on driving risks. they examined the influence of TAPB on a number of driving outcomes. 2. If all four BIT factors contribute to accident proneness. on the other hand. At the same time. emphasising the four individual dimensions of behaviour in traffic rather than the composite BIT total score. then use of the Type A/B 75 . In a subsequent study. namely “externally-focused frustration”. externally-focused frustration (congestion irritation and hostility toward other drivers) and destination-activity orientation (inattention to the driving task related to journey motives or outcomes). specifically measuring the effects of drivers’ usurpation of right-of-way (lane violations and reluctance to yield). 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. Miles and Johnson (2003). Glass.
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. participants’ behaviour in traffic was considered a proximal variable that. did Papacostas and Synodinos (1985. would be influenced by drivers’ psycho-social characteristics. though. it will not be sensitive to “usurpation of right-of-way” which is related to aggressive driving. ethnicity. In the present study. including gender. At the present time. 1988) attempt to relate scores on their BIT scale to crash frequency or injury. gender and other demographic factors were shown to affect BIT subscales. no further use of BIT scale has been reported in studies of driving safety. 13). They argued that it would be preferable. locus of control.construct as the basis of further investigation into the question of highway safety will provide only an incomplete picture. In neither of their studies. thought to be critical in the relationship between TAPB and motor vehicle crashes. and “destination-activity orientation” which is possibly a cause of inattentive driving (p. aggression and the amount and content of 76 . the extent to which other personality factors influence the four components comprising behaviour in traffic was not investigated. Similarly. driving experience. on the other hand. hopelessness. Justification of BIT-related hypotheses. all that can be concluded about the BIT concept is that composite scores have been indicative of high Type A scores on the student version of the SJAS and that the SJAS was unable to predict three of the four component scores. To the author’s knowledge. although ethnicity. on one hand would have an effect on crash and injury occurrence and. that are measured by the BIT scale. Specifically. “freeway urgency’’ which manifests itself in speeding and frequent lane changing.
Further.. West et al.hostile automatic thought. Nabi et al. 77 . since Papacostas and Synodinos (1988) found that all four component factors of BIT were related to driving characteristics. it was hypothesised here that BIT total scores would have a positive effect on both crash and injury occurrence. 1986. 2005. it was hypothesised that drivers’ scores on measures of usurpation of right-of-way. Many studies have suggested that drivers’ TABP is a factor in motor vehicle crashes (Perry. since the composite BIT score has been shown to be an accurate reflection of over-all Type A behaviour (Synodinos & Papacostas.. 1993) and. Miles & Johnson. 2003. externally-focused frustration. freeway urgency and destination-activity orientation would each have positive effects on both crash and injury occurrence. 1985).
using automobile drivers as the units of analysis. hostile automatic thoughts (see Figure 3. Study 1A investigated the effects of demographic (driver age. In Study 1C. each study explored the extent to which demographic.CHAPTER 3 METHOD OF INVESTIGATION 3. the present research attempted to support the notion that variables in the distal context (psychological factors) contributed to crashes and injuries. with the addition of a third psychological variable.1). each of which sought to replicate and expand the previous one. 78 . the effects of the same demographic and psychological variables as used in Study 1B were evaluated as predictors of self-reported BIT and then of self-reported crash and injury occurrence. the research model was developed and tested in studies 1A. 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. through their action on proximal variables (behaviour in traffic). 1B and 1C.3). driving and psychological variables were linked to each other and to self-reported driving behaviour. gender and ethnicity) and psychological (locus of control and hopelessness) variables in predicting self-reported BIT and then on self-reported crash and injury occurrence (see Figure 3. The extent to which drivers’ self-reported behaviour in traffic (BIT) predicted motor vehicle crash occurrence and injury occurrence was assessed first by examining each of five successive samples of drivers. the effects of the same demographic and psychological variables in predicting self-reported BIT and then in predicting self-reported crash and injury occurrence were evaluated. Then. with the addition of a fourth psychological variable. aggression (see Figure 3.1 Conceptualisation and the Research Framework Based on the discussion in the previous chapter. In Study 1B.2).
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
motoric and verbal components (Sharkin. Lester and Trexler (1974). aggression is regarded here as referring to the hostile behaviour that occurs as a result of it. and a behavioural process in which the person attempts little or takes inappropriate action (p.2. 1988) and tends to manifest itself under antagonistic conditions (Novaco. 25). a separate score for internality (I). cognitive. For the purposes of the present research. Weissman. hopelessness was measured as a unidimensional construct. For each of the five studies undertaken. but not chance.each of these dimensions independently and at the same time. 3. anger was defined as a negative internal state of physiological arousal and cognition that involves interactions between physiological. overlapping and ambiguous. 1999). such that an individual might simultaneously believe that oneself and powerful others control an outcome. According to Farran et al (1995): Hopelessness constitutes an essential experience of the human condition.2. externality related to chance (C) and externality related to the influence of powerful others (P) was obtained. It functions as a feeling of despair and discouragement. consistent with the way the variable has been described by Beck (1987a) and Beck. 1994).5 Aggression Spielberger et al (1995). While Beck (1999) and others have reserved the term anger for the feeling that accompanies such an internal state. a thought process that expects nothing. a future directed information-processing bias or schema which functions to distort individuals’ subjective experience of external reality (Velting. In the present research. Galovski et al (2006) and others have noted that the definitions of anger.4 Hopelessness Hopelessness has been defined as a cognitive or motivational state characterised by negative expectancies. affective. hostility and aggression are often inconsistent. 3. It has been accepted for a long time that aggression finds its 85 .
frustration. The present research examined the effects of a set of cognitive statements – described as hostile automatic thoughts (Snyder et al. In the present research. but it has only relatively recently been considered in light of driving aggression (Deffenbacher et al.2. the three forms of hostile automatic thoughts were defined as: 86 . expressed through the presence of irritability. taken as a sum of measures of each of the foregoing. The effects of participants’ total aggression. (b) verbal aggression – the tendency to be unduly argumentative and to use quarrelsome and hostile speech in dealing with others in antagonistic situations. Lynch & Morris. Vallières. (d) hostility – including attitudes of bitterness. 1957. social alienation and paranoia. 1996). (c) overt anger – the tendency to experience high levels of emotional arousal and a perceived loss of control. were also investigated. the following variables were examined: (a) physical aggression – the tendency to use physical force when expressing anger or aggression. 3. Ellis (1962) and Meichenbaum (1977). 1997) – on the behaviour in traffic of drivers in Study 1C. and. Bergeron & Vallerand. Specifically.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). 2003. emotional lability and temperamental gesturing. through fighting. (e) indirect aggression – the tendency to express aggressive impulses in actions that avoid direct confrontation. generally to the point where the needs or feelings of others cannot be taken into consideration. Deffenbacher.expression in a range of behavioural manifestations (Buss & Durkee. Oetting. 2005). hitting or interpersonal violence.
g. hostility and time pressure (Karlberg et al. (c) externally-focused frustration – consisting of emotional reactions to the actions of other drivers on the road (e. (b) derogation of others – cognitive self-talk that contained content which belittled. A global measure of selfreported driving tendencies. (b) freeway urgency – including an expressed preference for freeway driving.(a) physical aggression – cognitive self-talk that contained content indicating an intent or desire to violently attack. the BIT score.2. not allowing others to merge or overtake. and. being irritated by slow drivers) and of directive behaviours toward 87 .7 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) The present research attempted to determine the effects of variables related to the self-reported patterns of driving behaviour among car drivers. competitiveness. hit or kill another individual. characterised by excessive impatience. degraded or wished to be rid of another individual.. 3. driving consistently in the fast lane and travelling above the speed limit. and an expressed preference for operating powerful vehicles.. 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. frequent lane changing. was defined as indicative of Type A Behaviour Pattern (TABP). motorcyclists and taxicab drivers sampled in the five successive studies undertaken. 1998). (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.
travel frequency. 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.2.g.2. Then. (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.8 Crash Occurrence Participants reported whether or not they had experienced a motor vehicle crash.3. In the resulting measure of this variable.1 Research Design of the Study Study 1A Specifically. urging others to move faster or out of the way by sounding the horn). the influence of driving experience.9 Injury Occurrence Participants also indicated whether they had been forced to seek medical treatment for an injury incurred during the reported crash. 3. three demographic variables (driver age. a “1” was scored if the participant reported a crash and a “0” was scored if the participant did not report a crash. In the resulting measure of this variable.3 3.them (e. and. 88 . 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. to contemporaneous roadway and traffic 3. to the extent of inattention conditions. while driving. within the preceding twelve months and provided details about the nature of the crash. in Study 1A. the interrelationships between the demographic variables. Then.
the psychological variables and BIT were examined. the psychological variables and BIT were examined. the mediating effect of the BIT on the relations between psychological variables and crash occurrence and injury occurrence was tested. gender and ethnicity) and three psychological variables (locus of control. Finally. Then. three demographic variables (driver age. three moderating effects were measured: (a) the moderating effect of hopelessness on the relationship between locus of control and BIT. and (b) the moderating effect of locus of control on the relation between aggression and BIT. Figure 3.3. the effects of driving experience and drivers’ self-reported travel frequency were controlled and the extent to which self-reported BIT predicted crash and injury occurrence in automobile drivers was assessed.3. Then. the interrelationships between the demographic variables. hopelessness and aggression) on BIT was tested.2 illustrates the research design for Study 1B. the interrelationships between the demographic variables. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) on BIT was tested. 3. hopelessness.2 Study 1B While again controlling the effects of driving experience and drivers’ self- reported travel frequency. gender and ethnicity) and four psychological variables (locus of control. the influence of driving characteristics. Then. three demographic variables (driver age. Finally. the moderating effect of hopelessness on the relationship between locus of control and BIT was tested. the mediating effect of BIT on the relationship between psychological factors and crash occurrence and injury occurrence was tested. Figure 3. In this study.3 Study 1C In Study 1C. travel frequency. the influence of driving characteristics. 3. (b) the moderating effect of locus 89 . In this study. the extent to which self-reported BIT predicted crash and injury occurrence in automobile drivers was assessed. travel frequency.psychological variables (locus of control and hopelessness) and BIT were examined.1 illustrates the research design for Study 1A. Then. In Study 1B. two moderating effects were tested: (a) the moderating effects of hopelessness on the relationship between locus of control and BIT.
using a sample that indicated motorcycles as their primary mode of transportation. 3. Finally. It should be noted that certain of the variables examined with the automobile drivers in Study 1 and with the motorcycle drivers in Study 2 were not included when taxicab drivers were sampled in Study 3.3. In Study 3. Finally. the psychological variables and BIT were examined. and (b) taxi experience.3 illustrates the research design for Study 1C. or the length of time they had held a valid automobile operator’s licence. 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. 90 .4 illustrates the research design for Study 3. and (c) the moderating effect of hostile automatic thoughts on the relationship between aggression and BIT. the interrelationships between the demographic variables.3. Then.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. This was justified for three reasons. the influence of experience. the mediating effect of the BIT on the relations between psychological variables and crash occurrence and injury occurrence was tested. Figure 3.1 illustrates the research design for Study 2. 3. Variables and analyses in Study 2 were the same as those carried out in Study 1A. First. Two measures of experience were included: (a) driving experience. Then. In Study 3. Figure 3.5 Study 3 The final study used a sample of on-duty taxicab drivers.4 Study 2 The research design for Study 1A was replicated. the mediating effect of the BIT on the relations between psychological variables and crash occurrence and injury occurrence was tested. Figure 3. or the length of time they had been licensed to operate a taxicab. the moderating effect of locus of control on the relationship between aggression and BIT was assessed.
potentially raising questions of reliability and validity.3: Taxicab experience will have a negative influence on total BIT score 91 .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. 3.1.2: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H18.104.22.168: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.3: Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.given that data were collected during in situ interview and testing sessions with drivers during a rolling trip from point to point through Kuala Lumpur streets.2: Freeway urgency will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.2 :Freeway urgency will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.1: Driver experience will have a negative influence on total BIT score H2.2: Travel frequency will have a negative influence on total BIT score H2. Third.4:Destination-Activity orientation 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. limitations were imposed on administration time by driver willingness to participate and by research cost considerations.1: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1. the following fifteen hypotheses and sixty sub-hypotheses were formulated: Table 3. instruments employed to measure hopelessness and hostile automatic thoughts used language and response formats not conducive to verbal administration procedures.2. Gender was not included as a demographic variable in Study 3 because all taxicab drivers in the sample were male. Second.2.1: Research Hypotheses STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 H1: Behaviour in traffic will have a positive influence on motor vehicle crash outcomes H1.1: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.2.1. a risk that would have been unethical to impose both on the drivers and on the research assistants who were collecting the data.4 Formulation of Hypotheses Based on the conceptualisation and research framework.1.3:Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.
3: Ethnicity will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H4.1: Internality will have a negative influence on Hopelessness H6.2: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Freeway Urgency H7.1.2: Aggression will have a positive influence on Freeway Urgency H11.3: Externality-Powerful-Others will have a positive influence on Hopelessness H7: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on behaviour in traffic H7.2: Hopelessness will moderate the Externality(Chance)-BIT relationship H9.1: Internality will have a negative influence on total BIT score H8.3: Age will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others Y Y Y Y Y Y H5: Demographic variables will influence hopelessness H5.2: Ethnicity will influence Aggression H10.3: Age will have a negative influence on Hopelessness H6.Table 3.1: Aggression will have a positive influence on Usurpation of Right-of Way H11.2: Ethnicity will influence Hopelessness H5.3: Aggression will have a positive influence on Externally-focused Frustration H11.3.4: Hopelessness will have positive influence on Destination-Activity Orientation H8: Locus of Control will influence behaviour in traffic H8.1: Hopelessness will moderate the Internality-BIT relationship H9.1: Ethnicity will influence Locus of Control: Internality H4.1: Gender will influence total BIT score H3.3.1 (continued) STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 3 H3: Demographic variables will influence behaviour in traffic H3.2: Externality-Chance will have a positive influence on Hopelessness H6.3: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Externally-focused Frustration H7.2.1: Age will influence Locus of Control: Internality H4.3: 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 H4.3: Age will have a negative influence Aggression Y Y Y Y Y Y H11: Aggression will have a positive influence on behaviour in traffic H22.214.171.124: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Usurpation of Right-of Way H7.3: Hopelessness will moderate the Externality(Powerful-Other)-BIT relationship H10: Demographic variables will influence aggression H10.4: Aggression will have a positive influence on Destination-Activity Orientation 92 .1: Gender will influence Hopelessness H5.1: Gender will influence Aggression H10.3.2: Ethnicity will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.3: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H4.2: Externality-Chance will have a positive influence on total BIT score H126.96.36.199: Age will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.3: Externality-Powerful-Others will have a positive influence on total BIT score H9: Hopelessness will moderate the locus of control-BIT Relationship H9.2: Gender will influences Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.2: Ethnicity will influence total BIT score H3.1: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Internality H4.
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. Participants from the first round of data collection were included in Study 1A. All participants had a valid driving licence but had indicated that a motorcycle was the mode of transportation most of the 93 . and those from the third round of data collection were included in Study 1C.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.2: Thoughts of the Derogation of Others will have a positive influence on BIT H14.2: Externality(Chance) will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12.1 Methods of Data Collection and Analysis The Sample Participants in Study 1 were undergraduate students at a private university in peninsular Malaysia. 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. registered in a freshman course offered within the Faculty of Management.1: Thoughts of Physical Aggression will have a positive influence on total BIT H14. using the same procedures as in Study 1.2: Ethnicity will influence hostile automatic thoughts H13.2: Thoughts of Derogation-of-Others will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation H15.1: Internality will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12.3: Thoughts of Revenge will have a positive influence on total BIT score H15: Hostile automatic thoughts will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H15.5.1: Gender will have a positive influence on hostile automatic thoughts H13.3: Externality (Powerful-Other) will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y H13: Demographic factors will influence hostile automatic thoughts H13.5 3. within a 14-month period. Participants in Study 2 were undergraduate students at the same private university.3: Thoughts of Revenge will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation Note: Y=YES 3.Table 3. 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. with psychological tests and inventories administered to groups of students during lecture sessions.
5.time when they travelled. Stokols. Drawing from the earlier Driving Habits Questionnaire (DHQ. Participants were recruited during a curb-side introduction of the study by one of a group of four research assistants.2 Research Instruments 3. In all cases.5. Data collection took place within the taxicab.1 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) Scale This 52-item measures time-urgent behaviour. “ When a traffic light turns green and the car in front of me doesn’t get going immediately. Participants in Study 3 received the meter or negotiated fare for the trip. Synodinos and Papacostas (1985) developed 26 pairs of two-alternative items. participation was voluntary and confidentiality was assured. 1978). Participants were provided with an opportunity to receive a debriefing report about the results of the study by e-mail and/or. Participants in Study 3 were taxicab drivers in the Kuala Lumpur area. although results were used to demonstrate teaching points related to the syllabus at a point later in the trimester. while participants were driving. in the case of Study 3 participants. 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. For inclusion in the study. during a point to point trip.g. 3. with one of the items in each pair written to measure a TABP response and the other a contradictory statement (e. Stokals & Campbell.2. This sample was combined from all three rounds of classroom data collection. I try to urge its driver to move 94 . all of whom possessed a valid driving licence and a commercial permit for the operation of a taxicab.. Novaco. Participants in Studies 1 and 2 were not remunerated. by postal mail. 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. consistent with of a Type A Behaviour Pattern (TAPB) when driving (see Appendix A).
2: Dimensions of the BIT scale Factor I. In a later study.91) were found to be internally consistent. Externally-focused frustration 6 IV. to school or to an appointment with someone. Papacostas and Synodinos (1988) provided additional psychometric parameters of the BIT scale.” II. based on a principal components analysis of earlier-reported data. Usurpation of right-ofway No. with a coefficient alpha of .” “I get extremely irritated when I am travelling behind a slow moving vehicle.” “When a motor vehicle cuts in front of me.80. as indicated in table 3. such that if the TABP alternative of an item pair was placed in Form A. of items 24 Sample items “When I am in a traffic jam and the lane next to mine starts to move.on” versus “When a traffic light turns green and the car in front of me doesn’t get going immediately. Freeway urgency 14 III.” “I usually get upset at drivers who do not signal their driving intentions. Destination-activity orientation 8 Total 52 95 . 20 items are answered on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from “most like me” to “least like me”.” “While travelling to work (or to school). then the item of the pair representing the opposite end of the continuum was placed in Form B and vice versa. Their analysis revealed four dimensions. On each form. Synodinos and Papacostas reported that Form A and Form B (which correlated .” “I often blow my horn at someone as a way of expressing my frustration. Table 3. Items in Form A and Form B are presented in random order.” “On a clear highway. I try to move that lane as soon as possible. I usually feel like pushing them off the road. Items were presented in two alternate forms (Form A and Form B). Six of the items are answered on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree”. I usually drive a few kilometres above the speed limit.2.” “I often find myself checking the time while driving to work. I usually think about what I have to do when I get there. I just wait for a while until it moves”) for a total of 52 item stems.
it’s usually because I worked hard for it”. References to “miles per hour” were changed to “kilometres per hour”. I will not be given leadership responsibility without appealing to those in positions of power”. A sample item is “Although I might have good ability.2. It contains three 8-item sub-scales that measure perceptions about the level of control exercised over the events and circumstances in their lives. Participants scored all 24 items on a 6-point scale. The phrase “cross-junction” was added to items pertaining to behaviour at intersections. References to the “gas pedal” were replaced by “accelerator”. ranging from +3 (“agree strongly”) to –3 (“disagree strongly”). High scores on the internality (I) scale indicate that respondents expect to have a high degree of control over their own lives. 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. 96 .2 Levenson Locus of Control Scale This widely-used questionnaire is based on Levenson’s (1981) multidimensional view of locus of control. 3. 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.Certain items in the original American version were re-worded to make them relevant to the Malaysian context and driving jargon. A sample item is “I have often found that what is going to happen will happen”. High scores on the externality-chance (C) scale indicate that respondents expect expect chance forces or luck to have control over their lives.5. passing lane were changed from “left lane” to “right lane” and the word “pass” was replaced with “overtake”. A sample item is “When I get what I want. References to the faster.
1993.” “I sometimes feel that people are laughing at me behind my back.” “I often find myself disagreeing with 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”. and five subscales measure physical aggression. Eleven items are keyed true to indicate pessimism about the future. anger. 1974). 3.” “At times I feel like a bomb ready to explode. 2005. Item scores are summed to yield a total score ranging from 0 to 20. I might give him or her the silent treatment. Each of the 20 statements is scored 1. Durham.” “When someone really irritates me.3. Participants indicate a response on a five-point Likert-type scale (1 = “not at all like me”.2.5. or 0. I may tell them what I think of them. hostility and indirect aggression (see Table 3.” “At times I feel I have gotten a raw deal out of life.” 97 .” “I get into fights more than most people. if not. a sample item of which is “I look forward to the future with hope and enthusiasm”. 9 are keyed false to indicate optimism about the future.” “If I’m angry enough. High internal consistency has been reported across a range of samples (Benzein & Berg. if endorsed.3: The Five Subscales of the Aggression Questionnaire Subscale Physical Aggression (PHY) Verbal Aggression (VER) Anger (ANG) Hostility (HOS) Indirect Aggression (IND) Total No.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.” “When people annoy me. Table 3. Of the 20 true-false statements. 5 = “completely like me”) that best represent how well the item describe them.3).2. Beck et al.5. High scores are taken to indicate a generally pessimistic view of the future and a high degree of hopelessness. verbal aggression. of items 8 5 7 8 6 34 Sample Items: “At times I can’t control the urge to hit someone. I may mess up someone’s work.4 Aggression Questionnaire (AQ) This questionnaire is a 34-item scale measuring constructs related to the expression of aggression. Tanaka et al.” “I let my anger show when I do not get what I want. 1996). 1982. A total aggression score can be calculated from summed item responses.
91 for physical aggression. 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. 2000). derogation of others and revenge respectively.88 for the five subscales (Buss & Warren. Boyd. 98 . 1997. with coefficient alpha values of .2. age.88 and . I’d kill this person!” “I’d like to knock his/her teeth out” “What an idiot!” “This person is a loser.” “I want to get back at this person.5.92. 3.” “I just want to hurt this person as bad as s/he hurt me. 5 = “all the time”). Williams.High internal consistency has been reported with a coefficient alpha of . Previous studies have established high levels of concurrent validity (Harris. (1997) reported high internal consistency for all three sub-scales. ethnicity and history of motor vehicle crashes and injuries.” 3. derogation of others and revenge – were identified and are included as subscales (see table 3.6 Personal Information Form (PIF) Participants also completed a 4-page questionnaire recording personal information.71 to . of Items 11 10 9 30 Sample Items “If I could get away with it. 2000) and discriminant validity (Archer & Haigh. Snyder et al. Cascardi & Pythress.5. gender. High scores on a sub-scale indicated that type of hostile thinking had occurred to the participant frequently.94 for the total aggression scores and ranging from .” Participants responded on a 5point Likert-type scale (1 = “not at all”.2. Table 3.4: The Three Subscales of the Hostile Automatic Thoughts (HAT) Scale Factor Physical aggression Derogation of others Revenge Total No. 1996). 1997. Questions included details about the participant’s licensing and driving background. . Three factors – physical aggression.4).5 Hostile Automatic Thoughts (HAT) This 30-item self-report index measures the frequency of recurring hostile thoughts. Shapiro.
AQ and HAT. Levenson. packages of research instruments were distributed as follows: Study 1A: PIF. upon request. in random order. Instructions advised the participants to (a) answer all questions on each questionnaire.3. BHS.1 Procedure Studies 1 and 2 Data collection took place within a classroom or lecture hall during a regularly- scheduled class periods. (b) the second instrument was either Form A or Form B of the BIT scale. BIT scale. (b) give honest answers that described themselves rather than putting the “best things to say”. Study 1C: PIF. and (f) not spend too much time on any one answer. Participants were informed about the study and invited to participate on a voluntary basis. 99 . Study 1B: PIF. (c) the last instrument in the package was the opposite for of the BIT from the one presented second. (c) not discuss answers with others as they were completing the questionnaires. between the two forms of the BIT. After the briefing period. Levenson. In studies 1 and 2. (d) read instructions for each questionnaire very carefully and complete them in the order they were distributed. BHS. BIT scale and AQ.6 3. Participants were provided with up to 60 minutes to complete the scales but in no cases did the average administration time exceed 45 minutes. BHS. the instruments were presented in the following order: (a) the PIF was the first one in the package. with an e-mail summary of results. Participants were assured of confidentiality and were de-briefed. (d) the remaining instruments used in that particular study were presented. Levenson and BIT scale.6. A brief written description of the purpose of the research and general instructions (see Appendix B) was distributed. (e) put down the first response that came into their mind.
linear and multiple regression analyses and logistic regression analyses were used to test the hypotheses. All four research assistants spoke fluent English and Bahasa Malaysia. Reliability coefficients of all instruments were calculated using SPSS. Independent-sample t-tests. rel. AQ and Levenson scales. 8. The PIF was always administered first. with the remaining instruments administered in random order. 2004). research assistants verbally administered the PIF. rel. Taxis were flagged down at roadside.0. with prior research experience were retained to assist in the study. 2002).6.5. Structural equation models and path analyses were estimated using the same version of LISREL. Data collection took place in taxicabs. This section provides a brief example of each one and details its use in the present research. four female final-year undergraduate students. as well. For safety reasons. 100 .5. At initial contact. BIT. approached at a taxi stand or booked over the telephone. as well as at least two additional Malaysian languages. Specific statistical tests have been summarised in Table 3. Two to four times daily. the research assistant informed the taxicab driver about the study. Levenson Locus of Control scale. aged 22 to 24 years. Confirmatory Factor Analyses (CFA) were performed on the BIT. 3. analyses of variance (ANOVA).7 Analysis of the Data Data collected were entered and processed using Statistical Package for the Social Science (SPSS for Windows. each research assistant hired a taxicab to drive to some location elsewhere in the Kuala Lumpur area. Single-word substitutions in items were made in English or the driver’s first language if comprehension difficulties arose. 13. Over the course of the trip. data collection was confined to times between 8:00 am and 9:00 pm. AQ and HAT to determine validity using LInear Structural RElations software (LISREL.2 Study 3 For study 3. provided assurance of confidentiality and secured participation.3. with the team of research assistants meeting regularly three times each week to calibrate administration procedures.
1: Gender influence the level of BIT H3.2: “Frequency of traveling” influence the level of BIT H2.1: Hopelessness influence the level of Usurpation of Right-of Way H7.2: The level of BIT influence the crash injury Logistic Regression Logistic Regression The Direct Effect of Driving characteristics on BIT H2.3: Hopelessness influence the level of Externally-focused Frustration H7.4: Hopelessness influence the level of Destination-activity Orientation Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression 101 .3: Age influence the level of BIT Independent Sample t-Test Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance The Direct Effect of Demographic Factors on Locus of Control H4.1: Gender influence the Locus of Control H4.1: Gender influence the level of Hopelessness H5.5: Statistical Methods for Hypothesis Testing Data Analysis Methods The Direct Effect of BIT on Accident Involvement H1.3: Age influence the level of Hopelessness Independent Sample t-Test Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance The Direct Effect of Locus of Control on Hopelessness H6.1: “Length of having driving licence” influence the level of BIT H2.1: The level of BIT influence the crash occurrence H1.3: Age influence the Locus of Control Independent Sample tTest Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance The Direct Effect of Demographic Factors on Hopelessness H5.3: “Access to a motor vehicle” influence the level of BIT Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance The Direct Effect of Demographic Factors on BIT H3.2: Ethnicity background influence the level of BIT H3.2: Ethnicity background influence the level of Hopelessness H5.3: Externality (Powerful-Other) is positively related to Hopelessness Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression The Direct Effect of Hopelessness on BIT H7.2: Hopelessness influence the level of Freeway Urgency H7.2: Ethnicity influence the Locus of Control H4.1: Internality is negatively related to hopelessness H6.Table 3.2: Externality (Chance) is positively related to Hopelessness H6.
3: Age influences the level of Aggression Independent Sample t-Test Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance The Direct Effect of Aggression on BIT H11.2: Aggression influence the level of Freeway Urgency H11. the lower the BIT level H8.Table 3.1: The higher the Internality.1: Aggression influence the level of Usurpation of Right-of Way H11.2: Ethnicity background influences the level of Aggression H10.2: Ethnicity influences hostile automatic thoughts H13.1: Gender influences the level of Aggression H10.3: Aggression influence the level of Externally-focused Frustration H11.1: Gender has a positive influence on hostile automatic thoughts H13.5 (continued) Data Analysis Methods The Direct Effect of Locus of Control on BIT H8. the higher the BIT level Additional Analysis: Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression GLM Univariate Analysis of Variance The Interaction Effect of Ethnicity and Locus of Control on BIT The Moderating Effect of Hopelessness on Locus of ControlBIT Relation Multiple Linear Regression H9.1: Internality moderates the Aggression-BIT relation H12.3: Hopelessness moderates the Externality (Powerful-Other)-BIT relation Multiple Linear Regression The Direct Effect of Demographic Factors on Aggression H10.1: Hopelessness moderates the Internality-BIT relation Multiple Linear Regression H9.2: Externality(Chance) moderates the Aggression-BIT relation H12.2: Hopelessness moderates the Externality(Chance)-BIT relation H9.3: The higher Externality (Powerful-Other).3: Age has a negative influence on hostile automatic thoughts Independent Sample t-Test Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance 102 .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. the higher the BIT level H8.2: The higher Externality (Chance).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.
ANOVA was used to determine whether participants’ scores on psychological variables (BIT.1: Thoughts of Physical Aggression will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation H15. locus of control. In the present study.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. 103 .2: Thoughts of Derogation-of-Others have a positive influence on BIT H14.1 Independent-sample t-tests Generally.5 (continued) Data Analysis Methods The Direct Effect of HAT on BIT H14.1: Thoughts of Physical Aggression have a positive influence on BIT H14. t-tests are used to compare the means of two groups. hopelessness. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) differed for drivers with different ethnic backgrounds. t-tests were used to determine whether participants’ scores on psychological variables (BIT. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) differed for male and female drivers. locus of control. 3. hopelessness. 2000). post hoc analyses were carried out using the Scheffé method (Klockars & Hancock.2: Thoughts of Derogation-of-Others will moderate the AggressionBIT relation H1353: Thoughts of Revenge will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation Multiple Linear Regression Multiple Linear Regression Multiple Linear Regression 3. When significant differences were observed.Table 3.2 One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) ANOVA is used to compare means for more than two groups. In the present research.7.7.
second. the direction of the relationship (positive or negative). externality-chance (C) and externalitypowerful-others (P) have an effect on hopelessness. 104 . to test whether hopelessness moderated the P-BIT relationship. 3. Also. In the present research. In the present research.7.7. multiple regression analysis was used to test whether internality (I). aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) and behaviour in traffic (BIT). It is useful for analysis of variance models with one or more factor variables or covariates and a single dependent variable. the products of P x hopelessness scores were added into the regression equation. For instance. hopelessness. linear regression was applied to examine the relationship between psychological variables (locus of control. if so. the moderating effects of the variables were tested using hierarchical regression methods. GLM univariate analysis of variance was used to determine whether there was an interaction effect between ethnic background and psychological factors (locus of control. R-square and coefficient values were then estimated to determine the significance of the moderating effect of hopelessness. 3.5 Multiple Regression Analysis This analysis aims to examine if there is a relationship between the dependent variable and independent variables.7. In the present research.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. hopelessness.4 Linear Regression Analysis This analysis is used to determine if a relationship exists between a dependent variable and an independent variable and. first P scores were entered into the regression equation.3. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) on behaviour in traffic (BIT). Application of multiple regression analysis involves more than one single independent variable.
these variables were controlled as covariates in the logistic regression equation. Goodness-of-fit indicates how 105 . each of the two outcome variables (crash occurrence and injury occurrence) was framed as a binary variable. The result was a measurement model described as a contextual-mediated model. In the present research.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. “1” was scored if a crash had occurred and “0” if no crash had occurred. seeks to determine the odds that an event will or will not occur. and (b) examine the interrelationships among variables included in the research design. SEM was carried out.7. “1” was scored if a crash injury had occurred and “0” if no crash injury had occurred. 3. as well as between several latent constructs” (p.3. the purpose of which was to distinguish the distal and proximal contextual factors related to crash outcomes. That is. using LISREL. Path coefficients were calculated to demonstrate correlates of unsafe driving according to their contextual proximity to crash and injury occurrence. The validity of this measurement model was dependent on its goodness-of-fit and on the construct validity of its component variables. 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. Linear or multiple regression seek to measure the degree of influence that variables will have on a dependent variable. 710). 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).7 Structural Equation Modelling. Since driver experience and travel frequency were expected to have an influence on the outcome variables. on the other hand. logistic regression. to (a) assess the validity of the instruments. In the present research.7.
745). including: (1) two absolute indexes. Once a researcher’s theory is used to specify a model from which the parameters are estimated. 2006. the estimated covariance matrix (∑k) and the actual covariance matrix (S) would be the same. the absolute fit measures included the χ2 statistic. Thus. The closer the values of these two matrices are to each other. Incremental fit measures assess how well a specified model fits relative to some alternative baseline model. additional measures were used to compare the relative fit of two models under consideration. the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) and the root mean square residual (RMR). the model fit compares the theory to reality as represented by the data. 1998) – presently exists. 1998). The fundamental measure of fit is the chi-square (χ2) statistic (Byrne. (Hair et al. the estimated covariance matrix is compared mathematically to the actual observed covariance matrix to provide an estimate of model fit. than anyone would want to report” (Maryuma. the χ2/df ratio the goodness-of-fit index (GFI). For Study 1C. p.well the measurement model reproduces the covariance matrix among indicator items That is. According to Marsh et al. Absolute fit measures are a direct measure of how well the model specified by the researcher reproduces the researcher’s data. In the present research. in fact.. (1988). the better the model is said to fit. these can be classified as absolute fit indexes and relative or incremental fit indexes. If a researcher’s theory were perfect. Incremental fit measures included the comparative fit index (CFI). but a wide array of tests of the overall fit of SEM models – “more. the adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI) and the expected cross- 106 .
For a sample size less than 250 (and with number of observed variables that is less than 12). the parsimony goodness-of-fit index (PGFI)..2 Degrees of freedom (df) The df measure the amount of mathematical information available to estimate the model parameters and are calculated based on the number of unique covariances and variances in the observed covariance matrix (Hair et al.7. 3. pp. 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.7. one incremental index. However. 112). Thus. fit the population covariance matrix if it were available” (Byrne. Hair et al. 3. an insignificant p-value can result in good fit. 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. 2006).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.10 indicate poor fit.00 in which values greater than . 1998).1 Chi-Square (χ2). 19188.8.131.52. RMSEA values can range from zero to 1.validation index (ECVI). (2006) have highlighted that for sample size greater than 250 (with a number of observed variables less than 12). 107 . the closer the fit between the hypothesized model (established under the null hypothesis).7. 3. the ratio indicates a good fit. an insignificant p-value is expected. the normed fit index (NFI). and a measure of parsimony fit. when the ratio of χ2 to df yields a value of less than 3. the higher the probability associated with χ2. with unknown but optimally chosen parameter values. 2006).7. Carmines and McIver (1981) have noted that.
