CAUSE AND PREVENTION OF ROADWAY CRASHES AMONG YOUNG, HIGH-RISK DRIVERS IN MALAYSIA: A MULTI-DISCIPLINARY APPROACH
ALAN GIFFIN DOWNE
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY MULTIMEDIA UNIVERSITY APRIL 2008
Siti Hasmah Digital Library
Digitally signed by Siti Hasmah Digital Library DN: cn=Siti Hasmah Digital Library, c=MY, o=Multimedia University, ou=Research Library, email=kamal. 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Several researchers at other institutions have provided assistance in the form of test instruments, unpublished papers and guidance over the course of this project.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.
The present research was conducted to examine the interaction between the role of behaviour in traffic. respectively). some personality constructs. A contextual mediated model was used to examine interactions between a set of variables considered distal to the causality of the crash event. Previous research has found that human factors play the chief role in contributing to crash outcomes. 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). 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.
. and that driver behaviours. 302 and 252. externally-focused frustration. seven fatalities are recorded each day.
Distal variables included driver (driving experience and driving frequency). aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) characteristics. freeway urgency.ABSTRACT
Motor vehicle crashes are a serious social and economic problem in Malaysia. driving experience and demographic characteristics are the specific contributors of these factors. on average. demographic (age. where. However. personality traits. hopelessness. gender and ethnicity) and psychological (locus of control. previous attempts to investigate relationships between psycho-social variables and crash incidence have frequently yielded weak associations and inconclusive results. demographic characteristics and driving exposure in predicting crash and injury occurrence. and destination-activity orientation. Effects of the distal variables and proximal variable on self-reported history of crash occurrence and injuries were examined. The role of the proximal variable in mediating distal effects on crash
outcomes was also investigated. Three samples of university students whose primary mode of transportation involved driving automobiles (n = 301. self-reported patterns of driving considered more proximal to the causality of the crash and self-reported crash and injury histories of the participants. BIT had four components: usurpation of right-of-way.
consistent with the assumptions of the contextual mediated model.
Implications for both theory and practice are discussed. in mediating the effects of the distal variables was analysed using a four-step regression procedure developed by Baron and Kenny (1986) and using structural equation modelling (SEM) with LISREL. particularly with respect to an ongoing debate within traffic psychology over the comparative importance of theories or models of driving behaviour. significant direct effects on self-reported driving behaviour (BIT) were consistently observed with samples of automobile drivers and motorcyclists but not to the same degree among professional taxicab drivers. as well.
The role of the proximal variable. As reported in previous studies. 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. Results indicated that. locus of control moderated the BIT-aggression relationship. BIT exerted a strong mediational influence over the effects of distal variables on crash outcomes. all four BIT components were associated with higher occurrence of both self-reported motor vehicle crashes and crash-related injury. Among distal variables.Results indicated a complex series of interactions between the variables. BIT. The advantages of multi-disciplinary approaches to the study of roadway crashes are discussed. Two types of hostile automatic thoughts – with content related to physical aggression or revenge – moderated the BITaggression relationship. As hypothesised.
2 188.8.131.52 Human Factors and the Motor Vehicle Safety Problem in Malaysia 2.2 The Emergence of Traffic Psychology as a Scientific Discipline 2.3 1.1 Risk Homeostasis Theory (RHT)
2. Theories and Models 2.3.1 Concepts.TABLE OF CONTENTS COPYRIGHT PAGE DECLARATION ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS DEDICATION ABSTRACT TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES PREFACE CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1.5 184.108.40.206 Accident Proneness 220.127.116.11 Differential Accident Involvement 2.2 Traffic Psychology: Slow Progress in Theory-Building 2.3.1 An Applied Perspective 18.104.22.168
2.1 1.1 Human Factors in Roadway Crashes: A Vexing Research Challenge 22.214.171.124.4 Risk Theories 2.3
.4 1.1 Roadway Crashes in Malaysia and Public Perceptions of Causality 2.6 Background of the Study Road Safety in Malaysia The Problem Statement The Professional Significance of the Study Overview of the Methodology Delimitations ii iii iv vi vii ix xv xviii xx 1 1 2 4 5 7 9 12 12 12 17 19 19 21 21 22 24 24 25 26 28 30 31 31
CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 126.96.36.199 Studies of Causal Factors in Malaysian Roadway Crashes The Professional Background 188.8.131.52 The Individual Differences Approach 2.2 A Multidisciplinary Approach Theories of Driving Behaviour 2.2.
2.2 Zero Risk Theory 184.108.40.206.1 Type A Behaviour Pattern and Motor Vehicle Crashes 2.2 Demographic Variables: Age. Gender and Ethnicity 3.3 Ethnicity 220.127.116.11.1 Statistical Models 2.1 Age 2.1 Unidimensional and Multidimensional Constructs 2.4.1 3.4 Hopelessness 18.104.22.168.3 Locus of Control 3.2 Conceptualization and the Research Framework Definition of the Variables 3.6.2 Locus of Control and Driving Behaviour 2.1 Demographic Variables 22.214.171.124.2 Driver Characteristics 2.5.4
2.9.2 Hopelessness 2.5 Aggression
78 78 84 84 84 84 85 85
.2 Driving Frequency and Traffic Exposure 2.3 Aggression Proximal Variables in the Present Research 126.96.36.199.3 Core Concepts in the Contextual Mediated Model: Moderation and Mediation 188.8.131.52 Attitude-behaviour Theories 2.5.5 Hierarchical Theories of Driver Adaptation 184.108.40.206.2.5.3 Locus of Control and Ethnicity 2.2 Gender 2.6 Task Capability Interface (TCI) Theory 220.127.116.11.3.5.4 Studies of Driving Behaviour Using the Contextual Mediated Model 2.2 Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) Descriptive Models of Driver Behaviour 2.5
18.104.22.168 The Haddon Matrix 2.4.1 Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) 2.1 Locus of Control 2.1 Experience 2.2 A Contextual Mediated Model of Personality and Behavioral Predictors of Motor Vehicle Crashes 22.214.171.124.5.4.2 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 126.96.36.199.2.3 Psychological Variables 2.2 Process Models 188.8.131.52 Driver Characteristics: Driver Experience and Driving Frequency 184.108.40.206.5.5 Use of the Contextual Mediated Model in Other Research Distal Variables in the Present Study 2.
2.4 Normed Fit Index (NFI) 220.127.116.11 Multiple Regression Analysis 3.1 Studies 1 and 2 3.5.6
3.4 Linear Regression Analysis 18.104.22.168.1 The Sample 3.6 Logistic Regression Analysis 22.214.171.124 Study 1C 3.4 3.2.9 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
.6 Personal Information Form (PIF) Procedure 3.2 Degree of freedom (df) 126.96.36.199.7.5.6 Hostile Automatic Thoughts 3.5.1 Chi-Square (χ2).5.2 Study 1B 3.1 Study 1A 3.3 The General Linear