7. CFI is an improved version of the normed fit index.7.90 is usually associated with a model that fits well. 3.Root mean square residual (RMR) is another badness-of-fit measure. but AGFI values are typically lower than GFI values in proportion to model complexity. the normed fit index (NFI. 2006). 1980) represents a ratio of the difference in the χ2 value for the fitted model and a null model divided by the χ2 value for the null model.00.7.00 being indicative of good fit. Tanaka & Huba. The index can range from zero to 1.7. Thus. 3.6 Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index (AGFI) An adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI. and a model with perfect fit would produce an NFI of 1.4 Normed Fit Index (NFI) One of the original incremental measures of fit. The index ranges between zero and 1.00 with value more than .00. 3. it is known as one of the most widely used indices (Hair et al..7.00. an RMR greater than . Since the CFI is insensitive to model complexity.5 Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) and Comparative Fit Index (CFI) The GFI can range from zero to 1.00 with value closes to 1. 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. 108 . Values range from zero to 1.10 usually suggests a poor fit of the data for the model. with higher values indicating better fit. Bentler & Bonnet.7. The AGFI penalises more complex models and favours those with a minimum number of free paths.
7. Browne & Cudeck. 1982) uses the parsimony ratio to adjust the GFI in order to compare two models.8 Parsimony Goodness-of-Fit Index (PGFI) A third class of measures is sometimes recognised as the parsimony indices. Like other parsimony fit indices. “a PGFI taken alone is not a useful indicator of a single model’s fit. It should be noted that. 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.7. The parsimony goodness-of-fit index (PGFI. 2006). Although values range from zero to 1. 750). it takes into account the actual sample size and the difference that could be expected in another sample. 1994). James. A parsimony fit measure is improved by a better fit and/or a simpler model which..7. 2006.7.00. 109 . the model with the higher ECVI value is generally regarded as presenting a better fit. it is most commonly used when comparing the performance of one model to another.00.. considering its fit relative to its complexity. In such cases. designed specifically to provide information about which model among a competing set of models is best. Mulaik & Brett.3. Values range between zero and 1.7 Expected Cross-Validation Index (ECVI) The expected cross-validation index (ECVI. based on the combination of fit and parsimony represented by the index. and the model with the higher PGFI is considered preferable. means a model with fewer estimated parameter paths (Hair et al. 3. 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. in this case. a PGFI value is meant only to be used in comparing it to another model’s PGFI value” (Hair et al. The ECVI also takes into account the number of estimated parameters for a given model. p.
If the opposite holds.3. 1956). 1976). 3. Many parametric statistics assume that variables are distributed approximately normally and SPSS calculates values for skewness and kurtosis to assist in determing 110 . p. When p-values for the Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic are greater than our α=. then it is possible to conclude the the data do not violate the normality assumption (Carver & Nash. It determines whether the scores in the sample can reasonably thought to have come from a population having the theoretical distribution (Siegel. which means that it falls between leptokurtic and platykurtic distributions” (Ferguson. it is said to be positively skewed. “It is conventional to speak of a distribution as leptokurtic if is more peaked than … the normal distribution. 2000).9 Skewness and Kurtosis Skewness refers to the symmetry or asymmetry of a frequency distribution. the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to assess whether there was a significant departure from normality in the distribution of variable scores.7.05. In this case. If a distribution is assymetrical and the larger frequencies tend to be concentrated toward the low end of the variable and the smaller frequencies toward the high end. the distribution is said to be negatively skewed (Ferguson. the distribution of test scores to the normal distribution. in this case. 37). Kurtosis refers to the flatness or peakedness of one distribution in relation to another. The normal distribution is spoken of as mesokurtic. 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. the larger frequencies being concentrated toward the high end of the variable and the smaller frequencies toward the low end. 1976.7.
111 . if skewness and kurtosis less than ±1. Barrett & Morgan. Marcoulides & Hershberger. 1997). A commonly used guideline is that. the variable is at least approximately normal (Leech. 2005.normality of variable distributions.
4% 333 62. Gender and Ethnicity Participants were 992 undergraduate students at an English-language Malaysian university.5% Ethnicity MalaysianChinese 229 51.5% 57.5% 6.9% 977 100% 100% Female Total 112 .1 4. Ages of participants ranged from 18 to 29 years. 4.9% 23. Thirteen of the participants did not complete all the questionnaires and two participants completing questionnaires reported that they did not have driving licences. Thus 977 participants were included in the analysis.1). with results of these tests reported in this chapter. The contextual mediated model was tested using (1) regression analysis (SPPS) and (2) structural equation modelling (LISREL).6% 15.1% 562 57.6% 82 15. Then.1% 34.6% 12.1% 536 100% 54.CHAPTER 4 ANALYSIS OF THE DATA This chapter presents the results of the research. 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. A contextual mediated model showing interrelationships between variables is introduced.13 years (SD = 1.3% 8.4% 269 27.1.4% 146 14.1 Description of the Samples Age.1% 121 22. with a mean age of 20.5% 27.9% 14. It begins with a discussion of reliability and validity tests of the instruments.5% MalaysianIndian 64 14.55).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. descriptive statistics are presented and the results of hypothesis testing are reported.9% Total 441 100% 45. Table 4.
301 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode of transportation to be the automobile comprised the sample. In Study 1C. In Study 1B. 122 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode of transportation to be the motorcycle comprised the sample. In Study 3.5 per cent). followed by Malay (27. with a mean age of 20. range from 18 to 25). 113 . range of 18 to 26).01 years (SD = 1.53.Female participants (approximately 55 per cent) slightly out-numbered males. range from 18 to 27). A crosstabulation between gender and ethnicity (see Table 4. with a mean age of 20. with a mean age of 20. In Study 1A.1) showed that most of the drivers were female Malaysian-Chinese.9 per cent). In Study 2. Thus.68. 149 taxicab drivers participated.43 years (SD = 1. with a mean age of 19. 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. 252 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode of transportation to be the automobile comprised the sample.25 years (SD = 1.89 years (SD = 1.63.5 per cent) and Malaysian-Indian (14. range from 18 to 29). 302 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode of transportation to be the automobile comprised the sample.35.
01 20.53 1.3% of the sample.responses from 133 taxicab drivers were included in data analysis.3: States from Which Study 1 Participants Had Acquired Their Original Drivers’ Licenses Johor Kedah Kelantan Kuala Lumpur Melaka Negeri Sembilan Pahang N 109 42 20 98 70 61 56 % 12.2 7.D.7 4.1 6.1. range from 23 to 73).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 .68 1.3). Kuala Lumpur. Table 4.5 8. 2 and 3 Gender STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 3 N 301 302 252 122 133 Mean Age 20.63 11.43 19. 1B and 1C were all students at a single Malaysian university.2: Age.5 114 .35 1.9 2.19 years (SD = 11.89 20. The mean age was 43. 1. Participants who had received their driving licenses in Selangor.19 S. SD = standard deviation 4. Descriptive data for each sample are provided in Table 4. Table 4. Johor or Perak made up 53. they hailed from across the country (see table 4. Gender and Ethnicity of Participants in Studies 1.2 Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 1 Although participants in Studies 1A. Participants from East Malaysia comprised 5.2.4% of the sample.25 43.65.3 11.
As the sample was 115 .3 Geographic Distribution of the Sample in Study 2 Participants in Study 2 were all students at a single Malaysian university. Perak or Penang made up 50.5 14.7 100 4.7 3.0 7.4: 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.Penang Perak Perlis Sabah Sarawak Selangor Terengganu 67 102 6 27 19 147 31 855 7.4). Participants who had received their driving licenses in Selangor.6 100 4.1.8 11.0 10.2 3.1 9.1% of the sample.6 2.9% of the sample.4 0. but again they held licenses from various states (see table 4. Participants from East Malaysia comprised 4.9 7. Table 4.8 9.4 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.5 1.4 4.8 5.6 1.7 11.9 0.1.2 17.2 2.
the higher is the internal consistency of the measure. no attempt was made to determine the geographic location in which drivers had originally received noncommercial drivers’ licenses. reliability was measured using Cronbach’s coefficient alpha.5). 2000). 116 . This statistic reflects the consistency of respondents’ answers compared to all the items in a measure (Sekaran.intended to be representative of Kuala Lumpur taxicab drivers.70 or greater is generally considered acceptable (Nunnally. 1978). 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. 4.1 Reliability and Validity Reliability Test Results: Cronbach’s Alpha Cooper and Schindler (2000) claimed that reliability relates to the accuracy and precision of a measurement procedure.2 4.2. In the present research. The closer Cronbach’s Alpha is to 1. 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. 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. A Cronbach’s Alpha of .
Table 4.824 . of Item α Study 2 (N=122) Motorcycle Drivers (student sample) Study 3 (N=133) Taxicab Drivers α .904 .747 .730 .703 .781 .772 α .738 Behaviour In Traffic (BIT) Usurpation of right-of-way Freeway Urgency Externally-Focused Frustration Destination-Activity Orientation Locus of Control Internality Externality (Chance) Externality (Powerful Other Aggression (AQ) Physical Aggression Verbal Aggression Anger Hostility Indirect Aggression Hopelessness (BHS) Hostile Automatic Thought (HAT) Physical Aggression Derogation of Others Revenge 26 11 8 3 4 8 8 8 8 5 7 8 6 20 11 10 9 .906 .715 .808 .742 .808 .727 .830 .727 .783 .734 .740 .788 .756 .741 .702 .811 .782 .749 .711 .739 .737 .733 .738 .754 .707 .782 .910 .714 .5: Summary of Internal Reliability Coefficient Results Study 1A (N=301) Study 1B (N=302) Automobile Drivers (student sample) Study 1C (N=252) Variables No.890 .726 Not Applicable Not Applicable α .774 .810 .701 Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable 117 .881 α .768 Not Applicable Not Applicable .720 .735 .715 .720 .798 .827 .817 .783 .718 .786 .887 .740 .701 .784 .
803 . Table 4. with minimal error variance caused by wording. fits the population correlation matrix or covariance matrix.80 or above). with unknown but optimally chosen parameter values.811 .876 .916 . 1998). The results of parallel-form reliability for the BIT instrument in different studies are shown in Table 4. values ranging from .807 .804 .05 indicate good fit.4. RMSEA values less than . 1998. confirmatory factor analyses using LISREL (Jöreskog & Sörbom.08 to . 205).804 .800 . we may be fairly certain that the measures are reasonably reliable.2 Parallel-Form Reliability In the case of the BIT scale. it was also possible to measure reliability as a coefficient of correlation between Form A and Form B (Synodinos &Papacostas.903 . In Study 3. and those greater than . Reliability coefficients in all studies where both forms were used are acceptable since Form A and Form B were highly correlated. 118 .807 Study 1B .929 .802 4. more than . only Form A was used.10 indicate poor fit (MacCallum et al.958 .2. ordering or other test construction factors” (p. Byrne. depending on which is used (Byrne.2. The root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) index measures the error of approximation in the population and determines whether the model. 1998).80.806 .857 . 1998).6.801 .805 .10 indicate a mediocre fit.3 Validity Test Results In the present research. 2002) was used to establish evidence of construct validity for various measures.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 . 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. Sekaran (2003) notes that “if two comparable forms are highly correlated (.953 .804 Study 1C .808 Study 2 . 1985).
047 .96 . A third statistic.00 .00 1.93 .024 .3.98 .054 .000 .00 1. it is possible to have negative GFI. drivers’ behaviour in traffic was measured by the four component factors of the BIT scale: usurpation of right-of-way. indicating good fits. externally-focused frustration.92 1.070 .99 .00 .000 . GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index. 4.00 .074 . the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) is estimated to indicate whether complete covariation in the data is achieved. 1992).95 1. Table 4.90.000 . and destination-activity orientation.00.92 .00 1.2.000 . freeway urgency.97 1.96 .00 1. If the value of CFI exceeds .91 .00 .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 1.98 .048 .077 .00 .098 .00 1.99 .Jöreskog and Sörbom (1993) reported that.7.00 1.99 .000 .99 .98 Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation.96 1. As shown in Table 4.100. although the GFI index ranges from zero to 1.000 .000 .097 .97 . and both GFI and CFI were more than .00 .92 . This reflects that the model fits worse than no model at all. RMSEA values in each case were less than . parameter values for all four of these factors were within acceptable ranges.00 1.097 .089 .98 1. it is generally considered an acceptable fit to the data (Bentler. the higher the goodness-of-fit).97 1.96 .91 .99 . CFI= Comparative Fit Index 119 .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 1.00 1.000 .061 .00 (the closer to 1.1 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the BIT Scale In the present research.90.
hostility (HOS) and indirect aggression 120 .96 . CFI= Comparative Fit Index 4. RMSEA values were less than .93 .058 .95 .000 .4.91 .98 Study 2 RMSEA Study 3 CFI RMSEA GFI GFI CFI Locus of Control Internality Externality (Chance) Externality (Powerful-Other) .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).2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Levenson Locus of Control Scale Locus of control was measured across three dimensions: internality (I).091 .92 . verbal aggression (VER).085 .91 .073 .3. anger (ANG). indicating good fits (See Table 4.93 .081 .052 .98 .93 .92 .00 . Five component factors of aggression were measured: physical aggression (PHY).93 . CFA revealed that parameter values for I. externality-chance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P).8.059 . C and P scales were all within acceptable ranges.96 .071 .93 .081 .3.93 .95 1.97 .92 .085 .100.93 .98 Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation.083 .95 .98 .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) .97 .2.2.98 .030 .99 . Each component of the locus of control was measured separately.96 .096 . and both GFI and CFI were more than . under the assumption that locus of control is a multidimensional phenomenon.91 . GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index.96 .90.99 .063 . Table 4.
96 . CFI= Comparative Fit Index 121 .98 .098 .90. GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index.095 .9).90. CFA revealed that parameter values for all three measurement scales were within acceptable ranges.98 .(IND).98 .058 .97 .98 . RMSEA values were less than .97 . indicating good fit (see Table 4.070 .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 .96 .97 Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation.98 .070 .92 .97 .93 .94 .089 .090 .096 .98 .97 . Table 4.97 .088 .96 Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation. A total aggression score was arrived at by summing the five subscale scores.98 . and both GFI and CFI were more than . CFI= Comparative Fit Index 4.055 .10: Summary of LISREL Results on Validity for HAT (Study 1C) RMSEA Hostile Automatic Thought (HAT) Physical Aggression Derogation of Others Revenge GFI CFI . derogation of others and revenge.083 .96 .94 . Table 4.081 .025 . RMSEA values were less than .081 .92 .100.98 .92 .97 .098 . indicating good fits (See Table 4. and both GFI and CFI were more than .97 .073 .3.95 .97 .95 . CFA revealed that parameter values for all five aggression subscales were within acceptable ranges.97 .9: Validity of the AQ scales – Summary of Confirmatory Factor Analysis Study 1B RMSEA Study 1C CFI RMSEA Study 3 CFI RMSEA GFI GFI GFI CFI Aggression (AQ) Physical Aggression Verbal Aggression Anger Hostility Indirect Aggression . Three classes of hostile automatic thoughts were measured: physical aggression.10).2.088 . GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index.98 .99 .98 .100.047 .97 .
1997).179(.140) -.582(. Skewness and kurtosis values of ± 1 are acceptable (Leech et al.260) .099(.280) .140) -.428) .656(.099) 1..091) 1.241(.453(.409(.140) .140) . 2005.280) .297(.140) -.140) Study 1B Internality Externality (Chance) Externality (Powerful Other) Hopelessness BIT Usurpation right-of-way Freeway Urgency Externally Focused Frustration Destination-activity Orientation AQ Physical Aggression Verbal Aggression Anger Hostility Indirect Aggression 122 .140) -.403(.179(.280) -.192(.204(.105 (.280) .091(.280) .962 (.140) -.719(. but with a non-signficant platykurtic tendency for the locus of control data. Skewness and Kurtosis Data were studied to determine whether they were normally distributed and therefore capable of satisfying parametric assumptions.102) 1.091(.106) 1.278(.140) -. indicating that the distribution of scores did not depart from normality.064) 1.140) -.140) -.278(.280) -.323 (. Table 4.356 (.297 (.203(.331(.332 (.140) .11 indicates that variable distribution fell within these limits.080(.034 (.140) .120) 1.280) -.140) -.140) .191) 1.099) 1.140) .280) .280) .057) 1.195 (.297(.219 (.280) .010 (.183) 1.188(.146(.408(.05).351 (.920(.560(.280) .3 Normality.020 (.140) .409(.280) -.140) -.280) .256 (..280) -.085) 1.280) .186) 1.037(.192) 1.085) 1.126(.239 (. Kurtosis and Skewness Statistics KolmogorovSmirnov Z (Significance Level) Skewness Kurtosis Statistic Statistic (Standard (Standard Error) Error) Study 1A Internality Externality (Chance) Externality (Powerful Other) Hopelessness BIT Usurpation right-of-way Freeway Urgency Externally Focused Frustration Destination-activity Orientation 1.280) -.085 (.064(.140) -.126(. Table 4.094 (.226 (.280) -.107) 1.099(.022 (.082 (. values for the Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic were non-significant (p>.069) 1. Normality can also be assessed by examining sknewness and kurtosis values (Hair et al.560(.805(. Marcoulides & Hershberger.183) 1.379(.410(.107 (. 2006).140) .280) .064(.353(.246(.4.190) 1.11: Normality Tests.875(.154(.511(.052) 1.140) .085 (.280) .280) -. In all cases.280) -.
338 (.497(.157) .306) -.417) -.209(.051) 1.102) .153) .417) .153) -.153) .640(.100) .099) 1.128) .537(.435) -.962 (.210) -.805 (.210) -.113 (.973(306) .088 (.259) .210) .062(.210) .138(.435) -.256(.417) -.084) 1.360) .503(.003 (.852(.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 .098) 1.463(.106 (.540(.366(.276(.417) -.293 (.417) -.270) 1.024 (.210) -.306) -.214) 1.567(.719(.007(.219) .153) -.277(.317) 1.360) -.219) -.423(.219) -.210) .362(.279 (.417) -.057) 1.360) .Table 4.153) .979(.053(.236(.629(.306) .265) 1.131(.713(.533) .110 (.375) 1.972(.247) 1.153) .022 (.001 (.070 (.915(.153) .210) .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 1.919 (.030(.153) .267) .306) .324(.153) .064) 1.264) .120(.247) .159(.153) .195 (.567(.160 (.435) -.354 (.138) 1.101) 1.011 (.435) -.799(.940(.913 (.306) -.104) 1.435) -.219) .306) .435) -.187) 1.024 (.130(.098) 1.426) .822 (.911 (305) 1.276 (.210) .417) .186(.510) 1.271(.306) -.223 (.884(.142(.321) 1.841(.501(.681(.295(.478(.297 (.359 (.327 (.443(.366) 1.306) .948(.435) .052) 1.147(.244(.052) 1.417) -.962(.306) -.451(.715(.135) 1.370(.219) .219) .852(.359 (.153) .153) .812(.210) .147(.219) -.959 (.978(.360) .392(.417) .807 (.106(.210) .913(.994(.128 (.106(.048(.952(.847 (.435) -.022 (.051) .153) .414(.469) 1.006(.467(.417) -.153) .053(.300(.417) .156(.986 (.154) -.210) .153) 983(.306) -.306) .266 (.417) -.198(.219) .
column c). (2) injuries severe enough to require out-patient treatment at a medical clinic (see Table 4.4 Crash and Injury Occurrence Data Participants in all studies indicated whether they had experienced an accident within the preceding twelve months in which their vehicle had sustained more than RM100 damage and.12.12. column a). with 44.3 per cent being hospitalised.12. 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. if so.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. males were more than twice as likely to report involvement in two or three automobile crashes. (3) injuries requiring hospitalisation (see Table 4. column b). 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. For motorcycle drivers.4. 124 . 1B and 1C selfreported that they had been involved in at least one motor vehicle crash over the preceding year (see Table 4.13). However. injury occurrence was much higher.
14: Crash Occurrence Frequency. male motorcycle drivers reported higher crash occurrence than female motorcycle drivers. Gender and Ethnicity in Study 2 (N=122) Motorcycle drivers Ethnicity No. involved in one crash Total Ethnicity No. involved in three crashes Total Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Gender Male Female 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 two crashes Total Ethnicity No.13: Crash Occurrence Frequency.Table 4.14) Regardless of ethnic background. involved in two crash Total Ethnicity No. involved in three crashes Total Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Gender Male Female 80 57 119 103 33 44 232 204 24 9 19 7 7 2 50 18 12 5 9 3 1 2 22 10 Total 137 222 77 436 33 26 9 68 17 12 3 32 More than half of the motorcycle drivers sampled in Study 2 reported that they had been involved in at least one motor vehicle crash over the preceding year (see Table 4. involved in one crash Total Ethnicity No. Gender and Ethnicity in Study 1 (N=855) Automobile Drivers Ethnicity No. Table 4.
standard deviations and relationships between distal.5. and destination-activity orientation. proximal and outcome variables within the sample of automobile drivers.05). 126 . All distal and proximal variables were positively correlated except internality (I) which was negatively corrected with other variables. externally-focused frustration. standard deviations and relationships between distal.17 shows means. 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.16 shows means. All distal and proximal variables were positively correlated except I which was negatively corrected with other variables. proximal and outcome variables within the sample of automobile drivers. Study 1C. Most of these correlations were significant (p<. All these correlations were significant (p<. Study 1B. freeway urgency. Most of these correlations were significant (p<. standard deviations and relationships between distal. Table 4.4.1 Distal and Proximal Variable Data Results of Study 1 Study 1A. Table 4. BHS was not significantly correlated with verbal aggression (VER). However. All distal and proximal variables were positively correlated except I which was negatively corrected with other variables. Also. I was significantly correlated with all variables except with VER and hostility. Both externality-chance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P) were not significantly correlated with the HAT subscale measuring hostile automatic thoughts related to the derogation-of-others.05). Table 4.5 4.15 shows means.05). crash occurrence and crash injury. Hopelessness (BHS) was the only independent variable that was not significantly correlated with crash occurrence and injury occurrence. proximal and outcome variables within the sample of automobile drivers. Although VER was significantly correlated with crash occurrence. it was not correlated with injury occurrence. in Study 1B.
201** .5 5.434** .44 4. 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.553** -.036 .202** .716** .278** .2691 6.186** .69 24.442 1 -.57 4.97 43.342** -.405** .381** .371** .15: Means.78 .376** .396** .516** 1 -.147* -. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 9.804** .58 .96 19.818** 1 .04 26.147* .01 level (2-tailed) 127 .625** .45 6.376** .155** .476 .231** .942** 1 .027 1 .191** .316** .64 7.152** .209** 1 .339** .08 2.513** .391** -.23 2.88 7.340** .52 34.562** -.306** .239** .901** .662** 1 .3455 .345** 1 -.246** .247** .76 3.129* .435** .211** .22 3.280** .533** .Table 4.331** 1 * Correlation is significant at .218** .416** 1 .471** .566** 1 -.00 165.05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .388** .482** .749** .544** -.D.
505** .178** .602** 1 .039 .763** .148* . Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1B (n=302) Mean S.331** .254** .481** .414** .195** .Table 4.172** .382** 1 -.491** .403** .338** .200** .16: Means.443** .407** 1 -.00 14 19.462** .921** .400** .067 -.86 6.153** .48 5.22 4.515** .103 -.324** .489**.520** .50 5.5695 .461** .816** .97 Outcome Variables2 16 .25 8 18.103 -.376** .418** .147** . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Distal Variables1 1 9.66 3.254** .762** .587** 1 -.855** .089 -.444** .531** .213** .842** 1 .43 12.56 2 4.523** .366** .445** .584** -.514** .97 4 4.298** .343** .491** .452** .550** .69 8.509** .4960 17 .355** .028 -.278** 1 -.731** .334** .9 28.369** .01 level (2-tailed) 128 .438** 1 .688**.335** .D.355** .312** 1 -.580** 1 Note: (1) Internality (2) Externality-Chance (3) Externality-Powerful-Other (4) Hopelessness (5) Total Aggression (6) Physical Aggression (7) Verbal Aggression (8) Anger (9) Hostility (10) Indirect Aggression (11) Behaviour in Traffic (12) Usurpation of right-of-way (13) Freeway Urgency (14) Externally-Focused Frustration (15) Destination-activity Orientation (16) Crash Occurrence (17) Injury Occurrence * Correlation is significant at .45 5 87.4624 1 -.363** .337** .697** 1 .331** .157** .342** .378** .268** .167** .099 .516** .964** 1 .162** .540** .279** .347** 1 -.028 .271** .53 19.06 3 2.172** .84 7.071 .341** .176* .48 3.236** .150** .518** .9 12 71.401** .213** .240** .275** .542** .9 13 46.343** .173* .555** .213** .358** .85 9.408** .463** .140* .254** .411** .91 15 27.319** .013 1 .496** .393** .847** .84 5.294** 1 .448** .286* .380** .586** .003 .05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .816** .159 -.5 6 17.310** .779** 1 -.355** .41 3.051 .353** .386** .65 Proximal Variables1 11 170.434** .225** .372** .276** .14 4.440**.380** .430** .272** .669** 1 -.55 9 21.60 10 16.3079 .82 7 13.521** .
277** .03 5.016 .298** .7 -.275** .296** .70 3.383** .314** .183** .86 -.192**.324** .057 .387** .174** .202** .508** .49 6.370** .516 .804** .00 -.31 3.392** .364** .219** .448** .323** .11 12.131* .412** .079 1 Outcome Variables2 20 .78 8.199**.166** .501 .183** .278** .191** 1 3 .366** .345** .58 9.261** .130** .139** .91 -.42 3.095 .36 -.196** .296** .9 -.294** .003 .307**.64 -.222** .277** 1 8 19.434** .137* .162**.402** .404** .349** 1 16 67.095 .348** 1 6 16.483** .747** .103** .076 .592** .221** .70 8.069 .292** .588** 1 14 20.89 5.181** .186** .270** .356** .465** .446** .310** .-181** .259** .293** .259** .355** .254** .476** .8 -.224** .05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .304** .304** .209** .413** .428** .241** .221** .250** .235** .9 -.340** .193**.735** .390** . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Distal Variables1 1 10.109 .338** .38 5.230 .745** 1 7 13.120 .895** 1 13 26.343** .218** .534** 1 18 19.749** .229** .342** .7 28.151* .150* .395** 1 11 65.31 -.367** .373** .277**.265** 1 19 25.518** .268**.80 17.183** .379** .97 -.615** .226** .148** .178** .306** .167** .81 -.37 6.422 -.402** .81 5.368** .264** .101**.106 .075 .05 -.263** .423** .484** .254** .364**.03 -.291** .67 7.051 .151* .545** .199** .192** .258** .109 .343** .230** .378** .228** .281** .424** 1 12 18.306** .52 7.17 -.856** 1 17 43.288** .531** 1 10 16.D.292** .451** .354** 1 5 88.033 .150* .119* 1 21 .481** .565** .85 19.313** .235** .422** 1 9 22.302** .252** .17: Means.246** .526** .230** .725** .838** .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 .69 -.189** .454** .01 level (2-tailed) S 129 .245** .70 1 2 4.166** .530** .081 .311** .305** .189** .98 4.502** .278** .203** .251** .141* .228** .110 .549** 1 Proximal Variables1 15 161.275** .241** .212** .17 -.506** .401** .082 .216** .227** .202** .377** .158** .296** .271** .862** .320** .270** .191** .308** .641** 1 4 4.357** .456** . Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1C (n=252) Mean S.210**.038 .385** .286** .18 -.185** .Table 4.210** .224**.281** .
but it was not correlated with crash occurrence or injury occurrence. However. standard deviations and relationships between distal. 130 . Similar to observed results in study 1A. all BIT subscales.18 shows means. externally-focused frustration. it was not correlated with crash occurrence or with crash injury. 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. Of these negative the BIT subscales measuring freeway urgency and externally-focused frustration were significant. crash occurrence and injury occurrence.BHS was significantly correlated to the total BIT score and to BIT subscales: usurpation of right-of-way. All distal and proximal variables were positively correlated except internality (I) which was negatively corrected with the BIT total score. 1B and 1C. 4. Hostility (HOS) was significantly correlated with all other variables except with crash occurrence and crash injury. freeway urgency. The BIT subscale measuring destinationactivity orientation was significantly correlated to crash occurrence but not to injury occurrence. and destination-activity orientation.5.2 Results of Study 2 Table 4.
18: Means.240** .4683 .14 27.30 .226** .374** .876** .371** -.291** .758** 1 .349** .413** .880 .941** 1 .269** .428** .66 1.418** .6803 .621 3.028 1 .614** .122 7.081 8. 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.535** 1 .76 48.290** .232** .5738 8.025 -.415** .313** 1 .Table 4.413** 1 .66 5.259** .367** .383** .035 3.50 73.111 -.219** .139 .05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .500** .183* 1 .630** .201* .251** .795** 1 * Correlation is significant at . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 3.043 .165 .072 .182* -.314** .179 7.264** .D.580** 1 .167 .376** .06 20.150 -.200* -.4966 1 .750** .01 level (2-tailed) 131 .192* -.334** .356** .48 5.325** .409** .317** .323 23.212* .485 11.233** .917 3.562** 1 .55 175.
1B. nor a weak negative correlation between I and P achieved significance.3 Results of Study 3 Table 4. verbal aggression (VER) and anger (ANG) were significantly correlated only with crash occurrence. AQ subscales were significantly and positively correlated with each other.4. proximal and outcome variables within the sample of taxicab drivers in Study 3.19 shows means. In general. 132 . In this study. Differing from Studies 1A. However.19. 1C and 2. standard deviations and relationships between distal. but remaining I correlations with BIT and AQ subscales did not achieve significance. correlations between I and distal. neither an observed weak positive correlation between I and C.5. proximal or outcome variables in Study 3 were weaker than those observed in Studies 1 and 2. significant negative correlations were observed between the internality (I) variable and with physical aggression (PHY) subscale scores on the AQ and with BIT total scores. As indicated in Table 4. Externality-chance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P) scores were significantly and positively correlated with crash occurrence and injury occurrence. While physical aggression (PHY) and hostility (HOS) were significantly correlated with crash occurrence and injury occurrence. BIT total scores had a significant positive correlation with crash occurrence but not with injury occurrence.
120 .Table 4.807** .028 .10 1.182* -.01 level (2-tailed) 133 .05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .225** .091 -.32 7.171 .152 .74 15.271** .235** .032 1 .109 -.82 11.116 .151 -.161 -.117 .166 .121 .528** 1 .246** .05 3.147** .45 19.091 .401** -.622** .167** .454** .048 .263** .165 .234** .373** .254** -.150** .180** .114 .276** .816** .721** .13 3.117 .040 .268** .646** .54 11.576** .156 .378** 1 .643** .404 .222* .31 8.213** .07 8.289** 1 .82 5.204* .112 -.658** .275** .013 .D.240** .039 .19: Means.070 -.030 .194* 1 .156 .067 .292** .88 1 .148* .149 .338** 1 .0301 .072 -.020 .213** .604** .023 -.200* .128 .84 2.371** .245** .054 .15 32.021 1 * Correlation is significant at .071 .324** .51 3.443** 1 .749** .06 2.2000 .618** 1 .65 75.153** 1 .261** .095 .236** .636** .092** .177 1 .218* .240** .35 11. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 3 (n=133) Mean S.121 .117 . 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 12.025 -.3 6.193* -.172** .853** .229** .106 .864** 1 .872** .178** .561** 1 .521** .149 .060 -.061 .023 .060 .588** 1 .072 .42 66.11 15.197* .103 .018 -.08 15.235** .141 .173* .255** .286* 1 .17 20.418** .4 5.257** .32 3.99 10.43 8.12 4.194* .
p<.1 Hypothesis 1: Behaviour in Traffic Influences Motor Vehicle Crash Outcomes First.01 Study 1C B=.117. p<. While controlling driver experience and driving frequency.080. p<. p<. p<.01 B=.01 B=. but not destination-activity orientation.01.01 B=.238.01 B=.01 B=.1 through H1.2184.108.40.206).01 134 . p<. p<.088 p<.01 B=. p<. p<.172.4. p<.01 B=. p<.6.095.04. results of logistic regression analyses indicated that usurpation of right-of way.315. Table 4.125.01 B=.01). Study 1B: B=.063.229.1.095.01 B=.146. Study 2: B=. p<.01 B=.1.01 Study 1B B=. p<. p<. and externally-focused frustration.01 Not Significant Study 2 B=. were significantly related to crash occurrence (see Table 4.120. p<. For the destination-activity factor.034. p<.1).048. These results supported H1. p<. p<. H1.01 Study 3 B=. results from the logistic regression analyses in all studies indicated strong relationships between total BIT scores and the likelihood of a motor vehicle crash occurrence (Study 1A: B=.090. p<. analyses were conducted to test whether BIT scores influenced crash occurrence.01 B=.3 inclusive. p<.01 and Study 3: B=.01.041. p<.01. p<. p<. that behaviour in traffic influences crash occurrence. freeway urgency. 4.01 B=.6 Hypothesis Testing This section reports the results of analyses to test the hypotheses formulated in chapter 3 (see Table 3. Study 1C: B=.01 B=.1. These results supported H1.063.1.01 B=.135.20: 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=.102.4 was not supported. When the relationships between the four component factors of the BIT scale and the likelihood of a crash outcome were tested.
158.118. These results supported H1.035.091.064. 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=. Table 4. 1B and 1C (see Table 4.21: Results of Logistic Regression Analyses Showing the Effects of BIT Component Factors on Injury Occurrence Study 1A Usurpation of Right-of Way Freeway Urgency Externally-focused Frustration Destination-activity Orientation B=.087. freeway urgency. logistic regression analyses indicated that usurpation of right-of way.038.22.059.23 and Table 4. p<.01 B=. p<.01 B=.019. p<.075 p<.01 B=. p<. p<.095. When the relationships between the likelihood of injury occurrence and the four component factors of the BIT scale were tested.01.01 Study 1C B=.01 B=. Study 1B: B=. p<.074.01 B=.2. Study 1C: B=.01. p<. p<. Table 4.01 B=.01 B=.140. When driver experience and travel frequency were controlled. 135 .21).035. p<.05 Study 1B 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. p<. p<. p<. p<.01 B=. externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation were significantly related to traffic crash injury in all studies except Study 3 (See Table 4.054.01 and Study 2: B=.01).01 Study 3 Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant 4.24.01 B=.165.01 B=. p<. respectively). p<. that behaviour in traffic would influence injury occurrence.033 p<.069.Behaviour in traffic also influenced injury occurrence in all studies except Study 3.120.6.01 B=. p<.01 Not Significant Study 2 B=.
05.41 167.23: The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores in Study 1B (N=302) Variable Driver Experience 3 years or less 3 to 5 years 5 to 7 years More than 7 years Travel Frequency Everyday Several times a week About once or twice a week About once every two weeks Almost never Note: ** p<.60 185.06 19.25 5. N M SD F 221 60 19 2 168.56 175.88 28.73 170.77 165.32 28.92 157.15 161.35 24.31 161.64 27.89 21.35 33.32 147.48 171.35 4.30 22.82 168.98 33.35 155.82 33.44 178.22: 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<.Table 4.77 8. * p<.43 20.98 171.01 N M SD F 186 88 18 9 161.68 26.184** 136 .64 26.074* 110 81 37 45 29 181.50 28.01.320** 64 110 41 17 69 173.16 3.52 25.29 21.03 25.25 25.600** Table 4.
motorcycle drivers’ experience was not significantly related to total BIT scores (see Table 4.25).06 8. * p<.01).01).12 161.14 15. 137 .77 16.05). Drivers who travelled every day had significantly higher total BIT scores when compared to those who travelled several times a week (p<. drivers who travelled everyday had significantly higher total BIT scores when compared to those who travelled several times a week (p<. and those who almost never travelled (p<.06 160.73 157.Table 4.01). 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<.73 24.05.345* 67 69 33 45 38 170.24: 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<.01). In Study 1B. Drivers who travelled about once or twice a week had significantly higher total BIT when compared to those who almost never travelled (p<.05). In Study 1C.00 14.61 165.05).52 3. the effect of travel frequency on total BIT score was significant. In Study 2.12 154.060** In Study 1A.00 16.81 167. Drivers who travelled everyday had significantly higher total BIT scores when compared to those who almost never travelled (p<.01).01 14. 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<.29 15.53 17. about once every two weeks (p<.05) and about once every two weeks (p<.39 19. On the other hand.01. N M SD F 187 46 16 3 159.88 167.
it is concluded that Hypothesis 2. Not significant N M SD F 3 16 23 91 82.68 20.26).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<. N.37 9.82 162. N. taxicab driver experience was not statistically related to total BIT score. However.Table 4. the direction of the difference was opposite to what had 138 .81 22. * p<.437 (N.33 78.63 1. that drivers’ demographic characteristics would significantly influence total BIT scores was supported in studies of automobile drivers.62 10.65 73. However.89 20.74 77.01. Not significant N M SD F 77 31 10 4 174.71 168.316 1.55 73. Table 4.09 15.60 72.05.S) Therefore.05.528** In Study 3.31 2.920 (N.753* 38 48 27 20 77. It was found that the driver experience was statistically related to total BIT score (see Table 4. * p<.26 10.01.S) 52 32 7 17 14 182.55 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.50 24.381 10.859 11.64 24. In other words.47 5.26: 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<.81 175.81 161.97 8.52 172.S.31 78.94 20. both driver experience and taxicab experience were tested.S.50 184.58 188.80 22.27 14.56 3.
travel frequency actually increased total BIT scores. In Study 2. 1C and 2 differed between different ethnic groups (see Table 4.27). though. ANOVA results for age. in that driver experience significantly influenced total BIT score but taxicab experience had no statistically significant effect.2. however.2. Hypothesis 2 was partially supported in the study of taxicab drivers.been predicted by H2. only H2. 1B. Again. the longer the taxicab operator had been driving. In this case. 1B. Contrary to the subhypothesis.6. where male automobile and motorcycle drivers scored significantly higher than female drivers. 1C and 2. 4. In Study 3. 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. 139 . Contrary to the two sub-hypotheses. In Studies 1A. indicated no significant differences in mean total BIT scores.2 was supported in that travel frequency significantly influenced total BIT score but driver experience had no statistically significant effect. only H2. t-tests indicated that mean total BIT scores differed significantly between male and female participants. Hypothesis 2 was partially supported in the study of motorcycle drivers.3 Hypothesis 3: Demographic Variables Influence Behaviour in Traffic The direct effects on total BIT scores of three demographic variables – gender. the observed effect was opposite to what had been predicted by H2. ANOVA indicated that mean total BIT scores in Studies 1A. ethnicity and age – were investigated. the lower was the total BIT score. For ethnicity.1 and H2.1 was confirmed.
H3. N.S.99. it is concluded that Hypothesis 3 was partially supported in studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers. Study 1C t=3.01). Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers scored significantly higher total BIT scores than Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers (p<. Therefore. p<.05 F=4.S. Study 1B t=2.53. p<.00. In Study 1B. p<. N.62.68. in that gender and ethnicity significantly influenced total BIT scores.01 F=.01 F=1. so the null hypothesis could not be rejected and H3.2 was confirmed. In all studies. Study 2 t=3. Externality-Chance (C).05 F=11. results showed that gender had no influence on the three dimensions of locus of control: Internality (I). In Study 3. N. in that ethnicity significantly influenced total BIT scores.S Study 3 Not Applicable F=3.01 F=8. p<. In Study 1B.1 and H3.66. p<.3 was not supported.05).01 F=2.4 Hypothesis 4: Demographic Variables Influence Locus of Control The direct effects of the same three demographic variables on locus of control were also investigated.01 F=9. Note: Not significant In Study 1A. post hoc analyses indicated that MalaysianChinese automobile drivers and motorcyclists scored significantly lower total BIT scores than either Malaysian-Indian or Malay drivers (p<.9.74. For taxicab drivers studied in Study 3. Malaysian-Indian taxicab drivers had significantly lower total BIT scores than either Malaysian-Chinese taxicab drivers (p<.2 were confirmed.81.01 F=19. N. p<. H3. In Study 1C.S.56. male 140 . and Externality-Powerful-Others (P). p<. however. 1C and Study 2. N. t(250) = 2.27: Effects of Demographic Factors on total BIT Scores Study 1A Gender Ethnicity Age t=2. it was found that female automobile drivers scored significantly higher levels on the I dimension when compared to male automobile drivers.05.S.44.562. 4. p<. p<.Table 4. age had no statistically significant direct effect on total BIT scores.05.12.98.01 F=1. In Study 1A and Study 2.6.05). p<.
t(299) = 2. In Study 1A.01 respectively.automobile and motorcycle drivers scored significantly higher on the P dimension than did female automobile and motorcycle drivers.05 respectively.01).05 and F(2. all ethnic groups had significantly different mean I. 1B.941.370. p<.566.05).01. 2 and 3 the age variable had no significant direct effects on any of the three dimensions of locus of control. Consistent with findings in Study 1A.05 and p<.05 respectively. 119) = 5.01 respectively). p<.503. E and P scores.01). In Study 1B. F(2.05) and Malaysian-Indian drivers scored significantly higher on the P dimension than did drivers in all other ethnic groups (p<. p<. 299) = 5.462. F(2. 1C.05). 141 .05. Post hoc analyses showed that Malaysian-Indian motorcycle drivers scored significantly lower than all other ethnicity groups on the I dimension (p<.490. p<. 298) = 3. 299) = 3. In Study 2. p<. post hoc analyses showed that Malaysian-Indian drivers scored significantly higher on the C and P dimensions than did Malaysian-Chinese drivers (p<.527. 298) = 6. p<. F(2. ethnic group differences were significant only with respect to P subscale scores.476. 298) = 3. p<. ethnic group differences were significant only with respect to mean C and P subscale scores. p<.05 and F(2.05. For Studies 1A. F(2. In Study 1C. ethnic group differences were significant only with respect to I subscale scores. 249) = 3. F(2.041. t(120) = 2. Post hoc analysis showed that MalaysianIndian automobile drivers scored significantly higher than did Malaysian-Chinese drivers (p<. Malaysian-Indian drivers had significantly higher scores on the C dimension than did Malay drivers (p<. Post hoc analyses indicated that Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers had significantly lower I scores than did either Malaysian-Chinese or Malay drivers (p<.
it was observed that age had no significant effect on any of internality. were supported.1. However. H220.127.116.11.05.3 were supported. H4.2 and H4.079. H4.5 Hypothesis 5: Demographic Variables Influence Hopelessness The direct effects of gender. based on the results of t-tests and ANOVA. 1B and 1C found no significant differences in mean scores of hopelessness (BHS) between male and female automobile drivers. In Study 1. In Studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers.1. Hypothesis 5 was partially supported in Study 2 with the sample of motorcycle drivers. Hypothesis 4 was partially supported in studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers. that ethnicity significantly influenced internality.3. externality-chance and externality-powerful-others.3 was supported. In addition.3.Therefore. 4. H5. 1B or 1C.2. Therefore.3. ethnicity and age on hopelessness were investigated. 142 .01). Age was found to have no influence on BHS scores with the sample of motorcycle drivers in Study 2. H4. Female motorcycle drivers scored significantly lower than male motorcycle drivers. Independent sample t-tests on data from Studies 1A. Malay motorcycle drivers had a significantly higher BHS score when compared to Malaysian-Chinese motorcycle drivers (p<. in that gender was observed to significantly influence the externalitypowerful-others scores.2.2. Hypothesis 5 was not supported with respect to automobile drivers in Study 1. t(120) = 2. that gender and ethnicity influence hopelessness. in Study 2. was not supported in either Study 1 or Study 2. p<.2 and H4. so H4. it was found that the gender and ethnicity of motorcycle drivers did have a significant direct effect on hopelessness.1 and H5. externality-chance and externality-powerfulothers. ANOVA results found no significant differences in mean BHS scores between ethnic groups or different age groups among automobile drivers in Studies 1A. H4. that age influences hopelessness.3 were not supported.1.
01 and B = .6 Hypothesis 6: Locus of Control Influences Hopelessness In Study 1A. p<. that internality would influence hopelessness.01 and B = .01 and B = .01) but C and P had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = . p<.01 respectively).341. Hypothesis 6 was partially supported in Study 2.306. internality (I) had a significant negative effect on hopelessness (BHS) (B = -.2 and H6. H6.01) but externality-chance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P) had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = .342. was not supported. that the three locus of control dimensions influence hopelessness.6. In Study 1C. p<.254. were supported.01 and (B = . H6. it is concluded that Hypothesis 6 was supported in studies of automobile drivers. p<.239. 4.290. were supported. p<. respectively).2 and H6.01. p<.1. that externality-chance and externality-powerful-others would influence hopelessness. p<.318.104.22.168 Hypothesis 7: Hopelessness Influences Behaviour in Traffic In studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers. respectively). with higher levels of internality related to lower levels of hopelessness and higher levels of both externality dimensions associated with higher hopelessness. I had a significant negative effect on BHS scores (B = -. 143 . p<. p<. H6.01) but C and P had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = . with the sample of motorcycle drivers.186. no significant effects were observed between I and BHS scores in the sample of motorcycle drivers. p<.371. In Study 2.3. p<. but C and P had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = . H6. I was found to have a significant negative effect on BHS scores (B = -. respectively). Therefore. 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 4.4.312.28). In Study 1B.254.01.6.01.
that hopelessness would have a significant positive effect on freeway urgency was not supported in Study 1B. p<. p<.288. p<. p<.01 B=.05) and destinationactivity orientation (B = . it is concluded that Hypothesis 7. freeway urgency (B = .157.01 Study 1B B=. p<. Therefore.01).254. p<. p<.232.01 B=.153.01 B=.01 B=. p<.01) and destination-activity orientation (B = .280.349. p<.05).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<. it was observed that the higher the hopelessness scores.01).01 B=.151.275. p<.151. that hopelessness would have a significant positive direct effect on usurpation of right-of-way. p<.157.278. p<.415. p<. p<.280. 144 . externallyfocused frustration and destination-activity were supported in both Studies 1 and 2. p<. p<.2. p<.01 B=.Table 4. freeway urgency (B = . the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = .01) and destination-activity orientation (B = . p<. p<.141.01 B=. 1C and 2. freeway urgency (B =.01 B=. with both automobile and motorcycle drivers.153. p<.05 Study 1C B=.247.254.05 B=.01 B=.287.151. it was observed that the higher the hopelessness (BHS) scores.415. B=.4.05 In Study 1A.349. p<.247. p<. N. externally-focused frustration (B = . p<.141.151.317. p<. the higher the hopelessness scores. p<. externally-focused frustration (B = . p<. externally-focused frustration (B = . p<. In Study 1B.05).099.01). the higher the hopelessness scores.01). p<.05 Study 2 B=.232. was supported in Studies 1A. the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = .3 and H7. p<.01 B=. In Study 1C.05 B=.01).1.01 B=.01). the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = .05). H7. p<. externally-focused frustration (B = .01).191.200.418. meaning that H7 was only partially supported for that study. In Study 2. the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = . p<. p<.05) and destination-activity orientation (B = .01 B=. H7.317. that hopelessness would have a significant positive influence on total BIT scores.S.287.01 B=.275. p<.191.05) but not for freeway urgency. H7.
01 B=.01 B=-.178.297. where only H8. results indicated that the higher were subscale scores for C. p<. N.29).006. that locus of control would influence total BIT scores were supported in Study 1.01 B=.S. with internality observed to exert a positive effect on BIT and the two externality dimensions to exert negative effects. p<.S. H8.8 Hypothesis 8: Locus of Control Influences Behaviour in Traffic It was hypothesised that internality (I) would have a negative influence on total BIT scores while both externality-chance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P) would have a positive influence on total BIT scores. p<. that the higher the subscale score for I. but not H8. that internality would negatively influence total BIT scores was supported.1.01 B=. p<.1 and H8. p<. H8. Therefore.753. With regard to H8.1.01 B=.168. the higher were mean total BIT scores automobile drivers in Study 1.229.3 that externality-powerful-others would influence total BIT scores.4.2.05 B=.239.01 B=. the lower were mean total BIT scores.315. N. With regard to H8. Table 4. provided support for hypothesis H8. p<. p<. 145 . p<.01 B=-.208.3. it is concluded that Hypothesis 8 was supported for automobile drivers in Study 1. B=.625. motorcycle and taxicab drivers). but not of the sample of taxicab drivers in Study 3. Hypothesis 8 was partially supported for motorcycle drivers in Study 2.2.01 B=-. Hypothesis 8 was partially supported for taxicab drivers in Study 3. Results of multiple regression analyses (in studies of car.2 and H8. that internality and externality-chance would influence total BIT scores were supported. N.336.6. p<. p<.01 B=.01 B=.044.01 B=-. p<. H8. the higher were mean total BIT scores of automobile and motorcycle drivers in Studies 1 and 2.077. B=. but not of the motorcycle and taxicab drivers in Studies 2 and 3 (See Table 4.339. results indicated that the higher were subscale scores for P.3.1.388.29: Direct Effects of Locus of Control on Total BIT Scores Study 1A I C P Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 Study 3 B=-. p<.S.
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.704. p<. Scores for the three locus of control dimensions – internality.01 and F=8. F=7.909. =8.01 respectively (see Figure 4. p<.05.272.01 (see Figure 4.581. p<. 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. freeway urgency and externally-focused frustration than did Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers with high internal control. results revealed that Malay automobile drivers with high internal control had significantly lower scores on BIT subscales measuring usurpation of right-of-way.Additional analysis: Interaction of ethnicity and locus of control on BIT. p<. Mean Score on Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) 175 Ethnicty Malay MalaysianChinese 170 MalaysianIndian 165 160 155 150 low high Internality Figure 4. F=4. In Study 1C. Further. F=4.1).2).1: Interaction Effects between Ethnicity and Internality on BIT In Study 1C. p<.710.01 (see Figure 4. it was found that Malay automobile drivers with high internal locus of control scored significantly lower in total BIT than did Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers with high internal control Malaysian-Indian student car drivers. 146 .1).
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 64.00 66. First.034.537) and the moderator (hopelessness) showed a significant result.444.00 low high Externality (Chance) Figure 4.00 Malay MalaysianChinese 72.05.Mean Score on Usurpation of Right-of Way Ethnicty 74. Residuals Normality: Skewness=. p<. hopelessness did not moderate the relationship between locus of control and BIT.282.6. in Study 2. 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).00 68. Hopelessness moderated the relationship between internality and the total BIT score and between externality-chance and to total BIT score.00 62. F=4.327.00 MalaysianIndian 70. However.033. 147 . p<.9 Hypothesis 9: Hopelessness Moderates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Behaviour in Traffic For Studies 1A. R2=. B = . 1B and 1C.05.2: Interaction Effect between Ethnicity and Externality-Chance on Usurpation of Right-of Way 4. multiple regression showed mixed results. Kurtosis=-.
01. Residuals Normality: Skewness=. 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. p<. B = .4).608.459.070.BIT Level Effect for drivers with high hopelessness score Effect for drivers with low hopelessness score Internality Figure 4. R2=. F=18.167.4: Moderating Effect of BHS on the Externality (Chance) -BIT Relationship 148 .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=.463. p<. and the moderator (hopelessness) showed a significant result.371). Effect for drivers with high hopelessness score BIT Level Effect for drivers with low hopelessness score Externality (Chance) Figure 4. Kurtosis=-.
2.01. Mean total AQ scores differed significantly between male and female participants in Studies 1B and 1C. N. were supported.05 Study 1C t=2. 1C and 3. F(2. N. results indicated that male automobile drivers scored significantly higher than female drivers on measures of physical aggression.01 t=2. Post hoc analysis showed that Malaysian-Chinese 149 . 249) = 5. ethnicity and age exerted direct effects on drivers’ Aggression Questionnaire (AQ) scores.521. mean total AQ scores differed significantly between ethnic groups. In Study 1C.S t=2.Therefore. However.1.05 respectively.164.210. verbal aggression and indirect aggression (see Table 4.S. p<. p<.01 t=-. it is concluded that Hypothesis 9 was not supported in Study 1. that hopelessness would moderate the relationship between internality and total BIT scores. male automobile drivers had significantly higher total AQ scores than did female automobile drivers.480.690. In Study 1B and Study 3. that hopelessness would moderate the relationship between externalitychance and total BIT scores. and t(250) = 2. p<.05 t=4.01 The relationship between ethnic background and aggression was tested for automobile drivers in Studies 1B.01 (see table 4. When mean subscale scores for the five AQ component factors were tested. p<.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. t= . p<.10 Hypothesis 10: Demographic Factors Influence Aggression Analyses tested whether gender. With motorcycle drivers.690. p<.05 t=. Table 4. Hopelessness did not moderate the locus of control-BIT relation for automobile drivers.187.298. 4. p<. p<. N.032.677.30). and H9.6.780.01 t=2.467. Hypothesis 9 was partially supported in Study 2.820. however. p<.S t=2. ANOVA revealed no significant differences between ethnic groups in mean total AQ scores.01 t=4. In both studies. the H9. N. t(300) = 2. p<.S t=1.31).603.603. p<.
ANOVA revealed no significant differences between ethnic groups in mean scores in any of the AQ subscale scores. p<.432. N. N. N. Mean total AQ scores and mean scores on the five AQ subscales did not differ significantly between age groups either for automobile drivers in Studies 1B and 1C or for taxicab drivers in Study 3.S. F=1. In Study 1C. The mean indirect aggression (IND) scores of Malay.804.S.01). p<. N. 299) = 5.155. F(2.S.S.S.526.041.01). mean IND scores of Malay.01).01 F=2.077.629. Table 4.763. N. F=2.S. In Study 3. N. N. p<. the mean verbal aggression (VER) scores of Malay.S.S.041. Similar to the findings in Study 1B. N.398. Malaysian-Chinese and Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers were also significantly different. N.432. F=2. Malaysian-Chinese and Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers were significantly different.05. When AQ subscale scores were tested for Study 1B and Study 1C.561.S. F=1. N.01).S. F=1.31: Direct Effects of Ethnicity on AQ Total and Subscale Factors Total Aggression score Physical Aggression (PHY) Verbal Aggression (VER) Anger (ANG) Hostility (HOS) Indirect Aggression (IND) Study 1B F=2. p<.021.182.S F=10. In Study 1B.01. p<. N. F=1. p<.automobile drivers in Study 1C had significantly lower total AQ scores than did Malay or Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers (p<. F=5.01. mixed results were found. N.567. F(2.632.05 Study 1C F=5. 299) = 4. F=4. p<. F=. F(2.57.422. Malay automobile drivers scored significantly higher VER scores than drivers from other ethnic groups (p<.564.S.S. N. Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers had significantly lower IND scores than drivers from other ethnic groups (p<. F=1. F=2.01 F=. 249) = 10.521. Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers had significantly lower IND scores than drivers from other ethnic groups (p<. Malaysian-Chinese and Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers were significantly different. N.S. F=2. 150 .01 Study 3 F=1.904.
VER and IND) of five component factors among automobile drivers sampled in both Studies 1B and 1C. externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation. H10. H10.2 (that ethnicity would influence aggression level) was supported only in Study 1C and only with respect to total AQ. that aggression would have a direct positive effect on externally-focused frustration and on destination-activity orientation. however. were supported. VER and IND subscale scores.3 and H11. 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 4.4.32). 151 .1 (that gender would influence aggression) was supported with respect to measures of total aggression and to the same three (PHY.4. This means that when taxicab drivers’ aggression scores were higher.3 (that age would negatively influence aggression) was not supported. that aggression would have a direct positive effect on the usurpation of right-of way.Therefore. it is concluded that Hypothesis 11. In Studies 1B and 1C. H11. The higher the total aggression scores. total BIT scores and scores on usurpation of right-of way and freeway urgency subscales were higher. H11. were all supported. was supported. H11. Therefore.2. the higher were automobile drivers’ total BIT scores and scores on the four components. that aggression would have a positive influence on total BIT scores.3 and H11.11 Hypothesis 11: Aggression Influences Behaviour in Traffic In Study 1B and Study 1C. However. In Study 3. externally-focused frustration. freeway urgency.6. respectively. and destination-activity orientation (see Table 4.29). H10. with regard to the taxicab drivers sampled in Study 3. freeway urgency. it is concluded that Hypothesis 10 was partially supported. only H11. linear regression analyses indicated that total AQ scores predicted total BIT scores and also scores measuring the four BIT component factors: usurpation of right-of-way. 4.1. in studies of both automobile drivers and taxicab drivers.
p<.540. Total BIT Score Usurpation of Right-of-way Freeway Urgency Externally-Focused Frustration Destination-Activity Orientation The effects of AQ subscale factors on the total BIT score were also tested. p<.S.S.263. B = . When the interaction effect of ethnicity and hopelessness was tested on the BIT and its four component factors. respectively. However.183.385.01 B=. Malay automobile drivers with high VER scores tended to score 152 .235.01 B=.Table 4.324. B=. Verbal aggression (VER) was found to have no significant influence on total BIT scores. B = . Study 1C and Study 3. and B = . p<. Study 1C and Study 3. their total BIT scores tend to be higher.01 and B = . respectively.520.01.01 respectively. p<.01. indirect aggression (IND) was also found to have significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1B and Study 1C.01 B=. p<. the higher were total BIT scores.32: Effect of Aggression on Total BIT Scores and on BIT Component Factors Study 1B B=. but not in Study 3.01 Study 3 B=. p<. p<. p<. Also. p<. p<.01.01 B=.01 B=. Linear regression analyses indicated that physical aggression (PHY) had a significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1B. F=3.438. Study 2 and Study 3. p<.048.204.01 B=. p<. p<.01.565.5). B = .01 and B = .121.01.370.505. but that this does not apply to taxi drivers. it was found that there was an interaction effect between ethnicity and verbal aggression (VER) on freeway urgency. p<. p<. Similarly. 1B. Results of regression analyses also showed that anger (ANG) had a significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1B and Study 1C. the higher the levels of PHY and HOS.461. p<. p<.380.01 respectively. p<. no interaction effects were found in all studies – Study 1A. N. Additional analysis: Interaction effects of ethnicity and aggression on BIT.05 B=. p<.545.01 Study 1C B=.01. N. p<.491. p<.216. This implies that when automobile drivers have higher levels of ANG and IND. hostility (HOS) was found to have a significant positive influence on BIT in Study 1B.01 B=. B = . p<.428.05 B=. 1C.483. B = .229.263. p<. With both automobile and taxicab drivers.387.881. but not in Study 3.01 B=.05 (see Figure 4. and B = .01 B=. B = . p<.370.
316.297. Kurtosis=-. In other words. F=81. and R2 values changed after the I x AQ interaction was added in the regression models (R2=. R2=.100. Study 1C and Study 3. and B=-.516.645. Kurtosis=-. p<.01.5: Interaction of Ethnicity and Verbal Aggression on Freeway Urgency 4.362.12.929.12 Hypothesis 12: Locus of Control Moderates the Relationship between Aggression and Behaviour in Traffic 4.00 Malay ChineseMalaysian 50.961.076.131.1 Internality as a Moderator Hierarchical regression analyses revealed that internality (I) moderated the relationship between aggression and total BIT score. p<.271. for Study 1B. B=-.01. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-. The moderating effect of I was significant.6. Mean Score on Freeway Urgency Ethnicty 52.01. R2=.00 IndianMalaysian 48. B=-. R2=.172. respectively.00 42. p<.00 Low High Verbal Aggression Figure 4. p<.6.significantly higher on freeway urgency than did Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers with high VER scores.00 44. 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.05.00 46.01. F=100.003. p<. aggressive drivers with low internal locus of control would 153 . Residuals Normality: Skewness=.
F=91.have higher BIT scores compared to drivers with high internal locus of control (see figure 4. and the moderating effects of C and P were 154 . In Study 1B. Effect for aggressive drivers with low internality score BIT Level Effect for aggressive drivers with high internality score Aggression Level Figure 4.694. F=78. R2=.297.01. p<. p<. F=94. Kurtosis=-.507.015. Residuals Normality: Skewness= -.271.01. and the moderating effects of C and P were significant.387.704. F=71.6.088. the hierarchical regression revealed that externalitychance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P) moderated the relationship between aggression and total BIT score. Consistent with the findings from Study 1B. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-. R2=. B = .297. R2=.606.117. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-. respectively). 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=.6: Moderating Effect of Internality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship 4. R2 values changed after both the C x AQ and P x AQ interactions were added in the respective regression models (R2=. Kurtosis=. p<.01 and B = .069. This applied to both automobile drivers and taxicab drivers. p<. p<. Kurtosis=.431.757.271. Kurtosis=-.794. p<.01.109. R2=.369.360. R2=.2 Externality-chance and Externality-powerful-others as Moderators In Study 1B and Study 1C.6).12.01 respectively. R2=. respectively).897.01. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-463.015.
Therefore.332. H12.01 respectively.2.significant. R2 values did not change after either the C x AQ or P x AQ interactions were added in the regression models.3. This means that aggressive taxicab drivers with high scores on either the C or P locus of control dimensions did not differ greatly in total BIT scores from taxicab drivers with low scores on the C or P dimensions. that the internality. it is concluded that the Hypothesis 12 was supported in Studies 1B and 1C. with the samples of automobile drivers study for student car drivers. H12.1. Effect for aggressive drivers with high externality scores BIT Level Effect for aggressive drivers with low externality scores Aggression Level Figure 4. and H12.7: Moderating Effects of Externality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship However. hierarchical regression results showed that neither C nor P moderated the relationship between aggression and total BIT scores for taxicab drivers in Study 3. B = .01 and B = .302. p<. p<.7). and the moderation effect was not significant. externality-chance and externality-powerful-others 155 . This means that aggressive automobile drivers scoring high on either the C or P locus of control dimensions had higher total BIT scores than automobile drivers scoring low on either the C or P dimensions (see Figure 4.
ANOVA results showed that ethnic groups differed significantly with respect to mean total HAT scores.01.01 but not on about the derogation of others. that internality moderates the relationship between aggression and total BIT scores was supported. and about revenge F(2. 249) = 5.13 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. H122 and H12.885. Only H12. Post hoc analysis indicated that Chinese-Malaysian automobile drivers had significantly lower total HAT scores than either Malay or Indian-Malaysian automobile drivers (p<. p<. p<.01). There were also significant differences between ethnic groups on subscale scores measuring statements about physical aggression F(2. No significant differences were observed between age groups with respect to total HAT scores or to scores on any of the three HAT subscales. On the subscale measuring statements about revenge. 248) = 3.314. male automobile drivers scored significantly higher on HAT subscales measuring statements about physical aggression.05).263. 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<. F(2. p<. Also. p<. Hypothesis 12 was only partially supported in Study 3. t(249)=2.dimensions of locus of control moderate the relationship between aggression and total BIT scores were supported.05.01. 249) = 4.279.737. There were no significant differences between ethnic groups with respect to hostile statements about the derogation of others. p<. Chinese-Malaysian automobile drivers had significantly lower scores than IndianMalaysian automobile drivers (p<.343.05). t(250) = 3.05.6.05) or Indian-Malaysian automobile drivers (p<. 156 . 4. p<.3.1. with the sample of taxicab drivers. that externality-chance and externality-powerful-others moderates the relationship between aggression and BIT scores were not supported.01 and revenge: t(249) = 3. However.
H13. were supported. B = . H13. (that thoughts about physical aggression. with the sample of automobile drivers studied. that gender and ethnicity respectively would have significant direct effects on hostile automatic thoughts.01. B = .364. This means that. 157 . it is concluded that the Hypothesis 13. Therefore. was supported. B = . that hostile automatic thoughts would influence behaviour in traffic.3. p<.307. it is concluded that the Hypothesis 14. p<.1 and H13. B = . the higher the scores on the three classes of hostile automatic thought.01. H14.14 Hypothesis 14: Hostile Automatic Thoughts Influence Behaviour in Traffic In Study 1C.01.01 and destination-activity orientation.224.413.2. 4. the higher were automobile drivers’ total BIT scores and scores on the four components. that age would influence hostile automatic thoughts. externally-focused frustration. This means that.2 and H14. the higher were total BIT scores. p<.379. p<.3.277.01. was not supported. were supported.Therefore.6. respectively. The effects of HAT subscales measuring the three classes of hostile automatic thoughts. linear regression analyses indicated that total HAT scores predicted total BIT scores. H14. the higher the total HAT scores. p<. freeway urgency. was partially supported.192. Linear regression analyses indicated that subscales measuring thoughts about physical aggression. and also scores measuring the four BIT component factors: usurpation of right-of-way. on total BIT score were also tested.01. that demographic variables would influence hostile automatic thoughts. p<.01.1. p<.394. derogation of others and revenge) positively influence total BIT scores. B = .01 and B = . derogation of others and revenge had a significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1C B =. p<. B = .
-554.01. B = .05.013. 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 4.01.8). In other words.6. F=55. Normality Residuals: Skewness=. also moderated the relationship between aggression and BIT.8: Moderating Effect of Externality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship It was observed that two of the HAT subscales.002.565. F=57.297. The R2 value changed after the HAT-Physical Aggression x AQ interaction was added in the regression model (R2=. and the moderating effect of HAT-Physical 158 .911. Kurtosis=. R2=.085).188.809. 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.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. R2 values changed after the HAT x AQ interaction was added in the regression model (R2=.072). p<. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-. Kurtosis=. Physical Aggression and Revenge.4. and the moderating effect of HAT was significant. p<. p<. R2=.297.
246.294. that hostile statements about physical aggression and revenge respectively moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic.01. p<.1 and H15. 4.297. F=59. Kurtosis=.475.3. However. were supported. p<. p<. Therefore.207.01. H15. H15. Normality Residuals: Skewness=. 159 .16 Summary of Hypothesis Testing The following table provides summarised results for the hypotheses and subhypotheses in this study (see Table 4.Aggression was significant. was supported. it is concluded that Hypothesis 15. B = .2.01. R2=. The HAT subscale measuring thoughts about the derogation of others did not moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic. B = . The R2 value also changed after the HATRevenge x AQ interaction was added in the regression model (R2=. and the moderating effect of HAT-Revenge was significant.026. was not supported. that hostile statements about the derogation of others moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic.33).092). that total HAT score would moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic.6.
1.S N.2.1.S N.2: Ethnicity will influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.S S S N.S P.S P.S S N.S N.S S S S S N.S N.3: Ethnicity influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H4.S S S N.S S S S S S N.S 1B S S S S S S S S S S S S S S P.2.1: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.S N.S N.1.S S N.S S N.S N.S S S N.4: Destination-activity orientation will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H2: Driver characteristics will influence behaviour in traffic H2.1: Gender will influence total BIT score H3.S S S N.2: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.1: Driver experience will have a negative influence on total BIT score H2.1: Age will influence the Locus of Control: Internality S S S S S S S S S S S S S S P.3: Age will have a negative influence on total BIT score H4: Demographic variables will influence the Locus of Control H4.S N.S N.S N.33: Summarised Results of the Hypotheses and Sub-hypotheses STUDY 1A H1: BIT will have a positive influence on motor vehicle crash outcomes H1.2: Taxicab experience will have a negative influence on total BIT score H3: Demographic variables will influence behaviour in traffic H3.2.1: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.S N.2: Traveling frequency will have a negative influence on total BIT score H2.4:Destination-activity orientation will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.S S P.S 3 P.2.S 2 S S S S S S S S S S S P.3: Gender will influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H4.2.1.S N.S N.S P.3:Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H22.214.171.124.2: Freeway urgency will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.1: Ethnicity will influence the Locus of Control: Internality H4.1: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.S 1C P.S N.1: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Internality H4.S S S N.S N.S S S S P.S S S N.S.S N.S 160 .2.S S N.S S S S S N.S P.Table 4.S P. S N.S N.3: Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.S S S S S N.S P.1.S N.S N.2 :Freeway urgency will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.S N.S N.2: Ethnicity will influence total BIT score H3.3.2: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.
S STUDY 1C N.S S S S S S S S P.3: Externality-Powerful-Others will have a positive influence on total BIT score H9: Hopelessness will moderate the Locus of Control-BIT relationship H9.S N.S N.3: Hopelessness will moderate the Externality-Powerful-Others--BIT relationship H10: Demographic variables will influence aggression H10. P.S N.2: Externality-Chance will have a positive influence on total BIT H8.S S S N.S P.S N.S N.S N.33 (Continued) 1A H4.S 1B N. blank=Not Applicable N.2: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Freeway urgency H7.S N.S P.S N.S N.S N.S S N.S P.S N.S N.S N.3: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Externally-focused frustration H7.S N.1: Gender will influence Hopelessness H5.S N.3: Age will influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H5: Demographic variables will influence Hopelessness H5.2: Ethnic background will influence Aggression H10.1: Hopelessness will moderate the Internality-BIT relation H9.S S S S S S S S S S S S S S N.S S 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 H8.3.S N.S= Not Supported.S S N.S S N.3: Age will have a negative influence on Aggression S=Supported.S N.1: Internality will have a negative influence on total BIT score H8.Table 4.S N.1: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Usurpation of right-of way H7.S N.1: Internality will have a negative influence on Hopelessness H6.S N.2: Ethnic background will influence of Hopelessness H5. N.S S S S S S S N.S N.S P.S N.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.S S S S S S S S S S S S S S N.S N.S S S S S P.S 2 N.2: Age will influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.S 3 N.3: Age will influence Hopelessness H6: Locus of Control will influence Hopelessness H6.2: Externality-Chance will have a positive influence on Hopelessness H6.S= Partially Supported.S N.3.S N.S N.S S S N.S N.S P.1: Gender will influence Aggression H10.S 161 .S N.S N.S N.2: Hopelessness will moderate the Externality-Chance--BIT relationship H9.S S S N.
2: Aggression will have a positive influence on Freeway urgency H11.S N.2: Ethnic background will influence hostile automatic thoughts H13.1: Thoughts about Physical Aggression will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H15.2: Thoughts about the Derogation of Others will have a positive influence on total BIT score H14.S 162 .S S S S S P. N.S= Partially Supported. P.S N.S S 2 3 P.3: Aggression will have a positive influence on Externally-focused frustration H11.S= Not Supported.S S N.Table 4.S P.2: Externality-Chance will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12.S S S N.4: Aggression will have a positive influence on Destination-activity orientation H12: Locus of Control will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12.3: Thoughts about Revenge will have a positive influence on total BIT score H15: Hostile Automatic Thoughts will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H15.S S N.S S S N.3: Age will have a negative influence on hostile automatic thoughts H14: Hostile Automatic Thoughts will have a positive influence on behaviour in traffic H14. blank=Not Applicable 1B S S S S S S S S S STUDY 1C S S S S S S S S S P.3: Externality-Powerful-Others will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H13: Demographic variables will influence Hostile Automatic Thought s H13.1: Aggression will have a positive influence on usurpation of right-of way H11.1: Thoughts about Physical Aggression will have a positive influence on total BIT score H14.1: Gender will have a positive influence on hostile automatic thoughts H13.3: Thoughts about Revenge will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship S=Supported.33 (Continued) 1A H11: Aggression will have a positive influence on behaviour in traffic H11.2: Thoughts about the Derogation-of-Others will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H15.1: Internality will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12.
F4 χ2 49.00000 .068 .34. Hostile Automatic Thought (HAT). externality (Chance) and externality (Powerful-Other) as distal context factors. This contextual mediated model was tested six times and the goodness-of-fit indices for these models are indicated in Table 4. AQ. and (3) crash occurrence and injury occurrence as outcome. externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation as proximal context factors. C. Hopelessness (BHS).97 . hopelessness or subtracting the latent variables in order to obtain the optimal goodness-of-fit index. two were worthy of further examination.97 63. 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. Table 4. Three studies (Study 1C: automobile driver. F3.f. BHS. F2.7. F3.1 Study 1C The contextual mediated model in this study was tested with four distal factors – Locus of Control. HAT Proximal Factors F1. F2.02 d. HAT I. AQ.93 .05522 .4. externally-focused frustration (F3) and destination-activity orientation (F4) Of the six models tested. Hopelessness. e. 23 28 33 38 24 33 p-value GFI .7 Testing the Contextual Mediated Model Using Structural Equation Modelling (LISREL Analysis) The contextual mediated model was tested using Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) – path analysis through LISREL 8. F4 F1. F3.34: SEM Comparison (Study 1C) Distal Factors 1C1 1C2 1C3 1C4 1C5 1C6 I.96 RMSEA .g. freeway urgency (F2). F2.90 110. P.00000 .045 . P I. Study 2: motorcycle driver. Externality Powerful-Other (P). 2002).93 . HAT I. Model 1C5 had better fit but necessitated dropping one of the component factors. Externality Chance (C). F2. C.96 .80 104. These models were re-specified by adding different proximal context factors. All proposed models measured: (1) internality. C.93 .00111 .060 Note: Internality (I).38 100. P. AQ. Aggression (AQ).52 (Jöreskog and Sörbom. F4 F1. P. F2. C.093 . F3 F1.087 . C. C. AQ I. P. P.00000 . AQ and Hostile Automatic Thought (HAT). (2) usurpation of right-of-way. freeway urgency.00126 . F4 F1. 163 . BHS I. F2. F4 F1. BHS. F3.58 35. Usurpation of right-of-way (F1).102 . 4.
f. Externality (Powerful-Other).97. The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=. RMR=. For Model C5.23 respectively (see Figure 4.10). subsequent additional analysis was carried out to calculate a range of comparative fit indices. An alternate model.29 and . CFI=.13.28 and . The five distal variables accounted for 70% of the variance in BIT scores. ECVI=.3. AGFI=.91.94.97. AGFI=.26.42. For Model C6. The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=. Externality (Chance). . . which are detailed in sect.99) and constituted the best fit of all six of the tested models. goodness-of-fit was characterised as excellent (χ2=35. but not as good as for C5. The five distal variables accounted for 67% of the variance in BIT scores. C6. Externality (Chance).22 respectively (see Figure 4.97. d. retained all four of the BIT component factors and fit indices were acceptable. Making a decision to select one of these models over the other raised a number of interesting points.10).51 and PGFI=.96. and PGFI=. RMSEA=.32. RMSEA=.=24.destination-activity orientation (F4).35. d. 5.92) on accident involvement.26. GFI=.045.14. . RMR=.02. ECVI=. . values were: NFI=. The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that all possible paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant: Internality.96. To aid this discussion. The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that all possible paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant: Internality.043. For Model C5. GFI=.48.5. Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thought had effects on BIT.42. values for these additional indices were: NFI=. with path coefficients = -.92) on accident involvement. CFI=. with path coefficients = -. . Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thought had effects on BIT.f.=33.043. . 164 . of the BIT score. For Model C6.060. goodness-of-fit was characterised as very good (χ2=63.98). Externality (Powerful-Other).
BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration.58* . *p<.63* .Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome Internality -.045 RMR=.05 BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way.13* Externality (Powerful Other) BIT1 BIT2 BIT3 .51* .57* Injury Occurrence . BITF4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4.f =24 CFI=.043 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.32* Externality (Chance) .99 P-value = .97 d.005522 N=252 RMSEA=.22* Hostile Automatic Thought Model Statistics χ2=35.26* Crash Occurrence Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) . BITF2=Freeway Urgency.97 GFI=.9: Contextual Mediated Model 1C5 (Three BIT Factors) 165 .92* Accident Involvement .79* .29* Aggression (AQ) .
50* .96 d.31* Externality (Chance) . BITF2=Freeway Urgency.39* .f =33 CFI=.26* Crash Occurrence Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) .56* .13* Externality (Powerful Other) BIT1 BIT2 BIT3 BIT4 .043 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.10: Contextual Mediated Model 1C6 (Four BIT Factors) 166 .05 BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way.98 P-value = .00126 N=252 RMSEA=.63* .02 GFI=.060 RMR=.Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome Internality -. *p<.92* Accident Involvement .58* Injury Occurrence .77* . BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration.22* Hostile Automatic Thought Model Statistics χ2=63. BITF4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4.29* Aggression (AQ) .
GFI=. the contextual mediated model was tested using Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thoughts and their latent variables (component factors) as distal context factors.94 169. HAT-D. F2. IND. Hostility (HOS). F2. F4 F1. It was found that both structural paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant: Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thought have effects on the Behaviour of Traffic (BIT).95). Hostile Automatic Thought-Derogation of others (HAT-D). Hostile Automatic Thought-Revenge(HAT-R). externally-focused frustration (F3) and destination-activity orientation (F4) As depicted in Figure 4.66 153.00000 . F3.=61.078. HOS.078 Note: Physical aggression (PHY).66 131. HAT-P. HAT-R Proximal Factors F1. ANG. HAT-D. F3.13 respectively.93 .00000 GFI RMSEA . path coefficients = .80) on the accident involvement. VER. HAT-P.f. F4 χ2 108.92 . HAT-P. Indirect aggression (IND). F2. IND PHY. F2. freeway urgency (F2). F3 F1.35).65 and .In addition.91. HOS. The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=.084 .00000 . HAT-D. HOS. Usurpation of right-of-way (F1).00111 . The proposed contextual mediated model was tested five times (see Table 4. IND. HOS. HAT-R PHY.00000 . CFI=. ANG.41. Aggression (AQ). IND. IND. VER.66). HOS. HAT-R PHY. The results for the goodness-offit indexes are shown as follows: Table 4. F3 F1. 42 61 50 61 61 p-value . HAT-R PHY.91 . ANG. d.084 .73 169. 167 . Hostile Automatic Thought was found to have a direct effect on the AQ (path coefficient=. Hostile Automatic Thought-Physical aggression (HAT-P). F3. Angry (ANG). F2. ANG. VER. ANG.10.41 d. F4 F1. RMSEA=. Verbal aggression (VER).35: Different Contextual Models (Study 1C) Distal Factors PHY. the final model has provided a reasonable fit to the data (χ2=153.91 .91 . HAT-P. HAT-D.081 .f.080 . using automobile drivers sampled in Study 1C.
66* .65* .29* Hostility .41 GFI=.58* .Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome Physical Aggression . BIT2=Freeway Urgency.91 d.63* Indirect Aggression .90* Derogation of Other Hostile Automatic Thought . BIT4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4. BIT3=Externally-Focused Frustration. *p<.60* Injury Occurrence Physical Aggression .11: Contextual Mediated Model Study 1C (Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thoughts) 168 .82* Revenge BIT1=Usurpation of Right-of way.f =61 CFI=.058 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.68* Aggression (AQ) BIT1 BIT2 BIT3 BIT4 .62* .61* .83* .72* .95 P-value = .000 N=252 RMSEA=.13* Model Statistics χ2=153.05 .80* Accident Involvement .078 RMR=.69* Anger .65* Crash Occurrence Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) .
33 33.058 .98). Externality Chance (C). C.36: Different Contextual Models (Study 2) Distal Factors Proximal Factors χ2 29.94 . 169 .06722 .86 23 28 23 . P I.12 d. 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. Internality and Externality (Chance) the Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) but not Externality (PowerfulOther). F2. Usurpation of right-of-way (F1).f. F4 F1.f.12. The proposed contextual mediated model was tested three times (see Table 4. C.65 and . Hopelessness (BHS).66) on the accident involvement. The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that three paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant.36).2 Study 2 In Study 2.12). The contextual mediated model was tested using locus of control and hopelessness as distal context factors.94. BHS I.95 . The four distal variables accounted for 49% of the variance in BIT. F3. RMSEA=. the final model for the student motorcycle drivers did not include hopelessness. F3 F1. the participants were motorcycle drivers. path coefficients = -. Compared to the Study 1 for student car drivers.062 Note: Internality (I).94 . F2.7. C. F3. The goodness-of-fit indexes for these models are shown as follow: Table 4. p-value GFI RMSEA I. BHS F1. P.4.17631 . GFI=. P. F2. freeway urgency (F2).047 .80 respectively (see Figure 4. CFI=.047.=28. d.07580 . F4 39. The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=. Externality Powerful-Other (P).
66* Accident Involvement Externality (Powerful Other) .95 d.05 BIT1=Usurpation of Right-of way.046 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.57* Internality -. BIT4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4.65* Externality (Chance) . *p<.78* .80* Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) .05 Injury Occurrence Model Statistics χ2=29.Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome BIT1 BIT2 .047 RMR=.f =23 CFI=.88* Crash Occurrence .12 GFI=.99 P-value = .17631 N=122 RMSEA=. BIT3=Externally-Focused Frustration.12: Contextual Mediated Model Study 2 170 . BIT2=Freeway Urgency.83* BIT3 .89* .70* BIT4 .
95.40) on the accident involvement.7. Externality Powerful-Other (ExPo). The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=.061 Note: Internality (I). C.20 respectively (see Figure 4. C. AQ F1.97 . F4 50.079 Injury Occurrence I. I. AQ and only crash occurrence as outcome has provided the best goodness-of-fit to the data (χ2=31. F3. RMSEA=.061. freeway urgency (F2). d. F3. Hopelessness (H).3 Study 3 In Study 3.95 .20 and .35265 . p-value GFI RMSEA Crash Occurrence.37). This contextual mediated model was tested four times (see Table 4. F4 Crash Occurrence 31.22 23 .37: Different Contextual Models (Study 3) Distal Factors I. 171 .4.94 .f. path coefficients = -. the participants were taxi drivers.82 28 . F2. Internality and AQ. externally-focused frustration (F3) and destination-activity orientation (F4) Model included locus of control.39.027 I. F2. The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that two out of four possible paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant. AQ F1.39 21 . Externality Chance (ExC). The goodness-of-fit indexes for these models are shown as follow: Table 4. P.=21. The contextual mediated model was tested using locus of control and hopelessness as distal context factors.93 . P. F2. The four distal variables accounted for 12% of the variance in BIT.06743 . F4 Crash Occurrence 18.f. GFI=.068 Injury Occurrence Crash Occurrence. F4 Outcomes χ2 d. AQ F1. F2.13). Usurpation of right-of-way (F1).59 17 .00524 . C. have effects on the Behaviour in Traffic (BIT). 37. but not Externality. P Proximal Factors F1. F3.95).03084 . CFI=. C. F3.
BIT2=Freeway Urgency. BIT3=Externally-Focused Frustration.39* Internality -.05 BIT1=Usurpation of Right-of way.20* Externality (Chance) .95 d.13: Contextual Mediated Model Study 3 172 .06743 N=133 RMSEA=.03 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) .74* -.Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome BIT1 BIT2 .40* Crash Occurrence Externality (Powerful Other) . *p<.053 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.95 P-value = .061 RMR=.39 GFI=.f =21 CFI=.61* BIT4 .63* BIT3 .13 . BIT4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4.20* Aggression (AQ) Model Statistics χ2=31.
consistent with path analysis results.8.8.38). 2 and 3 are satisfied. 4. (2) the relationship between locus of control and accident involvement. BIT was a complete mediator for the relationship between AQ total score and crash occurrence.4.39).38: BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hopelessness and Crash Outcomes BIT mediates HopelessnessCrash Occurrence Study 1A Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 BIT mediates the HopelessnessInjury Occurrence Relation Study 1A Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 Step 1 Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 1 Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 2 Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Step 2 Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 4 Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Step 4 Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Notes: Step 1=independent variable has a significant effect on the mediator. the mediating effect of BIT on hopelessness and crash outcomes relationship could not be estimated. 173 .8 Testing Mediational Relationships Using SPSS The mediating effects of BIT on: (1) the relationship between hopelessness and accident involvement. and. 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. Not applicable = mediating effect could only be tested when conditions in Step1. Step 3=mediator has a significant effect on the dependent variable. Table 4. Step2=independent variable has a significant effect on the dependent variable.1 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hopelessness and Crash Outcomes In all studies. hopelessness did not significantly influence the crash outcomes (see Table 4. Therefore. 4. (4) the relationship between hostile automatic thoughts and accident involvement were tested using the four-step procedure proposed by Baron and Kenny (1986). (3) the relationship between aggression and accident involvement.2 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Aggression and Crash Outcomes The four-step regression analysis showed that BIT strongly mediated the relationship between aggression and crash outcomes (see table 4.
1B and 1C. in Studies 1A.BIT was a partial mediator for the relationship between aggression and injury occurrence. behaviour in traffic (BIT) had complete or partial mediating effects on the relationship between the three locus of control dimensions – Internality (I).41).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 4.8.39: 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 4.8.40).4 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Crash Outcomes For automobile drivers. where the 174 . Externality-Chance (C) and Externality-PowerfulOthers – and crash outcomes (See Table 4.40: 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. Table 4. Exceptions to this were found only with respect to the relationship between P and both crash outcomes in Study 1A. Table 4.
41: BIT Mediates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Crash Outcomes BIT mediates I-Crash Occurrence Relation Study 1A Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 Study 3 BIT mediates I-Injury Occurrence Relation Study 1A Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 Study 3 BIT mediates C-Crash Occurrence Relation Study 1A Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 Study 3 BIT mediates C-Injury Occurrence Relation Study 1A Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 Study 3 Step 1 Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 1 Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 1 Significant Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Step 1 Significant Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Step 2 Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Not Significant Step 2 Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Not Significant Step 2 Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 2 Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Step 4 Complete Mediator Partial Mediator Partial Mediator Not Applicable Not Applicable Step 4 Complete Mediator Partial Mediator Partial Mediator Not Applicable Not Applicable Step 4 Partial Mediator Complete Mediator Partial Mediator Complete Mediator Not Applicable Step 4 Partial Mediator Complete Mediator Partial Mediator Complete Mediator Not Applicable 175 . BIT had no mediating effects on the relationship between I. For taxicab drivers in Study 3. Table 4.mediating effect of BIT total scores could not be estimated because requisite conditions in the second step of the analysis were not satisfied. With respect to the relationship between I and the crash outcomes and the relationship between P and the crash outcomes. C or P and the two crash outcomes. For motorcycle drivers in Study 2. no mediating effect of BIT could be estimated since requisite conditions in the second step of the analysis were not satisfied. BIT had a complete mediating effect on the relationship between C and both crash outcomes.
162. Study 2: t(421)= -4.01. There was no significant difference in scores on the P dimension between automobile drivers and motorcycle drivers.663. Study 1A vs. 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. 1B and 1C scored significantly lower on hopelessness than did motorcycle drivers.837. p <. Study 1C vs. 176 .Table 4. Study 1B vs. Study 1C vs. Study 1A vs. p <. p <.01.426.442. p <.01. scores for distal variables (locus of control and hopelessness).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. It was found that there were significant differences in scores for hopelessness. Study 2: t(372)= -3. Study 2: t(422)= 8.01. Automobile drivers in Studies 1A.1 Differences between Automobile Drivers and Motorcycle Drivers In a subsequent analysis. p <. automobile drivers scored higher than motorcycle drivers on I. Motorcycle Drivers and Taxicab Drivers 4.665.9 Comparison of Automobile Drivers.9. Study 2: t(421)= -3.01.05. p <. p <.01. Study 1B vs. Study 2: t(422)= -2.993. Study 2: t(421)= 7. Automobile drivers also scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers on C. Study 1A vs. With respect to the three dimensions of locus of control. Study 2: t(372)= 8.
and t(986)= 35.926.01. t(986)= 37.01.01.977. p <.704. p <. Motorcycle drivers scored higher than taxicab drivers on C. p <. t(253)= 8. p <. and on all four BIT subscales: “usurpation of right-of way”. p <. p <.01. Study 2: t(372)= -5. t(253) = 2.186.01.261.402.01. p <.01. p <. p <. and to injury occurrence.01.01. Study 1B vs. Automobile drivers scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers in crash occurrence. Study 1B vs. t(986)= 30.Automobile drivers scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers with respect to the total BIT score. t(986)= 5.747.775. 177 . Study 1C vs. p <.614. taxicab drivers scored higher than automobile drivers on the I dimension.861. p <. Study 2: t(421)= -3.3 Differences between Motorcycle Drivers and Taxicab Drivers Taxicab drivers scored higher than motorcycle drivers on the I locus of control dimension. Automobile drivers scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers in injury occurrence. Study 2: t(422)= -6.01. Study 2: t(421)= -8. p <. t(986)= 34.9. p <. p <.211. There were no significant differences scores on either C or P between the automobile drivers and taxicab drivers. Study 1A vs. Study 1A vs. Study 1C vs. Study 2: t(372)= -7. t(986)= 3.01.01. 4. respectively. p <. p <.01.484.9.01. Study 2: t(421)= -7.433. Study 1A vs. There were no differences between motorcycle drivers and taxicab drivers on the P dimension.200.687. 4.837.2 Differences between Automobile Drivers and Taxicab Drivers With respect to locus of control. Automobile drivers scored higher that taxicab drivers on total BIT scores.801. Study 1C vs.01.01. Study 2: t(372)= -6. t(986)= 6.577. automobile drivers scored higher than taxicab drivers with respect to crash occurrence. “externally-focused frustration” and “destination-activity orientation”. p <. p <. Also.01.01. t(986)= 7. Study 2: t(422)= -4. “freeway urgency”.
and all four BIT subscales: “usurpation of right-of way”.977. p <.01.567.01and to injury occurrence. p <. t(253)= 8. t(253)= 8. p <.Motorcycle drivers had higher total BIT scores than taxicab drivers. “freeway urgency”.01.881.737.016. “externally-focused frustration” and “destination-activity orientation”. 178 .946. t(253)= 39. respectively.982. p <.01. t(253)= 11.01.01. and t(253)= 37. t(253)= 35.01. p <. t(253)= 31. p <. p <. drivers scored higher with respect to crash occurrence. Also.
Often. externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation.CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION 5. They found gender. The present research applied Sümer’s concept of a contextual mediated model. upon examination. 1991). Papacostas and Synodinos (1988) investigated four dimensions of driving behaviour conceptually related to the Type A behaviour pattern (TABP). ethnic and driver experience differences with respect to 179 . multi-factorial perspective. 2002b).1). al. human factors that conceptually might be expected to have a strong influence over driving behaviour and crash occurrence end up. exerting weaker influence or more equivocal results than anticipated (Dewar. 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. Composite BIT scores were comprised of measures of usurpation of right-ofway. (1993). researchers have been frequently frustrated when attempting to quantify the effects of psycho-social variables on either driving behaviour or crash outcomes. including gender.1 A Contextual Mediated Model for Understanding Factors Influencing Unsafe Driving Traffic psychologists. While it has been generally assumed and frequently stated that driver characteristics. 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. 1993. 2. Elander et al. Parker (2004) and others have stressed the importance of examining crash causation from a broader. 1995.2. In an earlier study.4. freeway urgency. in which a set of personality and demographic factors are thought to exert effects. in which the roles played by variables in mediating and moderating effects of personality factors are more closely examined than in the past. Evans. Elander et..
In the present research. BIT composite scores are also expected to mediate the effects of locus of control. The matrix proposed by Haddon (1972) is one example. BIT. All too often. In other words.total BIT score and component scores. 180 . Every aspect of the traffic system is in some way connected to every other aspect. Type A individuals were significantly more likely to have found themselves involved in traffic crashes and. except with taxicab drivers. But findings were more complex than that. Further. BIT scores are considered proximal to the crash event. 1991). in the deterministic sense in which it is used in the physical sciences or engineering. Since high BIT scores indicated driving behaviour consistent with TABP. which somewhat complicates our attempt to stay true to our title: “Cause and Prevention of Roadway Crashes”. This was true with respect to both the composite BIT score and individual scores of each of the four component factors. In the contextual mediated model. A rich variety of individual factors exists which. if different. particularly between psychological variables and crash outcomes. it predicted self-reported injury occurrence in all cases. the term “cause” conveys the notion of a single causative element. Results reported here suggest an elaborate relationship. hopelessness. significantly predicted selfreported crash occurrence in all replications and with all classes of drivers studied. alter the outcome or probability of occurrence of crashes and these have been classified into broad categories using different schemes (Evans. for automobile drivers and motorcyclists. but did not examine the effects of BIT scores on crash outcomes. were significantly more likely to have been injured while driving. is that factors interact with each other. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts on crash and injury occurrence. the proximal variable. though. As a result. One recurrent complexity that arises when trying to understand traffic safety. and did so in all cases but hopelessness.
… 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
They were also more experienced (266. It appears that belief in chance or fate outcomes may be a more important factor in shaping the driving behaviour of novice or inexperienced drivers than it is for more experienced ones. SD=. SD=1. respectively). 5.1. In the present study. and 36.16.5. taxicab drivers were considerably older (43. Of course. internals reported that they engaged in safer behaviour in traffic. but the externality-chance dimension had no significant effect.3. Because of occupational demands. Malaysian-Indian automobile 187 . SD=1.2 years. Further research is needed to examine the influence of driving experience. as it did with the less experienced university students in the other groups. Inclán. respectively). as well. SD=11.6 months as licensed drivers. This would be an error more likely to be made by younger novice or less experienced drivers. By virtue of their age and occupation. the extent to which an individual is connected to others through interpersonal networks.10) than the automobile drivers and motorcyclists (28.66) than the automobile drivers and motorcyclists (20. it might also be assumed that their traffic exposure was greater than that of the students. the continued operation of their vehicle is fundamental to their livelihood so motivational factors may take precedence over attributions of external control. traffic exposure and other variables on the effects that internality and externality exert on driving behaviour.53. For taxicab drivers.25 years.hierarchy. 20. there are other possible influences. although driving frequency was not measured for taxicab drivers. SD=131.63. For taxicab drivers.01years. social trust and norms that promote coordination and cooperation. it might be assumed that taxicab drivers could well have a broader social network. SD=22. affected driving behaviour and decisions about the use of public roads.1 months.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.7 months. Hijar and Tovar (2005) have noted that social capital.
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. were necessary to succeed. The finding that Indian- 188 . There were no significant differences between Malay and Malaysian-Chinese participants on any of the three locus of control dimensions. which would have led young Indians to perceive that skills in overcoming systemic barriers. Carment (1974) also found. it is easy to see how expectancies for the external control of life outcomes can develop. to cultural values of intra-family dependency and parental influence that have persisted within the Tamil and other Indian communities in Malaysia (Abdullah & Peterson. financial matters and social affiliations are made. that the Indian students were strongly external with respect to matters in their personal life. Research completed some thirty years earlier by Carment (1974) found that university students in India were strongly internally-controlled. however. or at least strongly influenced by outside forces. 2005). Participants scored high in terms of attributions about the controlling nature of fate and powerful others. in terms of political ideology and interaction with the social system. Devashayam. individuals would be more likely to develop attributions of internal control. He explained this by pointing to the close and interdependent Indian family structure. Since perceived success under such circumstances might be expected to be largely due to personal proficiency in such areas. influence peddling and status-related privileges. rife with bureaucracy. spousal selection. when compared to Canadian students. perhaps due as argued earlier. He attributed this to the socio-political environment of the time. With the Indian-Malaysian sample studied in the present research. corrupt practices. 2003. along with selfpromotion skills. in which members look to each other and especially to maternal figures within the home. findings with regard to locus of control differed from Carment’s (1974) earlier results. In an environment where career choice.
8 million in 1996. 1999.3. It is also consistent with the results of a study by Fontaine and Richardson (2003) which found differences in cultural values within the workplace were not significant among the three Malaysian ethnic groups. 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. Gomez. and. have been largely limited from participation in social and political processes that would necessitate that sort of social skill development and. as a group. Sendut. 1999. as a result. including locus of control. The size of the urban population in Malaysia increased by 4. than between Singaporean-Chinese and Chinese participants from China.Malaysian participants scored lower in internality was contrary to Carment’s earlier conclusions with individuals from India. but two possible influences stand out. 2002. 1999). where Cheung et al. the reasons for this commonality in outlook are probably multi-factorial. Again. Nandy. In reference to Carment’s explanation of the earlier results. the proportion of the population residing in urban areas increased from 51% in 1991 to 55. 1998. 1981). 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. by extension.7 in 1996. Indeed. Armstrong (1987) argued that urbanisation has affected 189 . This is consistent with recent findings among Malay and Chinese ethnic groups in Singapore.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. an internal locus of control. 5. Salih &Young. (2006) found greater commonalities in personality traits. Willford (2003) concluded that Indian-Malaysians. although they were consistent with more recent research by Sinha & Watson (2007). 1999) where one’s skills at manipulating the system may have fostered a need for greater internal control.5% annually from 9.5 million in 1991 to 11. Closer proximity of cultural groups can be assumed to increase contact and transmission of knowledge and awareness of value systems (Hofstede. 1966.
2002). more recently. 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. Parkinson. 2003. 2008. there is a large body of evidence that aggression plays a significant role in unsafe driving behaviour and in crash outcomes (Deffenbacher. in which members of ethnic groups are encouraged to adopt a ‘Malaysian outlook’ on life. Miller & Rodgers. King & Parker. Clayton.women’s friendship patterns. 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. Nonetheless. Jenkins. 2002. feeling more frustrated at external sources. bringing them closer together in outlook. driving in a more urgent fashion and concentrating more on destination activities than on road and traffic 190 . Oetting & Salvatore. Consistently. 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. Lynch. 2001) In the present research. Lawton & Nutter. aggression had a strong influence on behaviour in traffic. Huff.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. 318). 2000. participants scoring higher on a measure of total trait aggression reported driving patterns that involved right-ofway violations. including perhaps attributions about the control of events. 2001. among automobile drivers and motorcyclists. 5. Brown (2007) has examined educational practices in Malaysia within the context of ethnicity and nation-building. Government initiatives have aimed at re-positioning Malaysia as a highly networked information economy and society. Dukes. Miles & Johnson. by the enraged driver.
but had no significant effect on externally-focused frustration or destination oriented activity. found that drivers were more likely to report anger when congestion was present. the more dangerously they behaved in traffic. Petrilli et al.conditions. 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. during such incidents. higher aggression levels related to a strong tendency to commit right-of-way violations and to drive more urgently. but there were no gender differences with respect to anger or hostility. on a journey by journey basis. Deffenbacher. Lajunen & Summala (2002) similarly found that traffic density may play a role in triggering anger and aggression among drivers sampled in three countries: Great Britain. either verbally or as unspoken thoughts (“self-talk”). particularly where drivers felt that they were not at fault in the incident. a little less strongly when they thought about taking revenge (“I want to get back at this person”) and least 191 . 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”). there are only a few that have attempted to explore the mechanism through which external or cognitive contexts trigger the effect. With taxicab drivers. Underwood et al. Finland and the Netherlands. While there are plenty of studies establishing the link between aggression and driving behaviour. (1996) and Deffenbacher. physical aggression. but that there was no evidence that the drivers who generally experienced higher level of congestion also experienced more anger. Male drivers tended to score higher than female drivers with respect to total aggression. Angry and aggressive driving episodes have been related to hostile cognitive statements that drivers make. Parker. Underwood et al. Further. verbal aggression and indirect aggression. Oetting et al. (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.
would be most likely to involve the usurpation of right-of-way or more urgent speeding behaviour. and (c) cognitive distortions (ways in which people misinterpret their environment). and that cognitive event in turn triggers an aggressive or punitive type of traffic behaviour.. In essence. although still significantly. in the samples studied here. 1997). a cognitive distortion which stimulates a cognitive response related to physical aggression or revenge. 2006). Such responses.strongly. That is. but they were found to moderate the effects of aggression on behaviour in traffic. were also modified by the drivers’ locus of control. perceiving another person’s slow driving as purposeful may lead to the emotional experience of anger.. Not only did drivers’ angry cognitions have a direct effect on their behaviour in traffic. 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 . one’s interpretations of the environment lead one to react emotionally toward features within the environment (Galovski et al. when entertaining cognitive statements that made derogatory comments (“What an idiot!”) about other drivers. 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. (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. The effects of aggression on behaviour. but not when they involved the derogation of others. as well. 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. the world and others). These moderating effects were significant when the content of the cognitions involved physical aggression or revenge motives.
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. has a workload associated with it” (Bridger. so I’ll overtake him/her at high speed on the inside and feel great – i. Meichenbaum. p. the original cognitive behaviourists tended to regard cognitive statements as internal mental stimuli that. or self-talk.are determined by chance or fate.e. The relationship between aggression and driving behaviour is both important and complex. 193 . like any other mental task. Hochschild. A driver’s mental workload is increased by the number of task demands with which one must contend in performing a function and. who found that the association between road-hostility and drivers’ speed choices and deviant behaviour (passing through a red light and overtaking from the inside) was larger among participants with low rather than with high internality scores. 401). (2003). 1990. and particularly with negative emotion. This last finding replicated and extended earlier research by Gidron et al. It is moderated by cognitive processes. Language loaded with emotional content. evoked specific behavioural responses that then became subject to contingent reinforcement (Kanfer & Goldstein. Novaco. 1987. 1977). but there may be more to it than that. 1979. Generally. and also by attributions regarding locus of control. receive positive reinforcement – when I see the shocked look on his/her face!”). aggressive drivers of both automobiles and of taxicabs who had low levels of internality (i. 1995. Downe & Loke.. in the form of hostile automatic thoughts. language comprehension can be regarded as a mental task which. Certainly. 1994. has been shown to be difficult to process (Dodge & Coie. 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. 2004. this process may be instrumental in the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic (“I’d like to knock his/her teeth out. “in ergonomics. true to operant learning principles.e. Finally.. Similarly.
As de Waard (2002) has argued: There are limits to the investment of effort.1) defined multivariate thinking as “a body of thought processes that illuminate interrelatedness between and within sets of variables” and proposed that 194 . As drivers contend with heightened feelings of aggression and increased internal chatter. Mercado & Tapia. The present research has demonstrated linkages between hostile automatic thoughts. Taylor & Fragopanagos. Lambie & Marcel. Hinojosa. Tavris (1989) referred to anger as the “misunderstood emotion”. Martin. 1993). an overburdening of cognitive workload capacity or both. 2004.g. internal locus of control and tendencies toward more dangerous behaviour in traffic.. 1999. In fact. lane control in driving) will drop if effort investment is insufficient or ceases. 2000. 5. so too does the mental effort required (de Waard & Brookhuis. Trabasso & Liwag. 1997). as well as other task demands of driving in traffic. they may well reach a “red line” at which more mental effort is required than is available. subject to ambiguous interpretation (Chan. 2002. 1979) and disruptive to attentional processing of external stimuli (Adolphs.1 Advantages of Using SEM Harlow (2005. p. Making sense of. Carretie. Dien. Watson & Wan. aggressive emotionality. Stein. MartinLoeches. 2005). hostile automatic thoughts. and at the same time processing feelings of responsibility arising from one’s internal locus of control requires the investment of mental effort. 162). Tomkins. 2002.5. 2000. Performance (e. 1996. As the costs of achieving or maintaining a certain target level of performance increase.Robbins. This can happen both in conditions of very high task demand and in conditions where the driver’s state is affected (p. and attempting to exercise control over.5 Testing the Contextual Mediated Model Using Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) 5. Additional studies are needed to investigate whether this relationship is best explained through an internal stimulus-response process.
Finally. 2006). involved in the analysis. the reliability of measurement can thus be accounted for explicitly within the analysis. 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. Second. researchers are attracted to the benefits that SEM can offer. Karl Jöreskog.multivariate methods provide a richer and more comprehensive examination on the variables. Having the characteristics of multiple regression analysis. or latent.434). similar to the variables representing factors in a factor analysis.. By estimating and removing measurement error. allows the simultaneous estimation of multiple equations (Hair et al. p. 2000). and perhaps most important. explain criterion. 2006). Structural equation modelling (SEM). The earliest use of SEM has been attributed to Swedish Statistician. SEM can not only tell how well the predictors. 2004. Gavin and Hartman (2004). 2006). EQS and AMOS. According to Williams. 1998). a multivariate technique. advanced the idea of combining features of econometrics and psychometrics into a single model (Klem. using SEM to examine relationships among factors allows the relationships to be free from measurement errors “because the error has been estimated and removed. the SEM depicts all of the relationships among constructs. The constructs may be comprised of unobservable. the growth in application of SEM techniques has paralleled researchers’ access to computer based data analysis software programs such as LISREL. 195 . When composing a model.. leaving only common variance” (Hardy and Bryman. who in 1970. First. SEM is deemed to be a unique combination of factor analysis and multiple regression analysis (Hair et al. including dependent and independent variables.. or independent variables. or dependent. 2004. Hair et al. variables but also determine which specific predictors are most important in predicting dependent variable outcomes (Maruyama. factors represented by multiple variables. In addition.
It is therefore not practical to apply a single set of cutoff rules to the measurement models. the goodness of fit index (GFI). (2004) commented on inconsistencies in the way SEM results have been reported in the literature. Hair et al. Hult & Kacmar (2004) and Williams et al. as suggested by Hair et al.5. Sümer (2003) added that. when assessing the fits of measurement models. there is a lack of consensus on how best to evaluate the extent to which a proposed model fits the data. several alternative models were tested against different propositions in order to arrive at a model with the best possible fit. but that very few studies have used multiple fit indices. and the root mean square residual were included. model re-specification by citing theoretical support for the changes made is desired. (2006). (2004) has been critical of most studies. Ketchen. 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.2 Goodness of Fit SEM is considered a confirmatory analysis for testing and potentially confirming theory. despite the prominence of SEM as a statistical tool. Therefore. RMSEA or SMRM) One incremental fit index (i. CFI or TLI) One goodness-of-fit index (GFI. etc) 196 . GFI. SRMR. Shook et al. (2004) noted that. the comparative fit index (CFI). (2006) have argued that no single ‘magic value’ for the fit indices has been found to differentiate good from poor models. In the present research. TLI.5. Although many researchers have used SEM to examine a theoretically proposed model. etc) One badness-of-fit index (RMSEA. 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. CFI. fit indices such as chi-square statistics. Williams et al.e.e. Shook.
3 Best Fit or Best Model It is important to test multiple plausible rival models.. 1998. Maruyama. so that stronger evidence supporting the correct specification of a model can be adduced (Thompson..In the present research. It is argued here that. 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. it has been stressed repeatedly by several authors no definitive set of rules has been established for model selection (Byrne.. significant p-values can be expected. the fit indices for assessing the model included χ2 value and the associated df. 2001. Md-Sidin. 5. it should not be used as the sole indicator of SEM fit because it is affected by sample size (Hair et al. it may be advisable to select one that offers the most useful information even if indices are slightly lower than its alternative. Structural equation modelling should. 2003) and other disciplines (Elangovan. At the same time. 2001. both dealing with traffic psychology (Sümer. CFI. be a process that balances utility with statistical 197 . As a general rule. 2009) that have tended to select the model that has the best fit indices. Sambasivan & Ismail. 2000). Fit index values (e. we would argue.00 have been recommended to indicate good model fit (Hair et al. the model with the best goodness-of-fit indices is selected over alternate models. 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 3.90. CFI and CFI) greater than . Hair et al. 2006) such that for analyses of sample sizes more than 250. 2006. 2000) and there are many examples of research studies. GFI. RMSEA and the χ2 /degrees of freedom ratio. RMSEA lower than . provided competing models both present a pre-determined standard for goodness-of-fit. 2006).g. It is widely agreed that selection of the model should be a very good or an excellent fit. 1998). Sümer (2003) reported that some researchers have used critical χ2 /degrees of freedom ratios from 2 to 5 to indicate an acceptable fit.5. Although chi-square is the most fundamental absolute fit index.
However. as suggested by Byrne (2001). destination-activity orientation. Model 1C5 (see Figure 4. 1C5 and 1C6. Sobel and Bohrnstedt (1985) pointed out that exclusive reliance on goodness-of-fit indices is unacceptable. and practical considerations (p. provided the chosen one meets pre-determined standards for goodness-of-fit. 4. Byrne (2001) argued that: Fit indexes yield information bearing only on the model’s lack of fit. when taking into consideration “practical considerations”. two structural equation models. while Model 1C6 (see Figure 4.3).10) excluded the fourth factor. “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. it is concluded that the selection of Model 1C5 would be preferable 198 . There is some support for this position in the literature.9) included all four components of the BIT scale.soundness. a finding that was further supported by additional subsequent analyses using a further series of goodness-of-fit indices. If selection criteria were to be based solely on goodness-of-fit parameters. this judgment rests squarely on the shoulders of the research. Both models were judged to have an excellent or very good fit. of intervariable relationships for high-risk undergraduate automobile drivers were compared using an initial set of goodness-of-fit indices (see sect. Index coefficients from the original and subsequent analysis are shown in Table 5. 158). the choice between the two would be Model 1C6 given its superior index coefficients. assessment of model adequacy must be based on multiple criteria that take into account theoretical. In some cases. In the case at hand. it makes sense to choose a model with a slightly poorer fit but more useful information over the best-fitting model.1. More importantly. stating that.7. 88). they can in no way reflect the extent to which the model is plausible. Thus. statistical.
02 0. 199 .96 0. Injury Occurrence 35.060 0.97 1. BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration. BITF2=Freeway Urgency.909 0.02 0.045 0. P. C. AQ.97 0.91 0.42 11.Table 5.48 30.034 97.39 Best because it includes important information about destination-activity orientation behaviour that would be lost if Model 1C6 were chosen. Injury Occurrence Degrees of Freedom RMSEA GFI Chi-sq/Df RMR AIC NFI CFI AGFI PGFI NCP ECVI Overall model fit 63.99 0.97 0. BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration. Fit Statistics (Threshold values) Outcomes: Crash Occurrence. C. F2.96 1.02 0. P.499 0.51 Very Good Model 1C6 Distal Context: I.97 0. AQ. F3 BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way. HAT Proximal Context: BITF1. F3 & F4 BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way.94 0. BITF2=Freeway Urgency. BITF4=DestinationActivity Orientation Outcomes: Crash Occurrence. F2. HAT Proximal Context: BITF1.98 0. it is apparent that this factor may be important to consider in future research and crash prevention programmes and should not be excluded from models on which they are based.1: Goodness of Fit Statistics for Model 1C5 and 1C6 (Initial and Subsequent Analyses) Model 1C5 Distal Context: I. Given that multivariate analysis revealed a significant association between this BIT component and crash outcomes.97 0.043 129.
48. By selecting Model 1C5. this is an important component to retain in a contextual mediated model of behaviour in traffic even if it does render a lower. (2006) have noted that models with a higher PGFI are preferable over competing models because they have a better fit relative to their complexity. in particular. For practical reasons. they should be dropped. Hair et al. farther along. When dealing with systems that are safetycritical. the standard should be to include as much relevant information as possible. Parker. Manstead & Stradling. 2006). 1990. the decision was made to select Model 1C5 over Model 1C6. et al. when drivers do let their attention wander from current road and traffic conditions they are at increased risk of experiencing a crash outome (Moller. it is 0. Sambasivan (2008) stated that.1). the PGFI coefficient for Model 1C5 is 0. based on the notion that each variable included may. while for Model 1C6.It can be argued here that safety research demands a somewhat different standard in terms of model construction and selection. Further discussion in this section refers only to Model 1C5. goodness-of-fit. but still acceptable.. one that favours the maximum use of information in the cause of saving lives. 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. in this analysis. 2006. Schwebel. Results of this and other research have demonstrated that. 200 . 1996). 1995. Nahn & Shapiro. Storey. when variables do not improve the AGFI and PGFI. 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. However. a central psychological feature of the TABP in driving is not overlooked and the BIT framework is kept intact. Kayumov.42. provide the key to reducing injuries and saving lives (Reason. Reason.
for automobile drivers sampled. Examination of the predictive relationship between distal and proximal variables yielded support for the contextual model and were consistent with previous findings (e.66).28 respectively).21). . four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way. 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. 2003).45).5. via BIT.35. 1991. Sümer. indicating the importance of this factor in crash outcomes. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) had significant effects on BIT scores (path coefficients = . and hostile automatic thoughts). They appeared to be the strongest predictors among the five distal factors (path coefficients = -.4.14.1 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.5. Total scores of BIT were significantly correlated with crash occurrence (r = . Evans. on crash outcomes.6.35 and .26. aggression. internality and aggression had direct effects on BIT and indirect effects. externally-focused frustration. In Study 1C.18) and injury occurrence (r = -. This suggested that automobile drivers with high levels of 201 . Rothengatter.4 Testing the Contextual Mediated Models Using SEM 5. with five distal factors (internality.5. externality-chance. The results suggested that the alternative model.28 and . externality-powerful other.29). 2001. Findings in this study underscored the strong role of BIT in predicting accidents. the base model (with only locus of control variables) was compared against five alternative models (see section 4. As observed from the investigation of structural paths. indicating that driving behaviour is closely related to involvement in motor vehicle crashes. freeway urgency. Internality was significantly but negatively correlated with BIT (r = -. . crash occurrence (r = -. externalitychance.23 respectively) and the BIT displayed a significant effect on crash outcomes (path coefficient = .1). externality-powerful other. Distal factors (locus of control: internality. .34) and injury occurrence (r = .g.
5. externality-powerful other and hopelessness). was significantly and positively correlated with BIT (r = . as well as low probability of crash and injury occurrence. and destination-activity orientation) as proximal factors. Aggressive automobile drivers tended to have high level of BIT scores. The first alternative model had four distal factors (locus of control: internality. which sampled motorcyclists. and high probabilities of crash and injury occurrence.internality were more likely to have low total BIT scores. and four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way. externality-chance. crash occurrence (r = . Investigation of the path parameters revealed that only two of the distal factors. internality and externality-chance (path coefficients = -.41). externally-focused frustration. The second alternative model also had four distal factors but only three latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way.25). Aggression.24).65 and . with hopelessness removed as a distal factor but four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way. on the other hand.4. the base model (with only the locus of control variable) was compared against two alternative models. 202 .5. One of the most compelling findings in Study 2 was that externalitychance scores had the highest correlations with BIT (r = .55).23) and injury occurrence (r = . crash occurrence (r = . 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. externally-focused frustration. freeway urgency. Results indicated that the first alternative model.80) indirectly and the proximal factor-BIT (path coefficient = . freeway urgency and externally-focused frustration) for the proximal factor. and destination-activity orientation) comprising the proximal factor and two latent constructs (crash and injury occurrence) comprising the crash outcome variable. freeway urgency.2 Study 2: Motorcyclists In Study 2.20) and injury occurrence (r = .66) directly predicted crash outcomes. had a better fit than other alternative models.
on the two latent variables comprising crash outcomes. to measure outcome. externally-focused frustration. externally-focused frustration. externality-chance. with four distal factors (internality. via BIT.5. had a better fit than alternative models. with the sample of taxicab drivers. such as internality. Finally. Distal factors. This suggested that internality and aggression play important roles in affecting the behaviour in traffic of taxicab drivers and. had no significant effect on BIT scores. for the sample of taxicab drivers. the results of measurement model analysis showed that one of the distal factors. crash occurrence. externality-powerful other and aggression). All models included four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way. For motorcyclists.3 Study 3: Taxicab Drivers In Study 3. and destination-activity orientation) as proximal factors.20 and . externality-powerful other. for crash outcomes. freeway urgency. four latent constructs (usurpation of right-ofway.5. 5.5. internality and aggression (path coefficients = -. The second and third alternative models only had one latent construct. the bestfitting model used only a single latent construct. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts. had significant direct effects on the four latent constructs that comprised the proximal variable (BIT) and. Results indicated that the third alternative model.24 respectively) that had direct effects on the proximal factor and a simultaneous indirect effect on crash occurrence. Investigation of the path parameters revealed that there were only two of the four distal factors. their crash occurrence.3). The first alternative included four distal factors (internality. the result was slightly different as a belief in chance as an outcome determinant had a significant effect on BIT scores. Both dimensions of external locus of control had insignificant results. externality-chance.4. 4.5 What Can be Learned from Testing Contextual Models with SEM? The use of SEM provided support for the contextual mediated model. 203 . as a result. the base model (with only the locus of control variable) was compared against three alternative models (see sect. freeway urgency. However. aggression). crash occurrence. hopelessness. in turn and indirectly.6. and destination-activity orientation) comprising the proximal factor and one latent construct (crash occurrence) comprising the outcome variable.
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. 204 .6 5.1 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. however.6. both and particularly the student samples constituted a convenience sample that may have curtailed the generalisability of findings. In the present research. To a large extent. Further. With very few studies having been completed on Malaysian drivers to date. 2005. 2004). chosen at random from taxi stands. 278279). a total of five samples were taken. 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. 2005). the fact remains that participants constituting the four student samples were. 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 argument used by Montag & Comrey (1978) and others who have studied young drivers. “but sometimes it may be the only viable alternative when quick and timely information is needed” (pp. four of which were comprised of students from a single university. Sekaran (2003) points out. Some authors have commented on the lack of generalisability of findings in traffic psychology research (Dunbar. Huguenin. The fifth sample was comprised of professional taxicab drivers.5.
as elsewhere.to 25-year old high-risk group was 99. 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.13 years (SD = 1. while Malacca and Negeri Sembilan were overrepresented. involved drivers aged 16 to 25 years. Based alone on the number of residents living in each state.2). it is helpful to examine the distribution by state in which research participants obtained their driving licenses. With regard to whether the sample was representative of peoples of the various states and regions of Malaysia. individuals usually obtain their license in the state in which they are registered as resident.6% (Study 1A: 99. Approximately one-third of all automobile crashes.31.2%). Ages of participants in this research ranged from 18 to 29 years. in Malaysia. making it the single highest risk age group (see Table 2.6%. Since.2% and Study 2: 99. Study 1B: 100%. The most populous state. during the interval from 2000 to 2003.2 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. young drivers are among the most likely to experience a motor vehicle crash. Table 5. Study 1C: 99. The proportion of the total sample for Studies 1 and 2 falling within the 16. The Spearman rank correlation coefficient for these two sets of scores is rs=. contributed the largest proportion of the sample. 205 .55). with a mean age of 20. Selangor. the sample does not appear to be very repreresentative of the Malaysian population. Sabah.In Malaysia. Sarawak and Kelantan were under-represented in the sample.
004. 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.300.576 2.000 215.7 (14) But. and there are different crash frequencies in each one.6 0.000 1.286 1.500.818.674 1.887.807 733.000 1. It is important to remember that the purpose of this research was to study the population of young.5 (8) 3.150.1 (7) 8. in this case.3 (12) 11. Table 5.2 11.9 (9) 7. high-risk drivers in Malaysia.4 provides similar comparisons for the state of origin of the sample of motorcyclists. attempting to determine sample representativeness based on only state population would be flawed. Table 5.387.0 12.6 2.0 8.9 (3) 2.880 3.2 (11) 12.6 (10) 7. Not all states have the same number of drivers.4 5.8 6.19 Per cent (rank) of participants sampled 17.500 1.7 (2) 2.Table 5.396. 206 .000 3.2 3.188 1.2 (5) 0.0 4.2 7.260.6 6.200.2 (1) 3.000 2.503.6 5.3 compares the state of origin of participants in Study 1 with the more relevant measures of vehicle registrations and crash occurrence.000 Per cent of national population 26.5 (4) 4.9 9.2 (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) 7.8 (6) 6. For that reason.100. In both cases. the state of origin is defined as the state in which the participants’ driving licenses were issued.000 2.
144 12.785 393.35 4.89 3.19 3.68 7.24 2.93 9.84 11.96 3.496 187.029 273.37 3.3: State of Origin Compared with Crash Frequency and Vehicle Registrations (Study 1) Average Motor Vehicle Crash Frequency (2000-2003) 34.170 13.163 10.50 29.76 3.75 4.70 3.93 0.4 4.46 8.63 207 .725 70.490 525.98 0.19 7.34 3.43 2.27 14.735 165.16 2.85 1.70 12.496 Private Automobile Registrations (until 2003) 703.064 9.36 8.24 0.635 1.920 181.22 17.198 156.137 698.230 266.588.88 3.026 10.90 5.28 3.88 2.093 5.97 12.251 324.Table 5.13 6.041 92.606 24.91 2.55 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 25.768 6.19 4.104 6.003 10.92 25.34 11.20 12.561 1.617 10.05 2.428.600 135.45 9.212 39.
64 1.92 25.170 13.4: State of Origin Compared with Crash Frequency and Vehicle Registrations (Study 2) Average Motor Vehicle Crash Frequency (2000-2003) 34.725 70.856 310.727 161.02 10.026 10.49 0.958 % 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 12.93 7.989 6.992 776.03 4.112 347.144 12.43 2.656 821.561 1.38 0.305 276.288 444.46 14.76 3.82 9.722 255.45 2.15 5.14 7.22 3.212 39.003 10.38 4.75 5.63 11.66 11.283 770.221 36.496 % Private Vehicle Registrations (until 2003) 933.Table 5.63 13.606 24.36 8.64 2.59 12.88 3.33 4.467 25.59 1.679 90.28 3.615.88 2.48 1.35 4.79 13.10 9.27 14.93 9.37 3.133 705.064 9.98 0.49 12.029 273.4 4.46 5.20 15.74 208 .995 233.617 10.02 7.104 6.768 6.
Table 5. it can be argued that they were. Future studies of Malaysian driving behaviour will need to expand the range participant 209 . Of course. were licensed as drivers in – the states with the most registered vehicles and the highest numbers of crashes.796** 1 Were the participants studied in this research representative of high-risk Malaysian drivers? In terms of their age and their regional origin.824** . At least on these dimensions. participants came from – or.3 and 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. 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. both for the studies of automobile drivers and for the study of motorcyclists.5 shows the The Spearman rank correlation coefficient (rs) for the variables in Tables 5.701** 1 Study 2: Motorcyclists Motorcycle crash frequency (by state) Vehicle registrations (by state) Participants’ state of origin 1 2 3 1 .908** 1 3 Participants’ state of origin .903** . Even though data collection was carried out at a single university location. it is possible to say that sampling.814** 1 .5: Spearman rank correlations for States of Origin for Participants in Study 1 and Study 2 1 2 3 Study 1: Automobile Drivers 1 Automobile crash frequency (by state) 1 2 Vehicle registrations (by state) . 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.4. at least. Table 5.
the use of questionnaire data provides the only practical possibility for gathering data at a low cost. attitudinal factors. violations and accidents should be linked together. Keskinen. the easiest way to get data on several factors from the same subjects is by simply asking the subjects (p. 5. the data has to be disaggregated. accident distributions by age. 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. We can also get rough data of exposure by age. Hatakka. unless the variation within the group is very small.2 Use of self-report methods The use of self-report methods in traffic psychology has been strongly criticised by af Wählberg (2002). None of these variables can be substituted by group means. The issue becomes even harder to resolve when dealing with cognitive variables that cannot be observed directly (Groeger & Rothengatter. however. 1979). The problem. 1998. 1998.characteristics used as a basis for sample-to-population comparisons. demographic factors.6. Much important data is available in official statistics. accidents. Additional studies should be carried out in order to validate findings within the broader population. 296). is that this kind of data is usually aggregated … From aggregated data we cannot study the connections between accidents and age and exposure. 2001). Again. Rothengatter. (1993) have similarly argued that other methods for studying the 210 . Exposure. Katila and Laapotti (1997) have argued that. e. However.g. as in other psychological research. social desirability response sets and fakeability (Aiken.. in studying driving behaviour. Self-report data are prone to inaccuracy due to participant memory lapses. Elander et al.
in studies of driving behaviour. In the present research.effects of personality on driving have drawbacks that cannot be overlooked. In future studies. 211 . steering wheel reversals and speed change frequencies)” (p. Visser and Denis (2004). 1996). as well. The assumption. subjective accounts of crash or injury history should be validated against objective measures. questionnaires were administered to measure all variables and. for instance... self-reported crash and injury histories and self-reported driving patterns measured by the Behaviour in Traffic scale could be prone to inaccuracy. errors of recall or contamination by post-event information (Belli & Loftus. Since generally motor vehicle crashes are fairly rare events. the longer the time period for data collection. muscle tension. perhaps drawing from drivers’ insurance records or. Miles and Johnson (2003) have noted that.6.3 Timeframe for Data Collection Elander et al. all data may be subject to the shortcomings of self-report methods. combined interview and observational methods. (1993) and af Wählberg (2003) have commented on the problem of data collection timeframes in studies of motor vehicle crashes. inadequate data are collected when the research is conducted over short periods of time. as in a study reported by Chalmé. heart-rate acceleration and electrodermal activity) and to overt driving behaviours (e. 5. though. Particularly.g. 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. blood pressure. 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. subjects would tend to under-report dangerous or illegal activities and that this tendency might usually be expected to be consistent across compared groups. the more information is lost through memory lapses. Yet. 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. 13). therefore.
Mercer. Traits included in the contextual mediated model as distal variables have been found to be relatively consistent and resistant to change over this interval. 1999). it has to be acknowledged that the measure is subjective. 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.2) that higher levels would result in less risky behaviour in traffic was supported. 1971). and the hypothesis (H2.6. 5.In the present research. Unfortunately. Some authors have asked participants to estimate the distrance travelled during a particular period (Lajunen & Summala. and that one participant’s perception of frequent automobile or motorcycle use may seem infrequent to another’s. The driving frequency measure was alaso used a co-variate in analyses of relationships between other distal variables and proximal variables. 2002).4 Measurement of Driving Frequency One of the self-report measures used in this research requires particular discussion. 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. in that the measure tells us little about the circumstances under which participants drove other than their perceived use against some unstated. Second. Results were used as a measure of driving frequency for Studies 1 and 2. 1997. individual standard. other measures of driving frequency present as many or more problems. as well. First. a timeframe that is consistent with reasonably accurate recall (Haber & Haber. there is a certain imprecision to the measure. participants were asked to recall if a crash or resulting injury had occurred within the past twelve months. This method has been used in previous studies by other authors (Pelz & Schuman.
2003. 2004). There is some evidence that the availability heuristic exerts a greater impact when specific quantitative amounts or percentages have to be estimated. 2002). But. on how available it is in our memories (Kahneman. because they have taken place recently. 1993). 1993. and the likelihood of encountering a traffic jam (Wood. 1982). Levy (1997) argues that: Unfortuantely. p. although this has not been firmly established. 1973.frequency that were used in this research. eventful or recent. experiences that are more common than others tend to be the ones that are most available. 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. it is argued here that such inaccuracy is also likely due to a cognitive phenomenon known as the availability heuristic. Kahneman. in other words. in which the perceived probability of an event corresponds to the ease with thich the event comes to mind or. “Some events are more available than others not because they tend to occur frewquently or with high probability. This is why individuals tend to irrationally overestimate the number of murders per year (Jaffe. 181). Slovic & Tversky. frequency or distribution in the world (p. 1974). Wood & Boyd. and that people are consistently poor at making these sorts of estimates accurately (Saad. 2008). this strategy leads us to overestimate their actual occurrence. because they are highly emotional and so forth” (Plous. their chances of winning a lottery (Griffiths. In much the same way. 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. Specifically. 213 . Often. but because they are inherently easier to think about. as opposed to reporting perceptions in categorical form (Tversky & Kahneman. 121). 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. but not always.. 2003).
in the form of more vividly remembered trips to family reunions during festive seasons. 2000). 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. A logbook approach was considered during the design of the present research. it might be expected that participants’ driving estimates would be particularly prone to influence by the availability heuristic. Deffenbacher et al. 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. but training participants in standardised record-keeping. Sansone. and the availability of the resources necessary to operationalise them. during periods of low traffic volume. 1991). emotionally-laden seasonal and holiday travel (Richardson & Downe. Given that sample sizes for this research had to be large enough to apply structural equation modelling procedures. in their studies of roadway aggression. Of course. road conditions. Morf and Panter (2004) argue that psycho-social research generally involves a balancing act between idealised research questions.. poorer pavement and more surrounding vehicles (Åkerstedt & Kecklund. 2001) . it was felt that the collection of logbook data would have overextended time and financial resources at hand for the five 214 . asked participants to record the time of day. Similarly. on one hand.In the Malaysian environment. the use of distance travelled doesn’t really solve the main problem in travel frequency measurement. Driving 30 kilometres daily on quiet city thoroughfares. where driving histories generally include lengthy. for example. many of the inaccuracies involved with the use of self-reported frequency data could have been solved by taking direct odometer readings. (2003). 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. Finally.
Good theories are simple. 2005). categorical perceptions of driving frequency.7. While some authors have considered the terms “theory” and “model” as synonymous (e.7 5. The function of useful scientific theory is to provide an explanatory summary of facts pertaining to related phenomena and to predict events that are associated with them (Huguenin. but this was done with an awareness of the shortcomings of this measure. Ranney. 5. during the study design process. 2002. but that considerable effort has gone into the development of descriptive models. It was felt.1 Implications and Areas for Further Study Theory vs.g. that associated methodological disadvantages were fewer than those of the competing approaches. collected logbook data would have been largely qualitative in nature. the difference is that models are generally seen as “more modest affairs that aim to illustrate 215 . 1994). selfreported measure used here. 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.studies undertaken. drawn from empirical studies and demonstrating inter-variable relationships (Chaloupka-Risser. 2005). In the present research. are testable and contain no contradictions. have high information content. 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. are of nomological character and can be applied irrespective of time and space (Langdridge. To summarise. In addition. the decision was made to use participants’ subjective. over-arching theory (Rothengatter. Michon. 2004). creating new difficulties in their quantification (King. 1985. 1991). Summala. 1997). Rothengatter (2001) has argued that better measures of risk exposure are needed in traffic psychology. Models in Traffic Psychology It has been noted earlier that the emerging field of traffic psychology has yet to arrive at a unified. 2004).. Further research is required.
often in graphical form (Grayson. at times. and while any data collection procedure must have some element of theory if it is to have real purpose. the fact remains that we have enough guidance already from mainstream psychology. p. Huguenin (1997) has similarly argued that theories are necessary to treat a subject scientifically. stating that. 294). create links to other fields of knowledge or to explain or predict circumstances.patterns of relationships. if they aim to illuminate and encourage research on specific topics rather than the 216 . check facts. there has beeen an ongoing discussion and. 1997. Throughout the development of traffic psychology. if they are modest in ambition. The answer is probably not. Attempts to develop ‘traffic- specific’ theories have proved far less fruitful than has the importation of established theories from other areas of psychology. or represent processes. on the other hand. in particular to structure data. took the position that it is the scarcity of quantitative knowledge about safety that has brought about a “reign of ignorance” in studies of driving behaviour and motor vehicle safety (p. The first question is whether we need traffic psychology theories. The second question is whether we need traffic psychology models. 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”. 32). Wilde (1982) has expressed concern that the study of traffic safety “is characterised by a sparsity of comprehensive and articulate conceptions” (p. 94). Grayson (1997) agreed. Hauer (1987). debate as to whether the greater need exists for more theory or for more data. The answer to this question is possibly yes.
95-96). 1985) – that could hinder scientific progress.3). The problem arises from an intrinsic dilemma. The present research probably more represents the sort of model building favoured by Evans (1991) and Grayson (1997) than it does an attempt to test a broad theory such as those described earlier (see sect. it seems unlikely that general theories offering much more can be formulated. Greenwald and Pratkanis (1988).entire spectrum of traffic behaviour. 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. This latter point was also stressed by Evans (1991). aggression and hostile automatic thoughts. argued that with theory-centred methods there was an inherent danger of confirmation bias – a tendency to evaluate ideas in a manner the meets existing expectancies (Chaplin. who argued that. and if they are resultscentred (pp. 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. 2. In 217 . This dichotomy of perspectives is not unique to traffic studies and driving behaviour but seems to permeate all areas of applied psychology. for instance. Yet. but the framework constructed here can easily accommodate a potentially endless range of both distal and proximal variables. while ignoring other factors which are much too important to be ignored (p. it has proved capable of linking psychological and demographic variables with a pattern of driving behaviour to illustrate influences on crash outcomes and injuries. While many models offer insight into specific aspects of driver behaviour. In this case. 304). those variables included a diverse set of human traits including locus of control. The debate often seems to revolve around the comparative merits of result-centred versus theory-centred methods in research.
sensation seeking (Sümer. Rather than describing and predicting the interaction of factors involved in causing crashes. extraversion.. it has been conducted without the benefit of a process model of driving.4). competence or hierarchical level of information processing (see sect. crash-free driving. 5. anxiety. depression. While the present research 218 . psychoticism. The contextual mediated framework. The general lack of success in identifying predictors of safe driving.3. 2. 2005) were included as distal variables. According to Ranney (1994). as defined by Grayson (1997).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). … has used performance-based measures to predict individual accident histories.7. together with methodological difficulties associated with the use of accident measures. for instance. not on everyday driving. Future research should attempt to expand the contextual mediated approach beyond studies of crash histories. 2003). while still very much a model and not a theory. and has relied heavily on post-hoc explanations. lead to the conclusion that we should abandon the differential accident paradigm and define alternative measures of safe driving.other studies. Kerlinger (2000) and others. openness. the process through which drivers make adjustments based on their perceptions of risk. much current research. it may be even more fruitful to focus the model on the interaction of variables that contribute to safe. has focused primarily on accident-causing behaviour. agreeableness and neuroticism (Sümer et al. conscientiousness. With several exceptions. provides breadth of focus and a more holistic perspective than many other attempts at modelling driving behaviour.
BA to in-vehicle safety measures may also be under the influence of drivers’ locus of control. Within their proposed conceptual framework. is a concept that should be incorporated as an element in theories seeking to explain BA and its role in driving. will always maintain more direct involvement with the driving task than those scoring high on externality dimensions. As a result. individuals viewing themselves as being responsible for both positive and negative driving outcomes will be more likely to take precautionary measures such as wearing seat belts and being vigilant to roadway cures. those with an external locus of control may be more likely to give up control to an external device. They argued that locus of control. Such individuals would be more likely than internals to over-rely on a device to keep them oriented and alert. On the other hand. Brown and Noy (2004) stressed that theories of BA and driving behaviour in general. while intuitively appealing and providing some useful insight. 219 . or at least to react more slowly. should the device fail to perform the task for which it was designed. fail by not considering individual driver characteristics or the range of motivations that determine driving behaviour.did not test any of those theories specifically. those who see themselves playing little or no part in the unfolding of events will act in a less cautious manner. relying on it to competently perform the task it was designed for. some of the variables considered are conceptually tied to them. they will become less involved with the driving task and be less likely to react. It is possible that drivers with an internal locus of control will rely more on their own skills and abilities while they are driving and. no matter how reliable a safety device. along with trust in automation and sensation seeking. Following this reasoning. believing that fate will achieve its predetermined goals no matter what the individual does. Conversely.
Summala. can be focused specifically on combinations of risk factors at both the distal and proximal levels. scarce resources for screening drivers.In the present research. could be screened out. Gidron & Davidson. Training and Rehabilitation The results of the present research have important implications for the improvement of driving behaviour. Specifically. though. 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. The treatment or rehabilitation of dangerous drivers has relied heavily on cognitive behaviour modification applications (Deffenbacher et. 1982).3 Driver Selection. 1997. 1996). Coupled with simulated or actual driving experience and methods to modify patterns of hostile selftalk. an area of increasing importance in fleet management (Barjonet & Tortosa. Drivers may need to undergo cognitive restructuring about their beliefs about their own responsibility over road safety in order to increase levels of internality. 2004). Further research is required to investigate implications for improving driving performance. these approaches require special therapeutic training and large efforts on behalf of drivers. once identified. external locus of control and hostile attributions. which may mitigate the negative effects of roadway hostility. locus of control was found to exert effects on Type A driving patterns and. 1996). 220 . consistent with the earlier findings of Gidron et al. Luckner (1989) and others have successfully developed training curricula that encourage internality. Typically. 5. (2003) to moderate the effects of aggression on driving outcomes.7. Findings from the present research can guide planners of remedial courses and counsellors to teach methods for increasing internal attributions. task capability (Fuller. 2005. 2006) or cognitive processing (Keskinen. Christ et al.. 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. 2002. changes in driver behaviour might be better targeted.
the technologies sophisticated and the interactions among humans. educational programming (including public awareness and driver training).4 Preventive Measures: “The Three E’s” 5.1 Generating and classifying crash prevention interventions Ergonomists and safety scientists have. 1961. 1970) provides another system for classifying highway events for the purposes of research or accident prevention (see Figure 2. These have been euphemistically termed the “three E’s”. or legal intervention. This framework can be integrated with the “Three E’s” to identify specific crash prevention measures arising from the findings of the present research. teams of humans. Matthews and Guest (1999) have argued that traffic engineering has also undergone a transition in emphasis over the last decade. 1). From this has emerged the growing 221 . education. Unlike 100 years ago. recognised that the cardinal bases of accident prevention fall into three categories: engineering. for the last fifty years.7.2 Engineering Interventions Engineering applications in transportation have become increasingly cogniscent of human thinking processes. World Health Organisation. and machines are highly intricate (p. Slinn. 1957.5. Cooke and Durso (2008) have noted that: Most industrial tasks require human operators to interact with various technologies. the tasks we ask operators to perform today are highly cognitie. Specific measures aimed at reducing accident occurrence or injury can be classed according to whether they are predominantly based on engineering principles. 5.4). At the same time. in the the traffic engineer’s role has increasingly become one of improving the efficiency of an existing roadway system rather than building new higher capacity roads.4. and the effective enforcement of regulatory legislation (Wheatley. 1957).4.7. the Haddon Matrix (Haddon.7.
At the same time. (Bishop. 2001). there may be limits to the number and level of sophistication of devices installed in motor vehicles. Sadano. Such systems are based on a shared control paradigm. roadway and environmental settings (see Table 5. in which in which the control of functions shifts between machines and human beings dynamically. Maggio & Jin. is strongly associated with crash outcomes would support the importance of further development of LKA systems.6). Bishop (2005) has noted that there is still a lack of knowledge about the threshold levels at which to set in-vehicle modifications. In the case of LKA. not to overwhelm them with complicated or difficult override processes. Suda & Ono. The findings of the present research that usurpation of right-of-way. 2003). for instance. The aim should be to assist drivers by making routine actions simpler. Holzmann (2008) argues that there is considerable potential for crash reduction in this sort of technology. Other authors have cautioned against engineering so many devices and signals that driver attention becomes diverted from vehicle control tasks. 2005). Stough. as well as other in-vehicle technologies now being tested for future implementation in automobiles and other vehicles (see Table 5. The amount of toque needed to adjust vehicle direction at highway speeds is quite small. there is an adaptive and cooperative relationship between the driver and the vehicle in ensuring that lane deviation and roadway departure are controlled. Murazami. Lane-keeping Assist Systems (LKA).6).application of computer and information technology to transportation infrastructure and vehicles. so the systems are easily overridden by even the weakest drivers when needed (Kawazoe. with the resulting transport systems generally referred to as Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS. Several intelligent in-car systems have been developed to assist lane manoeuvring and to control lateral deviation in the forward motion track. operator workload and performance (Inagaki. 222 . These have been applied to in-car. 2001). depending on environmental factors. 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. or the adaptive automation concept.
1997). 2003. Herzog. 1999. traffic 223 . A number of studies have reported that roadside vegetation and predominantly natural environments elicit lower levels of driver frustration and stress (Cackowsky & Nasar. 2004. 1998). was associated crash outcomes. Recovery from lapses in attention has been faster in “restorative environments” enhanced with horticultural and aesthetic features (Heerwagen & Oriens. initiatives aimed at improving environmental aesthetics may have a positive impact on roadway safety.6). Traffic management may also be carried out for easons other than safety. 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. Ulrich. changes in traffic speed. Tassinary. in the form of driving above the speed limit and driving consistently in the fast lane. 2000). 1993. Engineering solutions have also been suggested with respect to the design of roadways and the general driving environment. Hebl & Grossman-Alexander. such as Automated Speed Enforcement (ASE). Richardson & Downe. in particular to pursue environmental. Fountaine and Knotts. and management of parking and loading arrangements that influence the speed of traffic. 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. Parsons. The present research also found that freeway urgency.with a resulting increase in crash risk (Noy. Intelligent Speed Adaptation (ISA) and Adaptive Cruise Control (ACC) systems (see Table 5. Black. Brown & Noy. Safety benefits from traffic management can result from changes in the patterns of trffic flow. This finding would lend support to the myriad of speed control devices now under development.
journey purpose or other human factors. Engineering interventions capable of assisting in the focusing of attention to the driving task have been largely understudied and considerable research will need to be carried out before practical applications can be implemented effectively and dependably. This view embraces a philosophy and a set of goals that go far beyone mere physical control and management of traffic. questions of alternative urban structure. have pointed out that many problems still exist in the implementation of such technological solutions and that some of these – including the creation of higher mental workloads and overestimation tendencies in the use of information – may be particularly salient for young. Lippold and Mayser (2003) have noted that new driver assistance systems offer some promise for safety improvements by providing additional information to drivers. Current discussions of speed management go even beyond traditional traffic management approaches. p. ostensibly satisfying wandering attentional needs and allowing vehicle operators to concentrate on tasks at hand. however. 224 .efficiency (capacity) or access objectives (Ogden. Probably. 1992). but extends into city-wide suppression of traffic. Gregersen and Falkmer (2003). 1996. and now encompass the principle of “traffic calming” (Brindle. 1996. Proctor. 309). Maakip (2003) has also added that there is little understanding of exactly what specific pieces of information drivers require or prefer to have. and whether this information varies according to the situation. inexperienced drivers. engineering solutions have the least to offer in terms of behaviour in traffic that involves risky levels of destination activity orientation. Dietze. This refers to driving while thinking about things unrelated to the driving task. however. 1991). and substantial lifestyle changes aimed at achieving an environmentally sustainable future (Ogden.
departure warning.1 Vehicle Road Environment lane departure warning lane marker improvements – integrated traffic systems (LDWS) – have the using plastic. reversible corrections through a motorlanes. and likelihood of. traffic drivers when their speed is definition. Examples are the signals and ramp meters to too high for an upcoming use of “Bot’s dots” or monitor traffic on streets and curve.1. “rumble strips” in expressways.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. Hi H 1. blind spot sensing and lange change assist. thermoplastic management systems – Many ability to detect lane and epoxy materials to metropolitan areas have departures and to alert drivers designate lane configurations. to allow easier lanes and synchronised actuated increase in steering overtaking and lane signals decreases the need as the vehicle nears a lane.Table 5. Reducing conjunction with high lane keeping assist systems congestion and increasing intensity reflective devices (LKA) – these reduce the smooth traffic flow through driver’s need to make wider right-of-way – wider driver information. variable speed warning systems advise lane conspicuity and message signs (VMS). management centers (TMCs) integrated lane marker with closed-circuit television road departure warning applications – these combine (CCTV) camersas. generally comprehensive lateral control controlled from a central assistance (LCA) – a point. keeping. Integrated with combination of radar and roadside sensors. unsafe blind spot monitoring systems lane deviation. transitions for. etc. traffic and systems (RDWS) – curve different materials to increase weather sesors. lane road conditions. – 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. 225 . infrastructure. the systems vision sensing technology to transmit information to combine lane and road drivers about traffic flow.
traffic lights) safe. including controlled from a central cruise control but also track street and link closures. the host vehicle.and millimetre-wave (MMW)-based inter-vehicle communications – systems that send data about the proximity of approaching or following vehicles. communication systems (ACC) – acting as a Driving speed can be reduced embedded in the roadway “longitudinal control cothrough infrastructure infrastructure. the systems intersection modification. to in-vehicle display terminals. are travelling. deriver-selectable interwhich surrounding vehicles provide speed modification at vehicle gap. ACC systems provide modifications. Integrated with vehicles in the lane ahead of roadside sensors.(continued) H 1. than the safety standard. adjusting transmit information to Intersection devices (yield speed as needed to maintaina drivers about the speed at and stop signs. t-junctions or or (at maximum) to limit the warning signs for vehicles pedestrian crossings..2 lane deviation feedback systems – systems calculate the number of lane changes as a function of speed and cue the driver with performance data. including those in adjoining lanes. vehicle’s speed to comply travelling at speeds higher cooperative vehicle highway with the speed limit. 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. a particular high-risk part of the thoroughfare. point. intelligent speed adaptation infrastructure-based Cooperative Intersection (ISA) – automated systems Intersection Collision Collision Avoidance (C-ICA) enabling vehicles to be Avoidance (I-ICA) systems – systems – involving similar “aware” of the preailing involving the installation of sensor arrays as in I-ICA speed limit on rads and (at sensors at “intelligent communicating with inminimum) to provide intersections”. generally pilot”.1. systems (CVHS) – wireless adaptive cruise control road network modifications.1 Drivers scoring high on a measure of freeway urgency are more likely to experience crash outcomes. Radar. H 1. 226 .1.
at which the whole road space at an intersection is raised. H 1. The use of properly designed humps are effective in causing vehicles to reduce speed in their vicinity. humorous content to evoke a contradictory affective response to frustration. pinchpoints and gateways or arches. coupled with stress vegetation to reduce traffic signals.1. “Speed tables”. has an advantage over intersection redesign by saving space. automated speed enforcement – the use of high-volume speed cameras to regulate the speed of motor vehicles on roadways. Such devices include chicanes. signs with calming or vehicles. environment and other frustrating stimuli. traffic flow management training to better frustration and effect a moderation and other cope with frustration caused calming influence on drivers.3 vertical displacement. horizontal displacement – these design features cause the driver to change direction quite sharply and change the visual cues presented by the roadway. measures that can reduce by driver interactions with congestion and other contrary messages – roadroad.(continued) Externally-frustrated drivers are more likely to experience crash outcomes. 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. 227 .
driver assistance systems – capable of providing information about destination conditions or journey progress.1. Destination-activity orientation is associated with a higher risk of crash outcomes. at least. notification of construction ahead.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.(continued) electronic variable message signs (VMSs) – roadside signboards which change messages to provide updated information about traffic congestion. This information allows drivers to avoid or. weather-related road conditions. dedicated broadcast of safety messages – radio or broadband messages with reminder to focus attention on driving tasks at hand. to reduce wandering thoughts and focus attention on driving tasks at hand. H 1. notice of future road construction and notice of public events. 228 . safety messages. prepare for stress-provoking conditions and external frustration.
Professional driving instruction tends to be inadequate because (a) driving instructors are not properly tested or monitored. in addition to teaching the practical manoeuvres and driving techniques associated with managing a vehicle. given ethnic differences observed with respect to drivers’ behaviour in traffic. and (c) driving test standards and requirements are inadequate” (p. (b) there are no driving or instruction manuals. and must include broader awareness about the dangers of roads and traffic.4. The present research suggests that. Effective road safety education goes beyond driver training programmes. It suggests that. 73).3 Education According to Jacobs and Baguley (2004). however. teachers or the police. 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. 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. to some extent. In a study of traffic awareness in developing countries. publicity campaigns and incentive schemes to be offered as part of the activities within mosques (Che Ali Bin Che Hitam. 2001).5.7. Training skills for anger management and frustration tolerance. to inadequacies in driver training and testing. They concluded that there is clarealy a need to improve road safety education. like community centres or places of worship. the probems of poor driver behaviour and knowledge in developing and emerging countries “are likely to be due. The present research provides some useful additions to the knowledge base to be imparted to professional driving instructors in Malaysia. 229 . This is consistent with previous calls in Malaysia for safety awareness education. it is also important for them to devote some time to the affective and cognitive components of the driving task.
5. and (3) legal measures providing rules governing the interaction of pedestrians and traffic. 2007. and penalties for infringement to ensure that the rules are obeyed. road safety campaigns and media coverage” (Cheah. (2) exhortatory and educational measures to encourage the development of appropriate skills and attitudes. however. Yergil (2005) has discussed a number of cognitive biases that tend to enhance a false sense of safety among drivers. p. Success of the yearly Ops Sitak safety campaign by the Royal Malaysian Police and other regulatory bodies has been attributed to several “cumulative factors. 1978. This twinning of psychological and legal perspectives derives two implications. or an internal locus of control.4. The bias of false consensus. and driving within safe legal limits could be included within future public information campaigns. was studied in a 230 . that “Of these three approaches.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. p. The results of the present research would suggest that messages about the link between personal responsibility for one’s action. 1030). Siegrist and Roskova (2001) have called for an integration of social science views arising from traffic psychology with legislation and enforcement pertaining to traffic. They also stated. from the findings of the present research. First. Second. or the tendency to attribute one’s own attitudes and behaviour to others. N6). legal measures change least often. 265). evoke the least expectation and are least often evaluated in terms of their effect on accidents” (p. The Belief in a Just World bias is the tendency “to belive that they live in a world where people generally get what they deserve” (Lerner and Miller. Jacobs and Baguley (2004) have stressed that changes in road laws and police operations need to be well advertised in order to be effective. one practical and the other touching on the development of theory. such as visibility of enforcement.7.
2001) provides an interesting theoretical framework for considering the influences of these cognitions and their interplay with regulatory controls. 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). 1991. 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.sample of drivers by Manstead. The theory of planned behaviour (TPB. is allowed to occur in a Just World. Both biases seem rooted in an external locus of control. Ajzen. 498). Parker. 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.” 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). 1992). opinions about what significant others would think of the behaviour (subjective norms) and perceived behaviour control (PCB). on the other. after all. They showed that the frequency of violations was related to the evaluated percentage of other drivers who commit the same violations. to consensual beliefs of powerful others. on one hand attributing outcomes to a fatalistic notion of Just World and. 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 . By doing so. 2001. Reason & Baxter. Yergil (2005) notes that: In order to maintain the self-concept of a law-abiding citizen. Stradling. Azjen & Fishbein.
By examining drivers’ response to traffic laws in the context of the theory of planned behaviour. to traffic regulations. or not adhere. it may be possible to come closer to the integration of legal and psychological perspectives advocated by Siegrist and Roskova (2001). Similarly. 232 . an orientation toward an external locus of control may influence PCB factors underlying the decision to comply with legal requirements or not.drivers’ decisions to adhere.
was used to frame the relationship between these human factors. when risky. demographic and psychological characteristics of drivers on the occurrence of self-reported motor vehicle crashes and crash-related injuries. In doing so. it was concluded that driver experience. age. 2006) and it is anticipated that there will be many more. such human factors are important contributors to crash outcomes. Results have indicated that..CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION The present research was an attempt to investigate interaction effects of experiential. Studies using structural equation modelling to interpret complex inter-variable relationships have become increasingly prevalent within the traffic psychology literature (e. 2003. A contextual mediated model. as expected. 233 .g. In the present research. ethnicity. locus of control. gender. Iverson & Rundmo. structural equation modelling (SEM) was found to be a valuable technique for articulating interactive relationships in a holistic manner. 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. 2002. contribute to the occurrence of crashes and injuries. Wállen Warner & Åberg. Sümer et al. aggression and tendency to entertain hostile automatic thoughts all act upon driving behaviour patterns which. Sümer. derived from the earlier work of Sümer (2003). hopelessness. 2005.. with demographic and personality variables posited as distal and patterns of behaviour in traffic consistent with the Type A behaviour pattern. as proximal to the crash outcomes.
1973). measures of aggression had direct effects on all components of self-reported behaviour in traffic. or external locus of control. consistent with the position taken by Byrne (2001) and other authors. as well as statistical grounds. 1982). 2003). In the present research. like Brown and Noy (2004). 1974). Some previous studies have shown a link between ‘fatalism’. the selection of one SEM over competing models has been generally based on which has the better goodness-of-fit.. In most cases. 2000) and hierarchical motivation theories (Näätänen and Summala. However. 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. task capability (Fuller. Harrell. 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. Further. 1983) and was earlier found to moderate the effects of aggression on driving behaviour (Gidron et al. 1995.g. 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. Montag & Comrey. one conclusion is that the locus of control construct plays an important role in safety behaviour. Hoyt. although it is widely acknowledged that this is not a hard and fast rule. it is argued here. The present research replicated earlier findings about the important influences of internal and external locus of control over behaviour leading to safety problems and. and accident risk (e. traffic psychologists and other researchers are advised to make the choice based on theoretical and practical. 1987). while internal locus of control has been frequently associated with safer work and lifestyle practices (Guastello & Guastello. it has been argued here that it may be an important factor in behavioural adaptation processes underlying risk homeostasis (Wilde. that when faced with competing models in safety studies. This is Of the variables studied.In the current literature. Some inter-ethnic differences in 234 . It is further concluded that aggression also plays a significant role in behaviour leading to crash outcomes. 1986..
aggression were observed. In examining inter-relationships among and between these variables. As Rothe (2002) has pointed out: Traffic-safety systems are composed of complex behaviours that imply complex causes and entangled factors. it became apparent that motor vehicle crashes are indeed multi-factorial phenomena and that prior assumptions of causality should always be subject to review. and a psychologist who studies cognition and driving while turning away from laws and government. all are professionals who know their area of expertise has collegially or self-imposed limitations. 2005. a multi-disciplinary approach was used. It is argued that this is a In interpreting these effects. 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. For example. Several authors (e. in combination.. promising approach to future studies of crasch occurrence. including psychology (especially cognitive and information processing). Groeger & Rothengatter. as well.g. One of the benefits of using structural equation modelling in such research is that it allows for a holistic. Huguenin. Additional studies of the role played by hostile automatic thoughts and cultural influences in moderating the effects of aggression on safety-related behaviour will provide a better understanding of psychological processes and may offer new insights into the treatment of dysfunctional driving behaviour. bird’s eye view of the factors contributing a given outcome. a civil engineer who uses laboratories to measure asphalt wearing under different conditions. road engineering and ergonomics. However. they 235 . Rothengatter. cultural anthropology. an economist who researches economic factors of transportation without much concern for geography. Each system has its own experts whose lenses are focused almost exclusively on their own subject matter. 1998.
findings with regard to four components of behaviour in traffic gave rise to a number of interventions in the engineering. educational and enforcement spheres. significant impacts can be made in reducing motor vehicle crashes. Through a multi-disciplinary approach. 313). 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. management. 236 . Indeed. 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. Continued sharing between professional associations and between design. injuries and death. In the present research. A uni-disciplinary approach is not sufficient to generate or integrate the range of actions that must be undertaken to effectively bring about improvements to the roadway safety problem in Malaysia and elsewhere.form a complex traffic-safety reality in which systems form a web of interdependent fields (p. Additional studies should aim toward a conceptual common ground and further examination of models and theories from which broader understanding can be derived.
attitudes and social norms of Swedish male drivers. Mohd Zulkifli.H. (1993). 38(5). M.E. 35. and Pederson. Psychological Testing and Assessment. (2003).. H.S. individual crash level approach. (2007). Subramaniam. P.  af Wählberg. Malaysian Journal of Medical Sciences. A. Drinking and driving: intention. (2003). Puzzles & Irritations. Mohd Nasir. Neural systems for recognizing emotion..H.  Adolphs. R.. 289-296. K. Third edition. 237 . and Law. E140 Proceedings of the Safety on Roads International Conference (SORIC). (1979). Journal of Safety Research. M. (2003). 169-177. H.  af Wählberg.  Abdul Rahman. Radin Umar. Bahrain. 12.. Accident Analysis and Prevention. S. P.  Åberg. (2002). (2002). On the validity of self-reported traffic accident data. Some methodological deficiencies in studies on traffic accident predictors. Musa. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Car occupants accidents and injuries among adolescents in a state in Malaysia. A. R. Current Opinion in Neurobiology. A. 25. (Research Report 1/99) Kuala Lumpur: Malaysia Road Safety Council. 10(2). Crash data analysis: collective vs. MY: Pearson. (1999). 581-587. Understanding Multicultural Malaysia: Delights.T. The effectiveness of motorcycle safety campaigns on motorcyclists. L. 5. 1867-1874. T.  Ahmad Hariza. A. (2005)..B. Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies. Petaling Jaya. Review of global menace of road accidents with special reference to Malaysia – a social perspective. 473-486.A. N. and Kulanthayan. and Anurag. 31-39. Accident Analysis and Prevention.E.  Abdullah. L.REFERENCES  Abdel-Aty.R.  Aiken.  Abdul Kareem.
23. B. J.  Åkerstedt. (1985).A.  Armitage. Day. T. W. 10(6). Social. W. and Fishbein.) Action-Control: From Cognition to Behavior. Ethnic differences and married women’s employment in Malaysia: do government policies matter? Journal of Socio-Economics. 340-342. Attitudes and the attitude behavior relation: reasoned and automatic processes.  Ajzen. C. I. and Hewston. Current Psychology: Developmental. Women’s Studies International Forum. (2001). 22(3). and Haigh.D. S.. Journal of Sleep Research.E. (Eds. Women’s friendships under urbanization: A Malaysian study. S. 179-211. J. (2004). (2003). Age. 10. Annual Review of Psychology. In Stroebe. (Eds. J. Tubré. Human Factors. Heidleberg: Springer-Verlag. 291-307. and Kerrich. J. E. 27-58. From intentions to actions: a theory of planned behavior. 623-633.  Ajzen. London: John Wiley & Sons. In Kuhl.  Ajzen. A. Ajzen. (1997).G.  Armstrong. Beliefs about aggression among male and female prisoners.T.J. Convergence of self-report and archival crash involvement data: a two-year longitudinal followup. Personality. 52. Nature and operation of attitudes. and Beckmann.. (2001).) European Review of Social Psychology. 303-313. The theory of planned behaviour.  Amin. 33(3). A. T. Bell. and Christian. I. M.H.. and Kecklund (2001). M. Learning.C. I. Aggressive Behavior.  Arthur. 404-415. and Tubré. I. M.105-110. (2005). (1952). 187-195.J. (1991). A. Biometrics. Edwards. gender and early morning accidents. J. From attitudes to behaviour: basic and applied research on the theory of planned behaviour. 47. (1987). 7. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 50(2).  Arbous. Accident statistics and the concept of accident proneness. 238 .  Archer.
(Eds. When hope becomes hopelessness. Groningen. Improved safety through improved technical measures? Empirical studies regarding risk compensation in relation to antilock braking systems.A.  Baron. (Ed. Transport psychology and transport in Europe: a general overview. and Carson. 89-105. (2002). R.  Austin. and Carbonell Vaya E. Asian Development Bank – Association of Southeast Asian Nations regional road safety program (accident costing report AC5: Malaysia). Boston: Kluwer.M. and Biehl. Amsterdam: Elsevier.F. 34.) Traffic Psychology Today (pp.-E. An alternative accident prediction model for highway-rail interfaces. 34. Manila: Philippines. and Dischinger.  Bakri Musa. (1994). 21-30).  Aylott. (2002)..M. GJ. P. strategic and statistical considerations.31-42. W. Accident Analysis and Prevention. October 18).. 14-29). 1173-1182.  Ballesteros.  Asian Development Bank (2005).S.M. J. Characteristics of traffic crashes in Maryland (1996-1998): differences among the youngest drivers. D. NL: Styx. 2007 from http://www. Transport psychology in Europe: a historical approach. 4(2). Barrett. and Kenny. K. 2(4). P. Arthur. G.) Challenges to Accident Preventions: The Issue of Risk Compensation Behaviour. (1991).L..D. and Tortosa. In Rothengatter. R.com/archives/continuing-carnage-on-our-carriageways.V.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. T. F. 239 . In Trimpop. In Barjonet. 51(6). (2001).  Aschenbrenner. (1997). F. R. Continuing carnage on our carriageways. European Journal of Oncology Nursing. S. Prediction of vehicular accident involvement: a meta-analysis.-E. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual. (2005. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Human Performance. (1998). Wilde. and Tortosa. B.  Barjonet. (Eds. 279-284. Retrieved April 4. P-E.A. P. M. (1986). R. and Alexander. M. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 231-234.  Barjonet.bakrimusa.C.
(1996).  Belli.  Bentler.T. D. (1987b).C. 42  Becker. and Weissman. (1993). Journal of the American Medical Association. G. (1980). 218-229).) Theory and Concepts in Qualitative Research: Perspectives from the Field.  Beck.  Beck. L. D. Cognitive Therapy and the Emotional Disorders. 1146-1149.  Beck. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. and Bonnett. 73-84. The pliability of autobiographical memory: Misinformation and the false memory problem. H. (1975). Hartos. Psychological Bulletin. and Steer. A. R. Teen driving risk: the promise of parental influence and public policy. Beck. A. (Ed. and Mills. 234(11). and Trexler.. The measurement of pessimism: the Hopelessness scale. 149-178). San Antonio TX: Psychological Corporation.. J.J.  Beck.T. 29(1). Cognitive models of depression.) The Evolution of Psychotherapy (pp.C. K. (2005).G. and Simons-Morton (2002). In Rubin.. M. D. E. (1999).T. 5-37. 588-606. Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Hopelessness and suicidal behavior. New York: Brunner/Mazel. New York: Cambridge University Press. Palliative Medicine. R. and Loftus. A.) Remembering Our Past: Studies in Autobiographical Memory (pp. J. 19.  Benzein. In Zeig. Theory: the necessary evil. 157-179).E.K.H. 1(1).F..  Beck. hopelessness and fatigue in patients and family members in palliative care. A.T. D. (Ed.F. Kovacs. Hostility and Violence. 88. Prisoners of Hate: The Cognitive Basis of Anger.  Beck. New York: Meridian. A. (1987a).T. 240 . (pp. New York: Teachers College Press. New York: Perennial Harper Collins. (Eds. Health Education and Behavior. A.S. P.A. In (Flinders. and Berg..G. A. Lester.  Beck.T. 234-240. E. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy: An International Quarterly. A. The level of and relation between hope. (1993). (1976). Weissman. Cognitive therapy. Manual for Beck Hopelessness Scale. (1974). A.M. A.T.
Hopelessness and locus of control in patients with motor conversion disorder. 37-40. 241 .  Bridger.S. T. 39-55. (2006.D.A.com. J. and Valentine. Retrieved March 30. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. Stress and Coping. J. 2007 from http://www. (1981). (2006) Risky driving and lifestyles in adolescence.B.  Blumenthal. Ben-Zur. E. and Haney. March 12). Personality and aggressive behavior under provoking and neutral conditions: a meta-analytic review. Introduction to Ergonomics. A technology to measure multiple driving behaviors without self-report or participant reactivity. R. 43. Accident analysis and Prevention. 38(3). 313-322. and Geller. Assessment of conceptual tempo in the Type A (coronary prone) behavior pattern.. 53.J. A. Benjamin. M. 37.. B.my/bernama/v3/printable. Anxiety. 15(1). S.E. K. Psychological Bulletin. (2002). (2006).. McKee. 95-104. Psychology and road safety. F. Managing the high costs of road deaths. and Shimmin. (1995). Revolutions and shifting paradigms in human factors & ergonomics.C. and Bonino. A. Talley.  Bina. 44-51. R. D.  Blasco.php?id=185148. Malaysian National News Agency.bernama. (2001). Applied Psychology: An International Review.  Bernama. Journal of Personality Assessment. T. F. New York: McGraw Hill. New York: Routledge. 751-777. Nordic Journal of Psychiatry. M.. (1994).  Boff. Graziano. Applying Psychology in Organizations. 391-399. Associations of Type A behavior with the emotional traits of anger and curiosity. Williams. (2006). (1984). 34(1). S. 132(5).  Boyce.A. 472-481  Binzer.  Bettencourt. H.  Blacker. Applied Ergonomics. R. 45(1).S..
and Noy.. E.W. N.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application. P. Accident Analysis and Prevention.  Brown.P. 4(4). 9-19). The Fatality Analysis Reporting System as a tool for investigating racial and ethnic determinants of motor vehicle crash fatalities. 105-124.D. R.C. Personality and Individual Differences. 242 . and Ghiselli. Behavioural adaptation to in-vehicle safety measures: past ideas and future directions. In Rothengatter. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. (Eds. Local street management in Australia: is it ‘traffic calming’.C. (1989).G. 345-352.W. 32(1). Multivariate Behavioral Research. E. 14.  Brown. R. C. In Rothengatter. C.E. (Eds. Levine.K. Schlundt. and Carbonell Vaya.. Goldzweig. Political Geography. 37(4). Amsterdam: Elsevier. G.  Brown.E. D. I. and Wilde.S. and Cudeck. (2004). Briggs. and Warren. (2005). (2007). 267-278. W. (2002). R. (1948). 24. Ergonomics. 18(2).S.  Bunnell. Haliburton.J. 318-330. T. (1992). 21. 641-649. I.. Accident proneness among street car motormen and motor coach operators. observational data and driver records.. The effects of music tempo on simulated driving performance and vehicular control. (1995). and Huguenin. (1982). 29-38  Brodsky. 27(3). International Journal of Educational Development. (1997). W.C.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application. Accident Analysis and Prevention. R.  Brown.D. How traffic and transport systems can benefit from psychology (pp. M. (2000). Risk taking in male taxi drivers: relationships among personality. I. I. 219-241. R.  Burns. 20-23. Journal of Applied Psychology.M. (Re) positioning Malaysia: high-tech networks and the multicultural rescripting of national identity. Making ethnic citizens: the politics and practice of education in Malaysia.  Brindle. Single sample cross-validation indices for covariance structures. G. T.  Brown. 24(1).  Browne. T.D. Amsterdam: Pergamon. Exposure and experience are a confounded nuisance in research on driver behaviour. 445-455.
Beverly Hislls CA: Sage. B.D.F.. Automatic attention to emotional stimuli: neural correlates. 45-50.  Byrne. (2002). R.J. Internal versus external control in India and Canada. (2000). Structural Equation Modeling with LISREL. Manual for Aggression Questionnaire. E. 47(15). J.L. (1998).  Carment. 736-751.. (1981). (Eds. and Warren. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. M.  Byrne.  Carretie.  Caird. J. D. and Tapia. (1974).G. 31. T. A. G. E. Buss. Parada. Seatbelt use and belief in destiny among Hispanic and non-Hispanic drivers.W. J. Hinojosa. 290-299. Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Conccepts. 65-115). 22. In Bohrnstedt. Journal of Consulting Psychology. & Santos. 343-349. Oxford: Elsevier Science. and McIver.M. (2001). (1999). 243 . L. 35(6). A...  Buss. A. In Fuller. 15981613. L. Ergonomics. J. 9. An inventory for assessing different kinds of hostility. Mercado. (2004). E. M. Environment and Behaviour. Martin-Loeches.. M. (Eds). 21. Multiple perspectives. M.  Carmines. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. W. Accident Analysis and Prevention.A. PRELIS and SIMPLIS: Basic Conccepts. J. Los Angeles CA: Western Psychological Services.. Gonzalez. B. and Nasar. and Kline. (1957). and Borgatta.  Byrd. O. Applications and Programming. T. Human Brain Mapping.P. F. Human Factors for Highway Engineers.W.  Carsten.K. and Durkee.L. Analyzing models with unobserved variables: analysis of covariance structures.  Cackowski. J. Applications and Programming. International Journal of Psychology.H.) Social Measurement: Current Issues (pp. The restorative effects of roadside vegetation.. Cohn. (2003). The relationship between organizational and individual variables to on-the-job driver accidents and accident-free kilometers. and Cortes.A. (2004). 63-65.H.
March 20-22. Howard. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. gender and risky behaviors in Taipei. N6.pdf 244 . Kuala Lumpur. Brazil.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp..ictct. Motorists more careful because of Ops Sitak. (2000). Visser.H. Retrieved October 15. Y.W. 557-562. Campo Grande. R.  Che Ali bin Che Hitam (2001. M.  Chaloupka-Risser (2005). (Eds.  Chang. H. and Yeh. Motorcyclist accident involvement by age. The Star. Proceedings of the International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT) Extra Workshop. Monash University.-H.P.  Cheah.  Cheung. Traffic management and road safety along federal roads in Malaysia. R. W. Carver. 109-122. Paper presented at the Traffic Engineering and Management in Malaysia workshop. Dictionary of Psychology.F.ghipr.  Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and State Farm Insurance (2007). Cognitive effects of environmental knowledge on urban route planning strategies. Cheung.D.0. Taiwan. November). 41. Driving: through the eyes of teens. New York: Dell. 2007 from http:www.M. and Huguenin. Sunway Campus. F. and Lim. S. and Nash. Pacific Grove CA: Duxbury. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Malaysia. 2008 from http://www. 61-71). what can we know – traffic psychological analysis of Driver Behaviour. P.. Doing data analysis with SPSS 10. (2007).org/workshops/05CampoGrande  Chan. Retrieved March 31. Personality and Individual Difference. J.. (1985). R. What are we allowed to ask.  Chaplin. S.-L.  Chalmé. J. 10(2). (1996). T. (2007. R. and Denis. November 12). D. (2006). In Rothengatter. Self-consciousness in Chinese college students in Hong Kong. Personality across the ethnic divide in Singapore: are “Chinese traits” uniquely Chinese? Personality and Individual Differences.com/statefarm/chop/youngdriversurvey/PDF/NYD_Survey_FIN. Matto Grosso do Sul.G. T.-H. 21(4). (2004). 467-477.
French. Ward. (Ed. Chioqueta.... Aggressive behavior while driving as predictor of self-reported car crashes.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp.  Commission for Global Road Safety (2006. Personality and Individual Differences. and Bukasa. C. 24(2). 22(3).. C. Smiley. Koumaki. Patient-related barriers to cancer pain management in a palliative care setting in Hong Kong. H. 974-981. )2007). and Ward.  Chung. MacGregor. P. (2007).D. Time vs. R. and Truman. and Darviri. 431-443. (1992). Journal of Safety Research. 245 .. C.L. C. 196-203.org/documents/make_roads_safe_low_res. 28(2). and Huguenin. Demakakos. (2004). 679-684. Accident Analysis and Prevention. G. hopelessness and suicide ideation. (2005).D... Y.  Christ.. Retrieved December 7. Cancer Nursing..C. and Lee-Gosselin. S. 255-274). 38(6). (Eds. M.P. (1996). Personality traits and the development of depression..pdf  Conrad.G. 13(2). injuries and cultural definitions: motorcycle injury in urban Indonesia.M.S. V. Helmets. 193-200. The role fo motorcyclist and other driver behaviour in two types of serious accident in the UK. Accident Analysis & Prevention. A. In Chmiel. Lamsudin. 33. Kasniyah. P.. Tzamalouka. (2002). S. In Rothengatter. M..T. N. P. Safety at work. E. (1999). T. D. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Driver selection and improvement in Austria. W. N. London: Wiley-Blackwell.. (2000). N.makeroadssafe. Cairns.K. and Chan. distance as measures of exposure in driving surveys. M..  Clarke.’ Injury Prevention. Panosch.  Christie. E. and Stiles.  Chipman. June). B. J.E. Amsterdam: Elsevier. A. Towner. 2007 from http://www.  Chliaoutaks. Make Roads Safe: A New Priority for Sustainable Development.  Chmiel. Bartle. T. 377-390). Bradshaw. How exposure information can enhance our understanding of child traffic ‘death leagues. 1283-1289. Bakou. R.) An Introduction to Work and Organizational Psychology: A European Perspective (pp. and Costello. P.. 125-129. N. R. 39.
p.  de Waard. American Psychologist. and McRae. Cognitive/neuropsychological functioning and compensation related to car driving performance in older adults. and Froggatt.A. Asian self-effacement or feminine modesty? Gender and Society. 95-104. (2002). D.M. Journal of Personality Assessment. F. H. P. position on the road and culpability in a road accident scenario. and Durso. 98-117. P. The influence of car and driver stereotypes on attributions of vehicle speed. 263.F. [Letter to the Editor] The Star Online.D. (2005). Accident proneness. (Eds.M. Boca Raton Fl: CRC / Taylor & Francis.A. Human Factors for Engineers (pp.  Crombag. 5(1). P.W. October 18). R. and Santos.my/permalink. 10.S. W. (2006.com. Legal and Criminological Psychology. K. Wagenaar. Cooke. D.R. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Amsterdam: Elsevier.T. G.asp?id-7003. R. Domains and facets: hierarchical personality assessment using the Revised NEO Personality Inventory. and Patel. In Fuller. T. Editorial: Get out of my @%^$! way: there are a few things we should remember about this whole rudeness-on-the-road thing. N48  de Raedt. 2007 from http://blog.  Costa. or variable accident tendency? Journal of the Statistical and Social Inquiry Society of Ireland. (1962). 152-171. 45-62. 10. and van Koppen. J. Retrieved April 5. and Huguenin.J.  Davin Arul (2005. (1995).J. (1961). Engineering psychology and the highway transportation system. 64. 161-175). Stories of Modern Technology Failures and Cognitive Engineering Successes. L. N.  Cowardly Malaysian drivers. and Ponjaert-Kristofferson (2004). 16(5). The Star.thestar. Mental workload.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application. R. In Rothengatter.. R. 20(5). 21-50. (1996). 246 .  Crittendon. W.L.  Cozan. Crashing memories and the problem of ‘source monitoring’.  Davies. (1991). February 8).  Cresswell. Applied Cognitive Psychology.
R. 111-142). S.. C. Ergonomics. J. Characteristics of two groups of angry drivers. In Rothengatter. (Eds.  Deffenbacher. 383-402.S. J.W. Oetting.S.) Human Factors in Traffic Safety (pp. R.L. 209-233). Tucson. 1-20. Lynch.B. E.. 47.C. Age differences – drivers old and young. (1999). L. R. (2004). Power and pleasure around the stove: the construction of gendered identity in middle-class south Indian Hindu households in urban Malaysia.T. (2003).L.  Deffenbacher. (2000). and Swaim. The Driver’s Angry Thoughts Questionnaire: a measure of angry cognitions when driving. 123132... and Salvatore. (1997).N. E. and Brookhuis. P.. Characteristics and treatment of high anger drivers. Oetting. (Eds. P. (1998). E. 729-730. R.. Journal of Counseling Psychology. In Dewar. 247 . On the measurement of driver mental workload. Petrilli. Lynch. T. T. (2003).L. 333-356. Lynch. Oetting.  Devashayam. Women’s Studies International Forum.A. 575-590. T. Amsterdam: Pergamon. R. (Eds. R. E. K. M.R. and Morris. T. J. The expression of anger and its consequences.. and Meyer. J.E. Personality and Individual Differences. P.L. and Oetting. de Waard.  Dharmaratne. E. R.  Dewar. Richards. 27(4). (2002a).E.L. R..E. R.R. 50(2). Behaviour Research and Therapy. Journal of Counseling Psychology. Tucson. 34. Individual differences.  Dien.  Delhomme. D. 161-171).R. 41. and Carbonell Vaya. 14(12). Journal of Physicians and Surgeons Pakistan.S. (2005). E. R. Differential lateralization of trait anxiety and trait fearfulness: evoked potential correlates. 373-393. N. 26(1). 28.L.D. In Dewar.  Dewar. Control motivation and young drivers’ decision making. 5-17. S.) Human Factors in Traffic Safety (pp. Cognitive Therapy and Research.L.  Deffenbacher. and Ameratunga. (1996). Huff. AZ: Lawyers & Judges. E.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. and Olson. Filetti.  Deffenbacher. R. Road traffic injuries in Sri Lanka: a call to action. and Olson.F.. Lynch.D. J. (2002b).S. AZ: Lawyers & Judges.
(2003)... Traffic safety and the new research paradigm in human sciences. S. Powers. Asian Institute of Medicine.. T. The safety potential of the new driver assistance system (CSA). T. (1999). Mohd Yusuff. 1146-1158.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp.D. M. and McFadden. Ebersbach. M. (2007. Brown. L. (Eds. and Mayser. In Khalid. A.T. R.. (2001). Dietze. locus of control and worker safety in three Malaysian plantations: moving toward a contextual-mediate research model. (1999). 248 . accident causation and prevention: issues for health promotion from an exploratory study in a Yoruba town.  Draskóczy.  Dodge. Lippold. 278-285). J.) Proceedings of Agriculture Ergonomics Development Conference (pp. L.S. (Ed. C. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. C. Health Education Research. Clayton. E. 263282. Paper presented at the First International Conference-Seminar on Culture. 525-535. 223-231). and Ballard. 85-92).L.  Downe.M.  Dixey.. Development and evaluation of a measure of dangerous aggressive. 53.) Driver Behaviour and Training (pp.A.. Nigeria.L. K.. 323-331. C.E. (2004.G. (Eds. Women drivers’ behaviour. Jenkins. (1987). In Dorn. 14(2). 31. December). and Che Doi.A. J. Amsterdam: Pergamon. negative emotional and risky driving.P. M. M. ‘Fatalism’. and Coie. S. D. J. N.. T.  Dobson. In Rothengatter. Malaysia. Bahar. H. Social information-processing factors in reactive and proactive aggression in children’s playgroups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.a. Miller. Effects of aggressive driving and river characteristics on road rage. Kedah. A. Aldershot UK: Ashgate. Ball. November). Knowledge transfer.. R. S. Lim. Sungai Petani. socio-demographic characteristics and accidents.G. 33. W. and Carbonell Vaya. A. 197208. (2003). and Rodgers.  Dukes. Science & Technology.  Downe.Y. Kuala Lumpur MY: IEA Press.  Dula.. R. (1997). and Loke.R. Aggression and ethnicity in Malaysia: a preliminary investigation..L. M. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Social Science Journal 38.E.
March 20-22.. G. J. N. 279-294. A.. Brno. (2005). (2001). C. (Ed. A. Journal of Transport Geography. 17-26).  Engel.ictct. Ménard-Buteau. 2007 from www. Retrieved December 25. 838-844. G... In Lefcourt..  Edwards.  Ellis. Czech Republic. 74. (2005). Psychological Bulletin. (2002). 159165.  Dunbar. Boyer.) Research with the Locus of Control Construct.. A..  Elangovan. 69. Annals of Internal Medicine. 113. R.R.D. R.L. and Turecki. (1993).pdf  Engel. Kim. 50(13).  Elander.. A. satisfaction and commitment. Cross cultural research with the locus of control construct. Causal ordering of stress.M. H. West. Reason and Emotion in Psychotherapy. C. (1984). and intention to quit: a structural equations analysis.L. Chawky. Amsterdam: Elsevier  Dyal. 293-300. New York: Lyle Stuart Press. Weather-related road accidents in England and Wales: a spatial analysis. 249 . A. Sudden and rapid death during psychological stress. G. Behavioral correlates of individual differences in road-traffic crash risk: an examination of methods and findings. Psychiatric risk factors for motor vehicle fatalities in young men. G.B. 771-782. Annals of Internal Medicine. A life setting conducive to illness: the giving up complex. (1962). 209-306).A. R. (1968). G. 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. Lalovic. 201-22.  Elvik. 4(3). 22(4). (1971).org/workshops/02-Brno/Elvik. Dumais. Leadership and Organizational Development. (1996). Using epidemiological data to address psychological questions about pedestrian behavior. New York: Academic.. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry. J.(Ed. and French D. Volume 3: Extensions and Limitations (pp. Lesage.) Traffic and Transport Psychology (pp. In Underwood.
23(5). and Chambers.G. (1929).G. Comment: the dominant role of driver behavior in traffic safety. 38). Worse than a war zone: our roads claim 6. (1995). December 10). L.  Farmer.  Farmer. K. 19-36. 55). American Journal of Public Health. Patterson.. 784-786. Hope and Hopelessness: Critical Clinical Constructs. 421-435.J. and Chambers.  Ferguson. Barnard. L.M. The Star. L. Hadley. E. (1991). A psychological study of individual differences in accident rates. Traffic Safety and the Driver. Risk Analysis. S. Risk Homeostasis Theory and traffic accident data. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 86(6).  Farmer. E.6bil losses yearly. Klesges. Racial differences in adolescents’ perceived vulnerability to disease and injury. Statistical Analysis in Psychology and Education. 250 . 81-94. (1984). E. (Industrial Fatigue Research Board Report No. London: Medical Research Council. (1926). Driver fatalities versus car mass using a new exposure approach. 16. New York: McGraw Hill. (Industrial Fatigue Research Board Report No. M. A study of accident proneness among motor drivers.  Farran.  Evans. E. 6(1).M.G. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage. W.  Evans. and Popovich.M.. B. N22. L. L. J. Herth. (1996).. S. C. 84). London: Medical Research Council. p. E. and Alpert.  Ey.A. (2000)...  Farik Zolkepli (2007. (1976).000 and RM5. (1986). and Chambers. E.A.S. (1939). G. A study of personal qualities in accident proneness and deficiency.  Evans. Journal of Behavioural Medicine. Evans. (Industrial Fatigue Research Board Report No. London: Medical Research Council. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
San Francisco.W. (1986). 66. R. 63-77. 137-145. 51(1).  Forward.. (1998. R. Accident Analysis and Prevention. E. B. (2000). J.  Forward. Women and traffic accidents. R. Towards a general theory of driver behaviour. I.  Fishbein. P. 38(5).W. In Proceedings of the 24th International Congress of Applied Psychology. 77-97). S. R. S. and Järmark. 251 .  Friedman. Attitude. Belief. Suicide and the continuum of self-destructive behavior.  Fuller.  Firestone. Accident analysis and Prevention.. 37.A. The intention to commit driving violations – a qualitative study. Testing moderator and mediator effects in counseling psychology. A. 207-213. and Bragg. I. (1975). M.18(4).H. H. and McCartt. 461-472. 9. Journal of American College Health. Amsterdam: Elsevier. (2005). R. 412-426. M. Type A Behavior and Your Heart. R. (2004). The task-capability interface model of the driving process. Tix.  Fuller. and Ajzen. (2006).A. 115-134. August).  Fuller. Human Factors for Engineers (pp. (2005). R. Cultural values in Malaysia: Chinese. (1974). causes. and Barron.. Recherche Transports Sécurité.T. Malays and Indians compared. K. Linderholm. Journal of Counseling Psychology. Cross Cultural Management. R. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. New York: Knopf. P. and Santos. 12(4). Teoh. and Seiden.  Frazier. Ferguson.  Finn. Journal of Safety Research 38. Intention and Behavior. Perception of the risk of an accident by young and older drivers..A. consequences and considerations.  Fontaine. 289-298. S. (2002). Reading MA: Addison-Wesley.E. and Richardson.R. Progress in teenage crash risk during the last decade. and Rosenman. Human factors and driving. (1990).P. S. A. (2007). In Fuller. S. 47-55.
E. 109-128. 58(1). and Gomez. 109-116. G. and Mahbob. (1997). H. Revue européenne de psychologie appliquée. (2008). D... Amsterdam: Pergamon. In Pfaff-Czarnecaka. 1233-1248. K. Fuller. Internal locus of control moderates the effects of road-hostility on recalled driving behavior. 42(9). Ergonomics.S. R.) Ethnic Futures: The State and Identity Politics in Asia (pp.  Galovski. N.E. Gal.. McHugh. 167-202). (Eds. Tracing the ethnic divide: race. A. In Rothengatter. Aggressive Driver. 19. Petaling Jaya. (1999). Journal of Applied Psychology. MY: Sage. and Carbonell Vaya. Journal of Food Products Marketing.. E.E.. Use of auditory icons as emergency warnings: evaluation within a vehicle collision avoidance application. Malta. E.A.  Gidron. and Pender. and Syna Desevilya.D.  Glass. T.  Ghazali.W. (Eds. rights and redistribution in Malaysia. Nandy.  Grayson. and Davidson. Theories and models in traffic psychology – a contrary view. E. Exploring the relationship between development and road traffic injuries: a case study from India. Behavior Paterns. 6. T. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. Washington DC: American Psychological Association. 252 .  Graham. and Blanchard. C. A.C.  Ghiselli.  Gomez. Development and preliminary validation of a brief intervention for modifying CHD-predictive hostility components. 13-21. 16(5). 203-220. C. (1977). R. E. Journal of Behavioural Medicine. Y. (2006). L. Mutu. European Journal of Public Health. Task difficulty and risk in the determination of driver behaviour. Hillsdale. (2006). 540-546. (2003). (2006). D. Road Rage: Assessment and Treatment of the Angry.T.T. Y. A. 12(4).  Garg. E.  Gidron. (1949).B. and Hyder. (1999). The prediction of accidents of taxicab drivers. (1996). NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. R.A.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. S.S. J. and Brown. 93-96). Attitude towards online purchase of fish in urban Malaysia: an ethnic comparison. 33(6).. Rajasingham-Senanayake. Stress and Coronary Disease.B. 487-491. N.
 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.
(2001).V. pp. 253-269). A comparison of reported levels and expression of anger in everyday and driving situations. Mahwah. New York: Academic. 93. R. W. L. Billittier.J. Applied Ergonomics. A. (1983). (2005).  Lee. G. H. R. (1989). D. 38. IV. Accident Analysis and Prevention. D. (1976). 659-662.  Lenior. Volume 2: Developments and Social Problems (pp.M.C.B. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychiatry. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.  Lerner. Journal of Personality Assessment.M.  Levenson. Activism and powerful others: distinctions within the concept of internalexternal control. 37. Conner. Dutton. New York: E. Malay dominance and opposition politics. A. N.407-423. 2nd Edition.  Lefcourt. and Stiller. 397-401. 97.L. 479-490.  Leech. (2002). Locus of Control: Current Trends in Theory and Research. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. C. H. Neerincx and Schreibers (2006). G. The locus of control as a moderator variable: stress. H. In Southeast Asian Affairs 2002: An Annual Review. Lawton. (2002). Janssen. 3.  Lefcourt.M. K. The influence of demographic factors on seatbelt use by adults injured in motor vehicle crashes. Jehle. 303-304.. E.A. 262 . British journal of Psychology. 377-383. (1973)..) Research with the Locus of Control Construct. and Morgan.  Levenson. Multidimensional locus of control in psychiatric patients. In Lefcourt.. Journal of Social Psychology. Cancer as a turning point. Additional dimensions of internal-external control.M.G. (1974).. 41. Human-factors engineering for smart transport: decision support for car drivers and train traffic controllers. H. H. (1975). Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.K. and Nutter. H.M. Moscati.. SPSS for Intermediate Statistics: Use and Implementation. (Ed.  LeShan. 177-196.  Levenson. H. Barrett.P.
39(3). H-F.. February 2). 10. Defensive driving a must under new curriculum. The effect of crash experience on changes in risk taking among urban and rural young people. and Scodel. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Retrieved May 14.A. Accident Analysis and Prevention. The Star Online. D.  Loo.P. L-L. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. 263 . (1981).. Tools of Critical Thinking: Metathoughts for Psychology. (2002) Driver skill: performance and behaviour. D. W. New York: Academic. I. In Lefcourt. M-R. Wu. H-D. 36. and Yen. Hwang. Internal and external control as determinants of decision making under conditions of risk. 2007 from http://www. R. (1980). and Donovan. 11. K. S.) Research with the Locus of Control Construct. Neighbors.P. (2007. H. In Rothe. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 2007 from http://thestar. 59-67.) Driving Lessons: Exploring Systems that Make Traffic Safer.com.  Levy. Accident-proneness: does it exist? Occupational Safety and Health. Role of primary personality factors in the perception of traffic signs and driver violations and accidents.  Lonero. L. Predicting risky and angry driving as a function of gender.limkitsiang. 7. 8-9  Liverant.asp?file=/2007/3/26/nation/17254652&sec=nation&focus=1. 15-63). Psychological Reports. A.com/archive/1999/feb99/sg1541.  Lim.S. (1999. F. E. J. 536-545..M.  Looi. March 26).  Lindsey. Media Statement released by the Office of the Malaysian Parliamentary Opposition Leader and Democratic Action Party Secretary-General. Edmonton AB: University of Alberta Press.my/news/story. H. (1997). 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. (Ed. (1979).  Lonczak. (1960). Differentiating among internality. Levenson. Volume 1: Assessment Methods (pp. Retrieved April 5. (2007). (2004). (Ed. 213-222.M.. Huang..htm. 125-127.  Lin. H. powerful others and chance. C.S.
W. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.W. K. and Mooran.A. (1997). (1998). (1986). Journal of Personality. G.A.  Luckner.. J. (1989). M. 31.L..K. Annual mileage. 185-217. Multivariate Statistical Methods: A First Course. Accident Analysis and Prevention.  Macdonald.L.R.M.L. 299313. May). R. Goodness-of-fit indexes in confirmatory factor analysis: the effect of sample size. 62-67. J. 103. (2003). D.  Martin. Basics of Structural Equation Modeling. 27(1). 129. (2000).  Matthews. R. (1994).L. Accident Analysis & Prevention. Report No. Young driver research program – a review of information on young driver performance characteristics and capabilities.M. (1994. and Jessurun. Accident Analysis and Prevention.  Maruyama. A three-factor model of trait anger: dimensions. Australia. Lourens. Driver information systems: a preliminary investigation of motorists information requirements in Kuala lUmpur. Monash University Accident Research Centre. W. Malaysia.. D. R. Traffic accident involvement rates by driver age and gender.  Massie. 264 . of affect. 593-597. 68(5). G. S. Watson. C. and Hershberger..) Driver Behaviour and Training (pp. 18(4). 73-87. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. J. and Wan.M.28.  Marsh.. Campbell.  Marsh. M.R. Victoria NSW. and Balla. (Ed. and McDonald.R. 391-411.F. A. behavior and cognition. In Dorn. J. and level of education.  Marcoulides. 233-252). Altering locus of control of individuals with hearing impairments by outdoor-adventure courses.P. Vissers.  Maakip. Balla. A. (1988). H. (1995). driving violations and accident involvement in relation to drivers’ sex. P. Psychological Bulletin.L. L. Age differences in male drivers’ perception of accident risk: the role of perceived driving ability. and Williams. (1999). 869-897.F. 55(2). age. H. Aldershot UK: Ashgate. Goodness-of-fit in CFA: the effects of sample size and model parsimony. Quality & Quantity. Journal of Rehabilitation.A. C. I.
(1998). (1989).P. F. 45-52. Retrieved April 5.  McRae. 2007 from http://www.P. 37(6). (1989). S. Malaysia Today. Duncan.net/Bloge/2005/11/malaysia-records-highest-single-day... Male and female drivers: how different are they? AA Foundation for Road Safety Research. New York: Guilford. 23.  Mendel. M. (2007). G. Relationship between work-family conflict and the quality fo life: an investigation into the role of social support.. Risk Analysis. A. 9. Accident Analysis and Prevention. (2009).D. (1974).  McKenna. (1983). 769-778. Waylen. Journal of Managerial Psychology. Unconscious suicides. 649-663. D. (1990). E. 34(47).. Malaysia records highest single-day death toll during holiday period. Can we predict suicide and nonfatal self harm with the Beck Hopelessness Scale? A metanalysis. M.  Md-Sidin. and Brown. R.P.R. Accident proneness: a conceptual analysis.  McMillan. Fort Worth TX: Holt. Psychological Medicine. Personality in Adulthood. D. P.E. 265 . and Neilly. Ismail. F.  Mercer.htm  McConnell. Beresford. November 6). G.. J. (1977).malaysia-today. Traffic accidents and convictions: group totals versus rate per kilometer driven. and Burkes.  McKenna.  McKenna. Sambasivan. Hampshire UK. and Costa. 29. (1986). [ in press].  Meichenbaum.V. Cognitive abilities and safety on the road: a re-examination of individual differences in dichotic listening and search for embedded figures. S. J. 71-77. New York: Plenum. (2005. F. Gilbody. Understanding Human Behavior.W.E. L. I.. The University of Reading. Ergonomics. Perspectives Psychiatriques. I. Cognitive-Behavior Modification: An Integrative Approach. Rinehar and Winston. 173-181.
Finland. Journal of Applied Psychology. and Niemi. and subjective sleepiness: normative data using convergent methodologies to assess driver drowsiness.  Mintz. L. A.A. J. Turku. l.  Michon. what should we do? In Evans.aaafoundation. 195-211. 33(3). L. 266 . A re-examination of the accident proneness concept.  Mikkonen. (154). E. (1985).) Proceedings of the Finnish-Soviet Symposium on Cognitive Processes.. 401406. and Keskinen.pdf  Moller. 38(6). (1997). 147-161. Retrieved May 23. microsleep episodes. (2006). May). 341-353.L. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Explanatory pitfalls and rule-based driver models. Bulmas. L. and Johnson. Journal of Applied Psychology. Hasselberg.  Ministry of Transport Malaysia (2007).  Monárrez-Espino. and Schwing. and Shapiro.. In Helkama. (1949). First year as a licensed car deriver: gender differences in crash experience.. Washington DC.  Mizel.org/pdf/agdr3study.  Mintz. A critical review of driver behaviour models: what do we know. Time intervals between accidents. K. AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety. (1983.php. D. J. New York: Plenum. (2003). Cognitive theory of traffic behaviour. E. M. J. M. from http://www.M. Aggressive driving behaviors: are there psychological and attitudinal predictors? Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. 335-342. Retrieved December 15. (Eds. 6(2). (2006).org.C.L. (1989). Kayumov. Michon. H. Simulator performance.L. and Laflamme. Journal of Psychosomatic Research.A. 61(3). and Blum. 2007. G. R. 44(2). Statistics. A..E. V. In Aggressive driving: three studies. (Eds. C.my/en/street_smart_statistik.  Miles. P. Aggressive driving. J.) Human Behaviour and Traffic Safety.panducermat. 21(4). Safety Science. Nhan. 2006 from http://www.J. 75-85.
S. A. Transcultural Psychiatry. Nandy. A model for the role of motivational factors in drivers’ decision-making. Journal of the Institute of Automobile Assessors. 137-144. Religioin 37. 339-343. 6. 42. Journal of Applied Psychology. 8. Feature-based attentional set as a cause of traffic accidents. T. 320-388). Montag. 15(2). W.  Näätänen. I. Träskman-Bendz and Alsén (1997). (1974). P. D. Coping with the politics of faiths and cultures: between secular state and ecumenical traditions in India. (1956). (Eds. J. MY: Sage. and Maniam. A.B. Road User Behavior and Traffic Accidents.. 243-261.  Morris. (2007). Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Internality and externality as correlates of involvement in fatal driving accidents. and Summala H. 167-202).  Novaco.L. 51-63. E. and Krasner. R. 32-37. (1976). 164-174. In Pfaff-Czarnecaka.  Moore.T. (1994). L.L.  Mousser.  Nandy. (Eds. 267 .  Näätänen. (1999). (2007). (2001) Ethnicicity and suicidal behaviour in Malaysia: a review of the literature. Defining ‘modern’ Malay womanhood and the coexistent messages of the veil. Hopelessness and suicidal behavior. R. Accident proneness and road accidents. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Journal of Affective Disorders. A. and Summala. Petaling Jaya.E. A. W.. (1987)..  Neuman. (2003).  Most. 72. Amsterdam: North Holland. New York: Allyn & Bacon. A. Fifth Edition. Clinical problems of anger and its assessment and regulation through a stress coping skills approach. R. 38(1).) Handbook of Psychological Skills Training: Clinical Techniques and Application (pp. K. and Gomez. and Comrey.  Niméus. Rajasingham-Senanayake.S.L. In O’Donoghue . Boston: Pearson. and Astur. H. Visual Cognition.) Ethnic Futures: The State and Identity Politics in Asia (pp. 125-132. R.
W.W. (2000). The decade 1989-1998 in Spanish psychology: an analysis of development of professional psychology in Spain. British Journal of Psychiatry. 43-76). 201-215).38. Zwi (1997). and Williams. Aldershot. (2007. Social psychological principles: ‘the group inside the person’. Spanish Journal of Psychology.  Noy. A. (Eds. (2001). Road traffic injuries in developing countries: a comprehensive review of epidemiological studies. 237-252. I. 4. Human Factors for Engineers (pp. J. Risk homeostasis hypothesis: a rebuttal. p.) Targets of Violence and Aggression: Advances in Psychology (pp. AZ: Lawyers & Judges. 268 . [Review of the book Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application]. p. B. (1997). Aggression on roadways. 92-93.  O’Neill. February 8).  O’Connell. Driver perception-response time. R. 654-656. F.  N-S highway still one of the safest roads. Novaco. Temes. R.  Our roads are filled with selfish drivers. E.. and Olson..  Ohberg. 40(10). 4(2). 468-472. In Baenninger. M.  Ochando. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice. A. Tucson. 445-460. Safer Roads: A Guide to Road Safety Engineering. (1997).L. Straits Times. R. [Letter to the Editor] The Star. Oxford UK: North Holland. says operator. 1016-1024. Garner.W.. and Lonnqvist. 34.  Olson. Ergonomics.  Ogden. Amsterdam: Elsevier  Odero. K. Pentilla. R.B. (1998).S. P. Tropical Medicine and International Health. 2(5). R. (1996. and Hermida. In Fuller.A. December 9). Driver suicides. A. W. UK: Ashgate. P. Human factors in modern traffic systems.R. In Dewar.L (2002).  Novaco. and Z. J. 171. (1996). (2002).) Human Factors in Traffic Safety (pp. 253-326). M. J. (Ed. N51. P. and Santos. Injury Prevention.F (2001).
 Parsons. (1988). 37(1).A. Tassinary. J. D. 38(3). Driving errors. British Journal of Psychology.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application. 229-235.  Özkan.. 269 .  Parker. (2001).E. Locus of control in university students from eastern and western societies. 18. D. Poster session presented at the 18th International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT).  Parsons. Anger on and off the road.pdf -  Pai. T. Anger and aggression among drivers in three European countries. Özkan. Retrieved December 20. (pp. and Kaistinen. N. S. (2008).R. L.M. A. Applied Psychology: An International Review. (1995).S. (1974). Personality and Individual Difference. 34. and Synodinos. and Schneider. B. Traffic locus of control.  Parker. Accident Analysis & Prevention. and Huguenin. W. Accident Analysis & Prevention.. (2004). 533-545. and Grossman-Alexander.R and Stradling. 125-134).. O. Lajunen. Helsinki. 38(5). T.  Papacostas. C. R. 2007 from www. 92.S. (Eds. Multidimensional Traffic Locus of Control Scale (T-LOC): factor structure and relationship to risky driving.G. 3-13. 507-526. (1998). 40. H. J. Reason. T. and Summala. Ulrich..G. T. C.. Manstead. driving skills and attitudes toward in-vehicle technologies (ISA & ACC). Journal of Environmental Psychology. Dimensions of driving behaviour and driver characteristics. 1036-1048. T. 456-461. and Saleh. R. (2002). 42.D. (2005). Finland..ictct.org/workshops/05Helsinki/P1_Ozkan.. M. Ergonomics.S. Lajunen. 479-486. D.T. R. M. driving violations and accident involvement. and Lajunen (2005). The view from the road: implications for stress recovery and immunisation.  Parkinson. Amsterdam: Elsevier. 113-140.W. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. Hebl. J.  Parker. Exploring motorcyclist injury severity in approach-turn collisions at T-junctions: focusing on the effects of the driver’s failure to yield and junction control measures. Road safety: what has social psychology to offer? In Rothengatter.
. T. risk-taking and risk perception of accidents among South African taxi drivers.  Peters. Hyder. 1153. 619-623.M. Switzerland: World Health Organization. B. Proceedings of the International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT) Extra Workshop. Geneva. (1976). Accident Analysis and Prevention.H.R.A. B.s  Pelz.  Peden. Type A behaviour pattern and motor vehicle drivers’ behaviour. and Renner. 875-878. London: Taylor & Francis. 2007 from http:www. M.  Per. (2003). W. 12(3). Are young drivers really more dangerous after controlling for exposure and experience? Journal of Safety Research. and Åkerstedt. Automotive Vehicle Safety. Sleet. P. Retrieved March 31. and Peters. Simple reaction time.. K.A. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 3. Mohan. 8(1). and Hyder. M.J. 9-14 270 . Scurfield. D.) (2004). (2002). March 20-22..J.  Phares. (1999). 68-79. D. E..org/workshops/05-CampoGrande  Perry. Morristown NJ: General Learning. and Baldwin. 91. Taillard. E.. Matto Grosso do Sul. R.R. Further evidence of associations of type A personality scores and driving-related attitudes and behaviors. A. D. 35. Jarawan. Perceptual and Motor Skills. D. (1980). U. duration of driving and sleep deprivation in young versus old automobile drivers.  Pestonjee.  Peltzer. World report on road traffic injury prevention.. Superstition. J. 147-154. Road safety in southeast Asia: factors affecting motorcycle safety. Brazil. S.  Perry. A. and Al Haji. 324. 201-204. A. (1971).. and Singh. (2000). Road traffic injuries are a global public health problem [Letters].and Schuman.A. Journal of Sleep Research. Peden. Neuroticism-extraversion as correlates of accident occurrence. Campo Grande..B. (1986). M. British Medical Journal. Bioulac. L. Quera-Salva. G. Perceptual and Motor Skills. G. Locus of Control in Personality. (2002). 63.C. (2005).ictct. A. and Mathers (Eds.  Philip. D.
P. C. reasons for riding and the social context of riding among young on-road motorcyclists in New Zealand. Journal of Applied Psychology. 284-288. and Campbell.S.. S. Errors and violations on the roads: a real distinction? Ergonomics.. F.  Radin Umar.  Rautela. (1990). and Lussier.  Porter. J. (1976). S. Baxter.D. C. (2007). 1315-1332.  Reeder. Updates of road safety status in Malaysia.E. Rider training. S. 78-80. Accident Analysis and Prevention. and Harris. Hopelessness. R. Human Error. D. Chalmers.A. and Langley.S. 49(4).  Reason. 566-573.J.  Proctor. (1994). J. 20(4). internal-external locus of control and depression. 32(3). Manstead.. IATSS Research / International Association of Traffic and Safety Sciences. J. W. Plous. Models of driving behavior: a review of their evoloution. and Pant. (1991). T. (2000). L.N. R. 32. Journal of Clinical Psychology.J. Delineating road accident risk along mountain roads.  Prociuk. 16(3). Traffic Engineering and Control. 299-300. S. 733-750. (1989).  Ranney. The Psychology of Judgment and Decision Making. 369-374  Renner.  Preston.J. 29(1). (1996).H. New York: McGraw Hill. and Corlett... Disaster Prevention and Management. and Anderle.J.-G. 32(2). Ergonomics. 334-343. Accident reduction through area-wide traffic schemes. Breen. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 26. (1990). 33. (2005). A. E. J. Performance differences of individuals classified by questionnaire as accident prone or non-accident prone. 317-333. 271 . 673-678. Venturesomeness and extraversion as correlated of juvenile drivers’ traffic violations. (1965). Stradling. S. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health. Psychology of drivers in traffic accidents. K. T. (1993).I. S. Cambridge University Press.  Reason. 3112).
(2005a) Stop sign violations: the role of race and ethnicity on fatal crashes.64. (2004). Journal of Safety Research. M. cities. Retting. Proceedings of the joint conference of the Asia Pacific Conference on Human Computer Interaction and the Southeast Asian Ergonomics Society Conference. European Federation of Psychologists’ Associations Task Force on Traffic Psychology..  Romano. Anger. Human factors and motor vehicle crashes: a conceptual framework for ergonomic research in South East Asia. Theories of science in traffic psychology. Jefferson NC: McFarland & Company.  Risser. R. 453-460. Ergonomics. Singapore: Elsevier. P-A. Retrieved May 23. Weinstein.. 34(15).  Richardson. and Downe. E. (Ed). K. S.B. 45(8). (Eds.R.A.  Road Transport Department Malaysia [Jabatan Pengagkutan Jalan Malaysia]. Report to the General Assembly. T. and Voas.190. and Huguenin. W-R. and Voas. R.  Romano. 2007 from http://202. April). 37(3).. E. (2000).  Rice. Analysis of motor-vehicle crashes at stop signs in four U. 485-489. R. (1999). R. Tippetts. 37(1).96/v5/statistik/statistik-2006. In Lim.P.Y. (2000). 569-582.G. 1-7. S. Aggression and Violence: An Interdisciplinary Approach.  Robbins.pdf  Risser. Pacific Grove CA: Brooks/Cole. (2003). P. S.D. A.S. 2007 from http://www. Upper Saddle River NJ: Prentice Hall.  Rimmö. H. and Nickel.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application. In Rothengatter. P. Aberrant driving behaviour: homogeneity of a four-factor structure in samples differing in age and gender. (2005). Accident Analysis & Prevention. S. Journal of Safety Research. (2002). (2003. 272 .L.html  Robbins. Retrieved December 11.G. (2007) Statistik2006. Stress and Health. and Solomon. Tippetts. Amsterdam: Elsevier. (2005b) Fatal red light crashes: the role of race and ethnicity. Organizational Behavior.be/doc/Final%20report%20TF%20Traffic%20Psychology%20GA%202003.efpa. R. R.
(2006).  Rotter. The ethnic factor in state-labour relations: the case of Malaysia. whole issue. Differences between taxi and nonprofessional male drivers and attitudes towards traffic-violation penalties. C. Drivers’ illusions – no more risk.B. 273 . 84-115. T. (2005). Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. C. 3-12). Rosenbloom.  Rothengatter. G. 5. T. M. The role of ethnicity in employee relations: the case of Malaysia. Capital & Class. T.  Rotter. P-E. Some problems and misconceptions related to the construct of internal versus external control of reinforcement.  Rowley.B. (2002).(Ed. American Psychologist. 428-435  Rothe. (2005). Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour.B. 249-258. M.P.  Rowley. (1966). 43(3). Crowthorne UK: Transport Research Laboratory. Traffic safety: content over packaging. 88. In Rothe. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Edmonton CA: University of Alberta Press. 43(1). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. (2001) Objectives. A. J. J. Boston: Kluwer. 56-67. T. (pp. An overview of traffic psychology: do research and measures match? In Grayson. J.) Traffic and Transport Psychology (pp.) Driving Lessons: Exploring Systems that Make Traffic Safer. and Bhopal. (1975). (Ed.) Traffic Psychology Today (pp. Traffic psychology and road safety: separate realities. In Underwood. J. T.  Rothengatter.  Rothengatter. In Barjonet. (1990). (Ed.B. 595-600). Psychological Monographs. Internal versus external control of reinforcement: a case history of a variable. topics and methods. 308-331. 214-220). and Bhopal.  Rotter. (2002).P. (Ed. (2007). J. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources.) Behavioural Research in Road Safety VIII. (1998). 45. 489-493. 10. and Shahar. 80. G. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology.  Rothengatter.
gov. Basingstoke UK: AA Foundation for Road Safety Research. The Star. Thrills. Malaysian Road Accident Statistics.  Saad.  Royal Malaysian Police [Polis Diraja Malaysia] (2002). Human Factors for Engineers (pp. 33-36. Correlations between traffic. 2007 from http://www. [Perankaan Kemalangang Jalanraya Malaysia]. 373-376. (1999). Amsterdam: Elsevier.my. [Perankaan Kemalangang Jalanraya Malaysia].  Salminen.  Royal Malaysian Police [Polis Diraja Malaysia] (2001). and Santos (Eds.  Rude drivers lack emotional control. (2005). September 29). S. 29(1). Malaysian Road Accident Statistics.A2. [Perankaan Kemalangang Jalanraya Malaysia]. (2002). Kuala Lumpur. September 26). spills & death plague Malaysian roads. Relationships between injuries at work and leisure time.  Salminen. F. Malaysian Road Accident Statistics. [Perankaan Kemalangang Jalanraya Malaysia]. IBU Pejabat Polis.rmp. (1997). S.). J. Kuala Lumpur. Malaysian Road Accident Statistics. Royal Malaysian Police [Polis Diraja Malaysia] (2000).net/Blog-n/2006/09/thrillsspills-death-plague-malaysian.  Royal Malaysian Police [Polis Diraja Malaysia] (2003). In Fuller.  Royal Malaysian Police [Polis Diraja Malaysia] (2007). Retrieved May 22.malaysia-today. 2003 from http://www.htm 274 . M. (2005. Accident Analysis and Prevention. IBU Pejabat Polis. Kuala Lumpur. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Road Safety – Back to the Future. B. Bukit Aman. Bukit Aman. 23-42). Ergonomics of the driver’s interface with the road environment: the contribution of psychological research. Malaysiatoday (Reuters). Bukit Aman. p. Bukit Aman. J. IBU Pejabat Polis. Statistik Kemalangan Jalanraya & Kematian. sports and home accidents.A.  Sabey. and Heiskanen. Kuala Lumpur. R. 37(2). IBU Pejabat Polis. Retrieved December 11. occupational. (2006.  Sadiq.
and Langley (2002). 6. Urbanization and Regional Development (pp. little details. 293302  Salih. and Rizzo. K. (2003).  Schlag. and Young. Ericsson.) The Sage Handbook of Methods in Psychology (pp. S. 35.I. Regional Development Series. 801-810. (2008. A. J. Asian Survey. (2000). Jr. November 15).F. A.  Sambasivan.E.  Sendut. M. (2004). Sagberg.A. M. Singapore: Maruzen Asia for United Nations Centre fro Regional Development. 275 .  Schneider. The effects of contextual interference on the acquisition and retention of logical rules. C. 6(9). (1966). F. Learning and Memory of Knowledge and Skills: Durability and Specificity. v..  Sansone. The research process: of big pictures. Nagoya: Japan. conscientiousness. M. and sensation seeking. Traffic Engineering + Control. Individual difference factors in risky driving: the roles of anger/hostility. In Sansone. Morf. An investigation of behavioural adaptation to airbags and antilock brakes among taxi drivers. Public acceptability of traffic demand management in Europe. A.. and Sætermo.). D. and Panter. J. B. Contemporary urbanization in Malaysia.A. 38.F. H.  Scuffham. (Ed. Severson. K. (1997). K. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage. I. 314-318.  Scuffham. (1981).. and Schade.F.K. and the social psychological road in between. 41.E.C.A. C.T.. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 29(3). In Healy. V. A. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Malaysia: urbanization in a multiethnic society – case of peninsula Malaysia. Fosser. P. M. L. 179-188. 34. (Eds.. C.C. A model of traffic crashes in New Zealand. and Bourne. and Panter. Ball.. C.  Schwebel. Healy. Applied Economics.T. Economic factors and traffic crashes in New Zealand. L. (1995). Jr. 484-491. 117-147). and Bourne. 3-16). P. 673-687. Personal correspondence. In Honjo.C. Accident Analysis and Prevention.. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage. (2006).L. Morf.
M. and Zakowska. 276 .  Siegel. suicide and unconscious motivation. (2003). A. (2000).H. and Roskova. S. Summala.  Shapiro.E. Strategic Management Journal. (1998). Los Angeles CA: Western Psychological Services. In Barjonet. P-E. B.  Shook. U. Ergonomics. (2007). M. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education. D. R.M and Kacmar.) Traffic Psychology Today (pp. Research Methods for Business: A Skill Building Approach. K.  Shinar. P. and Payne. C.E. 66. 15(3).L. D.L. Traffic sign symbol comprehension: a cross-cultural study. 361-365. (1956). (1962). L. 180-205). 51(1). S. B. J. American Journal of Psychiatry. Hartwick. 1. (2001). The measurement and treatment of client anger in counselling.P. Manual for the Attitudes toward Guns and Violence Questionnaire (AGVQ). The effects of safety regulations and law enforcement. 46(15). D.S. The theory of reasoned action: a metaanalysis of past research with recommendations for modifications and future research.. 237-240. Boston: Kluwer. (1988). M. H. G. New York: McGraw Hill. 397-404. 119(3). and Warshaw. (2004). Fourth Edition. New York: John Wiley & Sons. 137-160. Dewar. Sekaran. (Ed. Ketchen. 325-343.. and Kanekar. C.R.  Siegriest. Journal of Consumer Research.. E.T. Theory of reasoned action and theory of planned behavior in alcohol and drug education. 1549-1565. J.J. Aggressive driving: the contribution of the drivers and the situation. 25.. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. (2003). Journal of Counseling and Development. Automobile accidents.  Sharma..  Sharkin.  Selzer.  Shinar.  Sheppard. An assessment of the use of structural equation modeling in strategic management research. Hult. 3-7. (1988).
coping and psychological illness: a cross-cultural study. Product design with people in mind. August). Lichtenstein. Kurylo. American Psychologist. S. and Coombs. Matthews.A.K.) Anger Disorders: Definition and Treatment (pp. M.. B. N. Reheiser. 1151-1158. C. B. 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. Retrieved December 25. Sinha. Issues in Science and Technology. N.K. J.J. (1995).com/p/articles/mi_qa3622/is_200001/ai_n8903050/pg_1  Snyder. Auto safety and human adaptation. Measuring the experience.. 2007 from http://findarticles. B. Jr. International Journal of Stress Management. 277 . D.A. P. and Frank. Injury control: a promising field for psychologists. 44. 1029-1030. 2007 from http://www. 50(8). (Ed.  Stanton.pdf  Spielberger. Assessing hostile automatic thoughts: development and validation of the HAT scale. expression and control of anger.D. 477-492. 1-18). 14(4).. Human Factors in Consumer Products (pp. P. Houston. FL: Taylor & Francis.  Stanton.. (1998). Philadelphia PA: Taylor & Francis. and Sydeman.C.  Social Issues Research Centre (2004.J. and Poirier. Fishchoff. C. Preference for insuring against probably small losses: insurance implications. Stress. Cognitive Therapy and Research.C. A. In Kassinove..A. In Stanton. (1992). R. Journal of Risk and Insurance..  Slovic. Traffic Engineering Design: Principles and Practice. Boca Raton. 47(8). 386-397. Winter). J. H.  Spielberger. Crowson.sirc.  Slinn.R. M. London: Arnold. E. S.G. 21(4). B. B. C.). and Guest. (Ed. Oxford UK. (2001. Editorial. (2007).org/publik/driving. 237-258.D. N.. Retrieved December 1. 49-68). Corrigan. P. (1997). (2007). (1977).. and Watson. (2004).  Smiley. Ergonomics.
Traffic Injury Prevention. M... D. M.C. (1988). 37(4). Accident Analysis and Prevention.  Subramaniam. 529-544.. 44(3). The Methodology of Theory Building. 35. N. UK: Edward Elgar.  Stokols.. J. 63. Bilgic. and Jin.L. Sümer. 139(6). Morrison. R.. N. (1989) Prevention and control of injuries arising from road traffic accidents in Malaysia.. 279-300). Traffic congestion. A. R.. Safety-Critical Computer Systems.) Intelligent Transportation Systems. Journal of Applied Psychology. 178-182. N. G. Sydney AU: Educology Research Associates. The representation and organization of emotion experience: unfolding the emotion episode. J. Accident Analysis and Prevention. M. 278 . D. (Eds. H. and stress. 467-480.A. P. T. (1993). J. New York: Guilford. (1996). In Stough. Maggio. E. 949-964. Trabasso.R.  Sümer.  Stewart. M. (2005). D. Behavioral factors as predictors of motor vehicle crashes in young drivers. Behavioural compensation by drivers of a simulator when using a vision enhancement system. (2000).  Steiner. Novaco. R.) Handbook of Emotions (pp.  Storey. and Campbell.  Stough. Medical Journal of Malaysia. Ergonomics. (2005). Journal of Psychology. Harlow UK: Addison-Wesley. N. Cheltenham. In Lewis. and Erol. Palamara. R. 247-254. and Ryan.W. R. 43(9).R.E.  Sümer. (Ed.. M. 681-688.M. Methodological and technical challenges in regional evaluation of ITS: Induced and direct effects.A. (2001). (1978). 2(4). 1359-1370. Type A Behavior.  Stevenson. (2003). Personality and behavioral predictors of traffic accidents: testing a contextual mediated model.E. Attributions of responsibility for motor vehicle crashes. Personality attributes as predictors of psychological well-being for NCOs. (2001). T. N. N. and Liwag. Stanton. Stokols. and Pinto.  Stein. and Havland.
.K.N. S. In In Rothengatter. Human Factors.  Summala.. H. Amsterdam: Elsevier  Summala. Karanci.. 703-711. (Eds. (1997). 31. 193-199. H. Mahasakpan. (Ed. H.  Summala. (1994).  Summala. 491-506. Traffic psychology theories: towards understanding driving behaviour and safety efforts. R.  Sümer. and Gunes. Accident risk and driver behaviour. G. In Rothengatter. M.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. Sümer. H. P. Hierarchical model of behavioural adaptation and traffic accidents. Risk control is not risk adjustment: the zero-risk theory of driver behavior and its implications. H.  Swaddiwudhipong. The zero-risk theory and overtaking decision. P. Maintaining lane position with peripheral vision during in-vehicle tasks. 103-117. and Tantriratna. 22(1-3). T. T. pedestrians and road environments involved in 279 . Özkan. Koonchote. Epidemiologic characteristics of drivers.  Summala. 21. (1996). (2005). Nieminen. T. Safety Science. and Punto. coping selfefficacy and quake exposure as predictors of psychological distress following the 1999 earthquake in Turkey.. (2006).  Summala. A. A psychophysical method for determining the effects of studded tires on safety. (Eds. (1980). Asymmetric relationship between driving and safety skills. (Report 11). 383-394). 442-451. (1986). S.) Road User Behaviour: Theory and Research (pp. and de Bruin. University of Helsinki Traffic Research Unit. H. (1988). (1996). H. 82-92). H. Amsterdam: Elsevier. T.  Summala.. vehicles. Personal resources. N. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 38(3). Journal of Traumatic Stress. R. (1988).  Summala. and Lajunen. Helsinki. T. 18(4).. and Merisalo. 41-52). W. (2005).) Traffic and Transport Psychology (pp. A.. G. 331-342. Nguntra. In Underwood. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology. Berument. Risk control is not risk adjustment: the zero-risk theory of driver behaviour and its implications. N. and Näätänen. Assen/Maastricht: Van Gorcum. Ergonomics. and Carbonell Vaya E. 38. H.
Ono. (2000). S.  Synodinos. New York: Simon & Schuster. Age and gender patterns in motor vehicle crash injuries: importance of type of crash and occupant role.road traffic injuries in rural Thailand.. Driving habits and behaviour patterns of university students. J. 581-590. A. The interaction of attention and emotion. Fujihara.. Fujihara. Y. and Theodorson. Neural Networks.R. C.) Reading and Understanding More Multivariate Statistics. (1985).R. 138(5). Y.M. 52(6). E. Boston: Kluwer. (2001). (1998). Southeast Asian Journal of Tropical Medicine and Public Health.. (2001).  Tanaka. J. In Barjonet. P. and Kitamura.) Traffic Psychology Today (pp. (eds. C. International Review of Applied Psychology..  Theeuwes.  Taylor.233-239. Ten commandments of structural equation modeling.E. Journal of Clinical Psychology.  Tavris. British Journal of Mathematics and Statistics. 34. N. Hopelessness in a community population: factorial structure and psychosocial correlates. 280 . Hopelessness in a community population in Japan. A Modern Dictionary of Sociology. (1969).A.  Tavris. Ono.. Accident Analysis and Prevention. and Papacostas. S.  Tanaka.S. In Grimm. 33(2). P-E. D. and Fragopanagos (2005). L. Kuhn. 25(1). (Ed. B. G. 167-172.J.. Anger: The Misunderstood Emotion. E.  Thompson. 18(4).  Theodorson. and Huba. (1989). G. T.M. (1996).S. 609-615. (1985). 241-257. 353-369. P. and Yarnold. E. S. 42.  Tanaka. J.G. A fit-index for covariance structure models under arbitrary GLS estimation. G. New York: Thomas & Cromwell. Sakamoto. The effects of road design on driving.C. T.. Journal of Social Psychology. Washington DC: American Psychological Association. 241-263). 37-44. S. and Layde. Sakamoto. and Kitamura.
G. G.  Ulleberg. D. 5(5). Injury Control and Safety Promotion. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. R. 7.  Turner. W. A. The accident prone automobile driver. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. Automatic and controlled information processing: the role of attention in the processing of novelty. Effectivenss of cognitive-behavioral treatments in reducing Type A behavior among university faculty – one year later. London: Academic. (1996). Relationship to risk-taking preferences. J. Anger while driving. Wright and Crundall. Paying attention behind the wheel: a framework for studying the role of attention in driving.F. and McClure. Science. H. In Neumann.. and Vavrik. 207-332. 445-448. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty. American Journal of Psychiatry. and response to a traffic safety campaign. D.  Tversky.. Personality and Individual Differences. P. P. (2001). Cognitive Psychology. Applied Cognitive Psychology.. and Milton.T. and Kahneman.  Trimpop. (Eds. Age and gender differences in risk-taking behaviour as an explanation for high incidence of motor vehicle crashes as a driver in young males. (1993). 279-297. 55-68. Volume 3: Attention. D. and Everatt.E. and Kirkcaldy.  Tiliman. 1124-1130. accident involvement. (2003). 123-130. A. 2. J. 10(3). Theoretical Issues in Ergonomic Science. (1985).  Underwood. (1997). Chapman. (1949). (1999). 281 . A. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 23(1). 185. C.  Trick.  Underwood. 5. Thurman. 32(3).) Handbook of Perception and Action. Personality predictors of driving accidents.A and Hobbs.W.  Underwood. (2004). O. (1973). and Kahneman. 11-22. C. B. 385-424.M. Personality subtypes of young drivers. J. Collusion after a collision: witnesses’ reports of a road accident with and without discussion. R. J.  Tversky.. 147-152. Availability: a heuristic for judging frequency and probability. L. and Sanders. 106(5). G. 321-333. Enns. 4(4). G. Mills.
S. 24-29. Matto Grosso do Sul.J. S. J.” Recovery. A. and Huguenin. T. M.  Velting.. Anticipation and the adaptive control of safety margins in driving. The role of attributions and anger in aggressive driving behaviours.. (2000). Accident Analysis and Prevention.M. T.B.  Vavrik.F.ictct. 2007 from www.D. E. and Vallerand. Risky driving among young Australian drivers: trends precursors and correlates.. W. In Rothengatter. Caserta. G. J. (2007).  Vaa. É.. (1999). Italy.D.) Traffic and Transport Psychology (pp. A.org/workshops/05-CampoGrande  Vassallo. Brazil. Retrieved December 5. 913-921. Cockfield.  Verwey. On-line driver workload estimation. R.A. Driver selection and improvement in Germany. March 20-22. Ergonomics. Traffic accident risks in developing countries: superseding biased approaches. 444-458. 2007 from http:www. 336-345..F.pdf  Vallières. and Rothengatter. D. (1999).) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application. (Eds. A. J. 26. Bergerson. Personality and negative expectancies: trait structure of the Beck Hopelessness Scale. Personality and Individual Differences. H. Utzelmann. Ergonomics. Retrieved September 1. (2004). In Underwood. Amsterdam: Elsevier  Van der Hulst. T. Harris.. Cognition and emotion in driver behaviour models: some critical viewpoints. D. Amsterdam: Elsevier. (2005). (2001). 181-190). “Accident prone. Campo Grande. Smart. (Ed. R. 9(2). (1998). 210-222. Proceedings of the International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT) Extra Workshop. (2005). and McIntyre. 42.. Effects of road situation and age on secondary task measures. Meijman.  Vasconcellos.org/workshops/01-Caserta/Vaa. 43(2).A. Sanson. 39. W.ictct. 282 . Harrison. Proceedings of the 14th workshop of the International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT).
Drivers’ decision to speed: a study inspired by the theory of planned behavior. H. D..P. Personality and Individual Differences. Policing and Educatino Conference 2.B. Accident Analysis and Prevention. N. (2009.. Cradle Attitudes – Grave Consequences. A.S. January 21). (2002). 28. (2000). Perceived coping as a mediator between attachment and psychological distress: a structural equation modeling approach. and Little. J.M.H.A.. 5(4). Retrieved November 2. International Journal of Cognitive Ergonomics.theaa. (Eds.J. G. A. 427-433.F. The development of gender differences in risky attitudes and behaviour in road use (Summary Report).  Watson.A. 9. An on-road investigation of vehicle feedback and its role in driver cognition: implications for cognitive ergonomics.E. New Zealand.F. Journal of Counseling Psychology. Raghunathan. 50(4). Stanton. Feeling nostalgic? Now you’ll rave. (2001). and McKenna. and Zaidel. and Åberg. T. Changes in young adults offense and crash patterns over time. and Young. 123-142. In Proceedings of the 1998 Road Safety Research.html. T. P. Transportation and society. Shope.com/articles/waterman37.R. L.. (2001). P.  Walker. Here’s the story of Burma-Shave. Amsterdam: Elsevier. W.pdf  Wei. 283 . B.T. M.backwoodshome. Methodological problems associated with surveying unlicensed drivers. Verwey. Basingstoke UK: AA Foundation for Road Safety. M. 117128.P. Predicting drowsiness accidents from personal attributes.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp.com/public_affairs/reports/AA-foundation-FDN33-cradle-grave.  Waller. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. eye blinks and ongoing driver behaviour. Wellington. P.  Waylen. R. F. and Mallinckrodt (2003). M. 438-447. 2008 from http://www. 33. 2007 from http://www. (1997). Heppner.  Waterman. Backwoods Home Magazine. 1-8). (2006). Elliot. Retrieved December 15. (1998). and Carbonell Vaya E.  Waller. In Rothengatter. 421-444.  Wállen Warner..
J. (1961). On the choice of denominator for the calculation of accident rates. (1973). B.S. In Yager. Risk homeostasis theory and traffic education requirements. Dunaway.  Wilde. M. Risk Analysis. 15(11/12).J. The theory of risk homeostasis: implications for safety and health. Snow. G. (2005). G.S. (1984).  West. In Halsey. 207-219. 1116-1121.W. (2002). Guiling.S. Target Risk.M (1956). 195. (1994).S. Childhood accidents. Preventions of accidents in childhood. and French. 441-468.) Transport Risk Assessment (pp. University of Waterloo Press.M. Ergonomics. Deaths and injuries from car accidents: an intractable problem? Journal of Cleaner Production. G. (2002). 2. Ceminsky... Accident Prevention. 34. 130(4).S.J. G. (Ed. G. J. Hostility and depression associated with suicide attempts. S.J. (1982). Advances in Paediatrics. 31. M. Mild social deviance. G. Fox. Elander.). Wiliams. G. Risk homeostasis and traffic accidents: propositions.  Wilde.N. British Journal of Psychology.L.  Wheatley.  Wilde. D. 1149-1152.  Wheatley. E.. S.  Wilde. G. American Journal of Psychiatry. and Klerman. Hallberg. R. 450-455. (ed.J.. R. and Anderson. (2007). 469-529) New York: McGraw Hill. M. (1993). 84. P. (1988). Weissman. An exploratory study of the relationship between road rage and crash experience in a representative sample of US drivers. 209-225.  Wilde..J. 8.S. 271278. Type-A behaviour pattern and decision-making style as predictors of self-reported driving style and traffic accident risk. G..  Wells. Does risk homeostasis theory have implications for road safety? British Medical Journal.. (pp. J. K. deductions and discussion of recent commentaries. 324. 135-154). Proceedings of the International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT) Extra 284 .  Wilde. Accident Analysis and Prevention.  Wells-Parker. Toronto: PDE Publications. G.
 Williams. L. 557-567. and Hartman. New York: Taylor & Francis.I. 2007 from http:www. 6(2). Fundamentals of ergonomics in theory and practice.Y. Journal of Safety Research.K. Retrieved March 31.  Williams..C.  Williams. The fluid state: Malaysia’s national expressway.ictct. 31. and Well. Space and Culture. Responsibility of drivers.  Wood. M. (2000).R. S. Driver experience with antilock brake systems. (2001).F. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Countries and Their Cultures. (1994).B. T.G. The factor structure and convergent validity of the Aggression Questionnaire in an offender population. Campo Grande. J. 527-531.. Gavin. Farmington Hills MI: Gale.. (1999). M. 26(6). 807-811. 8. and Poythress. 110-131.) Contemporary Ergonomics. (2003).  Woodcock.S.  Williams. E. Welsh.  Wilson. J. N. (1996). Brazil.F. M. Structural equation modeling in strategy research: applications and issues. (2004). (Ed. by age and gender. J. Wood. Mastering the World of Psychology. Possession and displacement in Kuala Lumpur’s ethnic landscape. (2003).J. T.E. N.G. 303346. A.org/workshops/05-CampoGrande  Willford. Lenard. A. D. and Shabanova.. V.. 285 . Boston: Pearson. Boyd. Flyte and Garner. J. and Boyd.Workshop. A.A.  Williamson. S. Designing for the in-car safety and security of women. for motor-vehicle crash deaths. 55(175). Applied Ergonomics. Cascardi. T. International Social Science Journal. In Hanson.  Williamson.. A. 398-403. (2008). 1. (2003). Research Methodology in Strategy and Management. March 20-22. Matto Grosso do Sul. Psychological Assessment. 99-109. 34(5).
 Zikovitz. 286 . (Ed.A. Head tilt during driving. Back to the future: brake reaction times for manual and automated vehicles.  Yergil. (2000). (2005). Geneva. 487-503). 1314-1330.  Zhang. (2005). (1999). Country reports. Negotiating identity in Malaysia: multi-cultural society. 46-58.) Traffic and Transport Psychology (pp. 118. Ergonomics. 42(5). D. Regional Office for the Western Pacific.R. G. L.S.  Yaapar.C. Report of an Advisory Group. D. World Health Organization [WHO] (1957). 50(1). (2007). A three-dimensional dynamic posture prediction model for simulating in-vehicle seated reaching movements: development and validation. and Chaffin. D. Asian Journal of Social Science. X. Drivers and traffic laws: a review of psychological theories and empirical research. 33(3). M. and Stanton. 740-746. Ergonomics. N. Technical Report Series No. and Harris. theatre and tourism. In Underwood. S.  World Health Organization [WHO] (2004). Islam. 473-485. Accidents in Childhood: Facts as a Basis for Prevention. . Amsterdam: Elsevier  Young. 43(9). Ergonomics.
Behavioural adaptation (BA): “the ability to adapt to novel conditions based on one’s experiences. traction is maintained steering and braking actions continue to be effective. Because the wheels continue to turn during the braking manoeuvre. Immediately after releasing the pressure. the ABS reapplies it until the wheels begin to lock-up again. or benefits. a concept generally attributed to Farmer and Chambers (1926. ABS ensures that. drivers stop sooner and in a more controlled manner than with traditional rack-and-pinion braking systems. (see also. the outcome of which is typically reflected by perceived advantages. As a result. on most surface types. Anti-lock braking systems (ABS): in-vehicle technology that modulates the pressure in each wheel’s brake line so that when a whell lock-up is anticipated or occurs. allowing the wheel to turn. 1939) and arising from the individual differences approach in psychology.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. presumably because of personality factors. differential accident involvement). the brake line pressure is relates. to the individual” (Brown & 287 .
In the present research. including driver behaviour. crash outcome) Differential accident involvement: a concept proposed by Frank P. when confronted by differing levels of perceived or objective risk in the environment. Usually based on geographical location of the crash. accident proneness) Differential psychology: see individual differences approach. McKenna of the University of Reading.Noy. It refers to accumulations of motor vehicle crashes in amassed statistics. Black event: a post-hoc extension of the black spot concept. therefore allowing for the influence of external factors. proximal variable. task capability theory) . (see also. 25). Turke showing the manner in which the certain demographic. black event) Contextual mediated model: an empirically-based path analysis. as an alternative to the largely discounted notion of accident proneness. that corresponds to an accumulation of crashes in the statistical mass. BA is a core concept in all risk theories of driver behaviour. The model posits certain variables as distal to the crash event and predicts that their influence will moderate drivers’ self-reported tendencies to behave in certain ways when in traffic situations. The contextual mediated model forms the basis of ordering variables within the research design for studies reported in this thesis. It differs from accident proneness in that it (a) denotes an area of study. distal variable. 2004. it refers to a combination of circumstances. driving and psychological variables influence self-reported behaviour in traffic and self-reported crash outcomes. drivers will alter their behaviour (see also. the statistical model was based on the results of automobile users’ responses to psychological testing and questionnaires. hierarchical driver adaptation theory. black spot) Black spot: a term attributed to Heikki Summala of the Traffic Research Unit at the University of Helsinki. time of week and. risk homeostasis theory. p. The central idea is that. characteristics of road users. road and traffic conditions. The concept has been applied both to Summala’s (1996) hierarchical adaptation theory and to Fuller’s (2000) task capability theory. where possible. where effort to save lives may be concentrated. first offered by Nebi Sümer of the Middle East Technical University in Ankara. Also referred to as risk compensation. rather than a theory. 288 . (see also. it is essential when searching for black spots to disaggregate the accident mass by splitting it into progressively smaller units by type. (b) does not prejudge the causation of personality variables. (see also. and (c) assumes that individuals may vary along a continuum with regard to factors that affect their risk of crash. (see also.
not as a unidimensional. William Haddon Jr. 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). demographic and motivational variables – contribute to diving outcomes. interests. Individual differences research typically focuses on the domains of personality. One such multidimensional model of LoC was advanced by Hanna Levenson. Department of Transportation. aptitudes. The name was changed to the British Industrial Health Research Board in 1931. this is an orientation in psychology concerned with the study of traits or quantitative differences in traits by which any individual may be distinguished from other individuals. It was at the IFRB that statisticians and analysts first examined the distribution of accident frequency. leading to the now largely discredited concept of accident proneness.. in-crash. Haddon matrix: a model developed by the American traffic analyst. accident proneness) Inner speech: see self-talk. 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.S. Each of the nine elements of the matrix represents a possible focus for road safety. values. Rotter of the University of Connecticut. Locus of control (LoC): a concept generally credited to Julian B. selfefficacy and self-esteem. (see also. bipolar construct ranging from I (internal) to E (external) maximums. self-concept. (see also. motivation. 289 . Later conceptualisations have viewed LoC. a body of theoretical and empirical knowledge has been generated from attempts to consider how individual differences – primarily in personality. intelligence. ability. Externality Chance (C) and Externality Powerful Others (P). Headway: the distance between two vehicles travelling one in front of the other. then of the Veteran’s Administration Medical Centre in San Francisco. but rather as a multidimensional variable made up of three or more dimensions. In traffic psychology.Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS): is a database in the public domain maintained by the U. Individual differences approach: also referred to as differential psychology. It contains detailed information about fatalities resulting from motor vehicle crashes on public roadways in the United States since 1975. the vehicle and the road – with the three phases in a motor vehicle crash – pre-crash. who posited three dimensions: Internality (I). which combines the three components of the road traffic system – the human. and after crash – to form a matrix with nine cells.
if perceived risk falls below the target risk. Non-motorised transport: any transport that does not require a motor to generate energy. motorcycles. bicycling. as expressed by Raymond Cattell. Risk homeostasis theory (RHT): Originally postulated by Gerald J. Private speech: see self-talk. trucks (lorries). somewhat analogous to a thermostat. individuals will engage in behaviour intended to eliminate the discrepancy. Motor vehicle crash: a collision or incident that may or may not lead to injury. conversely. For the purposes of the present research. or characteristic manner of responding to life’s problems. most usually on roads.S. PBC refers to the degree of control that individuals believe they have over a given behaviour. Freudian psychology considers it to be a manifestation of the integration of the id. occurring on a public road and involving at least one moving motor vehicle. individuals are likely to perform riskier behaviour. 333-334). mobile construction equipment or platforms. operates to keep user risk at an essentially constant level. When there is a discrepancy between the level of perceived risk in the environment and an internalised “target risk” level. 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. Included in this term are walking. the RHT posits that an underlying feedback system. motor vehicles included automobiles. the ego and the superego. Risk compensation: see behavioural adaptation. p. Adlerian psychology views it as “the individual’s style of life. For the purposes of the present research. Wilde. regards it as “that which permits a prediction of what a person will do in a given situation. and buses.Motor vehicle: a machine which incorporates an engine and wheels and is used for transportation on land. if perceived risk exceeds target risk. Wilde’s theory has generated equivocal 290 . motorised bicycles. That is. but excluded those vehicles which operate on rails. Perceived behavioural control (PBC): a key concept in Azjen’s Theory of Planned Behaviour. Different schools of psychology vary in their conceptualisation of personality: the individual psychology of Gordon Allport views personality as “the dynamic integration within individuals that determine their characteristic behaviour and thought”. including life goals” (Chaplin. Professor Emeritus at Canada’s Queen’s University. motor vehicle crash was considered largely synonymous with the concept of motor vehicle accident. and using animal-drawn or human-drawn carts or other devices. individuals will engage in more cautious behaviour. 1985. the individual differences approach.
(see also.research results and some heated controversy within the field of traffic psychology. It refers to the constant stream of chatter that goes on in one’s mind. Road user: a person using any part of the road system as a non-motorised transport user or as a user of a motor vehicle. overpasses. behavioural adaptation. They enable better traction and shorter braking distances than non-studded counterparts. as the result of injury sustained in the crash. and (d) improvement of known hazardous locations on the road network. Road safety engineering: “a process. most frequently attributed to Donald Meichenbaum at Canada’s University of Waterloo. Within the context of this research. these tyres are manufactured with small metal studs – much like football cleats – inserted in the treads. Road traffic fatality: a death occurring within 30 days of a motor vehicle crash. Self talk: a fundamental concept in most theories of cognitive behaviourism. target risk. the vehicle and the road) interact with each other. stopping places. Road traffic injuries: fatal or non-fatal injuries incurred as a result 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. Studded tyres: used primarily in countries that experience ice. parking spaces. draining system. (b) incorporation of safety features in the design of new roads. 1996. Also referred to as private speech or inner speech. (c) improvement of safety aspects of existing roads to avoid future problems. zero risk theory) Road infrastructure: road facilities and equipment. Opportunities for road safety engineering in general apply at four levels: (a) safety conscious planning of new road networks.” (Ogden. 35). bridges. A motor vehicle crash may be considered as a failure in the system. but only 291 . tunnels. Cognitive self-statements may be either negative or positive. which applies engineering principles in order to identify road design or traffic management improvements that will cost-effectively reduce the cost of road accidents. p. signage. based on analysis of road and traffic related accident information.and snow-covered roads during the winter months. including the network. at both conscious and unconscious levels. archways and footpaths. Road traffic system: Road traffic may be considered as a system in which three components (the human.
The TRA has been used as the basis for some driving safety research but is perhaps more significant as a conceptual stepping-stone to the now widely used theory of planned behaviour.when manoeuvring on icy or hard-packed snowy surfaces. According to Wilde (1994). it is a level of risk that each individual is willing to accept. studded tyres actually increase braking distances and decrease lateral control of the vehicle. Supplementary restraint system (SRS): Also referred to as “airbags”. theory of planned behavriour) 292 . hierarchical adaptation theory) Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB): as proposed by Icek Ajzen of the University of MassachusettsAmherst. Individuals will undertake behaviour to ensure that the level of risk in which they are engaged. Each cell of the matrix represents a combination of the three dimensions which form the basis of the theory. On dry roads. and Icek Ajzen at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst. According to RHT proponents. (2) the costs expected from cautious behaviour alternatives. derived from Summala’s (1996) hierarchical adaptation theory of driver behaviour. (see also. The theory of reasoned action (TRA) proposes that behaviour is a function of intentions. The TPB has been applied to a wide range of research problems in traffic psychology. 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. (b) subjective norms (opinions about what significant others would think of the behaviour). behaviour control) (see also. theory of reasoned action. and (4) the costs expected from risky behaviour alternatives. which in turn are a function of attitudes and subjective norms. (see also. A complex 3 X 5 X i matrix. 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. remains constant at the target level. target risk is determined by four “classes of utility factors”: (1) the benefits expected from risky behaviour alternatives. which are the best predictors of behaviour. and (c) perceived behavioural control (PBC) over the performance of the behaviour (which jointly influences both the intention and behavioural performance). instrument panel and windshield of a motorcar. (see also. (3) the benefits expected from cautious behaviour alternatives. risk homeostasis theory) Task cube. where i represents the number of factors defining the functional taxonomy dimension. Intentions are influenced by: (a) attitudes (the positive or negative evaluation of the behaviour). Target risk: a core concept in Wilde’s risk homeostasis theory. the TPB posits that a given behaviour is determined by individuals’ intentions.
has embraced a multidisciplinary approach and a shared focus with human physiology. It is primarily concerned with the study of the behaviour of road users and the psychological processes underlying that behaviour. In the present research. coordinating. convenience and economy. road engineering. It is often proposed as an alternative to Wilde’s risk homeostasis theory. only when a subjective threshold is exceeded and “feelings of fear” are experienced. The emergence and impact of the field of traffic psychology is discussed in chapter 2 of this thesis. comfort. motorised and non-motorised. Transportation factors: a set of five domains operating on the process of moving goods or persons from one place to another. (see also. Traffic psychology: a relatively new and developing field of applied psychology that. that share the same road infrastructure. behavioural adaptation. adapting behaviourally to driving conditions. controlling and organising traffic to achieve efficiency and effectiveness of the existing road infrastructure capacity. it posits that drivers attempt to maintain a stable balance between subjective and objective risk. management science and economics. risk homeostasis theory) 293 . The five basic transportation factors include: safety. time. Zero risk theory: as proposed by Heikki Summala of the Traffic Research Unit at the University of Helsinki. Traffic mix: the form and structure of different modes of transport. the term is considered synonymous with transport psychology and with mobility psychology. from its outset. community planning.Traffic management: planning. ergonomics.
Appendix A: List of Published and Research Scales 294 .
TX 78259 USA http://pearsonassess. 2000).70400&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL Beck Hopelessness Scale (BHS. Research scales (BIT and HAT) were obtained and used with the permission of the authors.exe?grab_id=0&page_id=1549&query=Beck%20Hopelessness%20Scale&hiword= BECKER%20Beck%20Hopelessness%20SCALED%20SCALES%20SCALING%20Scale%20 Behaviour in Traffic Scale (BIT. with the understanding that they would not be re-published. 1988) Obtained with permission from the authors: c/o Dr. CA 90025 USA http://portal. 19500 Bulverde Road. Beck & Steer. San Antonio.html 295 .edu/~csp/csp. Hawaii 96822 USA http://www. Buss & Warren.A number of variables studied in the present research were measured using scales copyrighted by corporate publishers or by universities where they were developed. C. Information for obtaining copies of these instruments is provided below: Aggression Questionnaire (AQ.wpspublish. Available from: Western Psychological Services 12031 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles. Brace & Company). Available from: The Psychological Corporation (Harcourt.eng.S. 1993). Published scales (AQ and BHS) are marketed only to professional psychologists capable of meeting criteria for psychometric knowledge and expertise. Papacostas & Synodinos. Papacostas Department of Civil Engineering 2540 Dole Street University of Hawaii at Manoa Honolulu.com/portal/page?_pageid=53.com/cgibin/MsmGo.hawaii.
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. 296 .psych.Hostile Automatic Thoughts Scale (HAT. Houston. Crowson. Kurylo & Poirier) Obtained with permission from the late Dr. C.ukans.edu/hope. Snyder. Kansas 66045 USA www.R.
Appendix B: Personal Information Form (PIF) 297 .
What type of motor vehicle do you most often drive? (please check only one) ___ car -. _________.g.. In what city/town did you learn to drive? _______________. We are not asking for your name.CONFIDENTIAL Personal Information Form Please answer the following questions about Please answer the following questions about YOURSELF. sitting behind driver) ___ car (passenger) ___ bicycle (non-motorized) ___ walk ___ other (please specify: _______________) 6. In what city/town have you lived most of your life? _______________. __________ (city/town) (state) (country) 5. Most of the time when you travel.what manufacturer & model (e. Proton Wira) _______________ ___ motorcycle – what engine size (e. For how long have you had your driver’s licence? __________ years and ___________months (number) (number) 3. How often do you travel in a car: as a driver (please check only one): ___ every day ___ several times a week ___ about once or twice a week ___ about once every two weeks ___ almost never ___ never as a passenger (please check only one) ___ every day ___ several times a week ___ about once or twice a week ___ about once every two weeks ___ almost never ___ never 298 .. what kind of transportation do you use? (please check only one) ___ bus ___ motorcycle (driver) ___ car (driver) ___motorcycle (pillion. 1. Do you presently have a driver’s licence? (circle one) yes no If yes. __________ (city/town) (state) (country) 4.g. _________. 250 cc) ______________ ___ other (please specify: _________________) 7. please answer the following questions: 2. so please answer all questions as truthfully as you can.
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 . in what kind of vehicle were you travelling when the accident occurred? ___ bus ___ motorcycle (driver) ___ car (driver) ___motorcycle (pillion. 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. When you want to use a car. most of the time ___ no 11. most of the time ___ no 10.8. all the time ___ yes. some of the time ___ yes. do you have ready ACCESS to a car? (please check only one) ___ yes. have you been in a motor vehicle accident that required you to be hospitalised for injuries? yes no If yes. all the time ___ yes. When you want to use a motorcycle. do you have ready ACCESS to a motorcycle? (please check only one) ___ yes. sitting behind driver) ___ car (passenger) ___ bicycle (non-motorized) ___ I was walking ___ other (please specify: _______________) If yes. Within the last twelve (12) months. some of the time ___ yes.
have you been in a motor vehicle accident that resulted in damage over RM100 to your vehicle. 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 . but no injuries? If yes. Within the last twelve months. 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. 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:__________________________________________ ) 15.12. What is your gender? 16. 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 age? ___ male _____ years ___ female 17. Within the last twelve months. in what kind of vehicle were you travelling when the accident occurred? ___ bus ___ motorcycle (driver) ___ car (driver) ___motorcycle (pillion. in what kind of vehicle were you travelling when the accident occurred? ___ bus ___ motorcycle (driver) ___ car (driver) ___motorcycle (pillion. sitting behind driver) ___ car (passenger) ___ bicycle (non-motorized) ___ I was walking ___ other (please specify: _______________) If yes.
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.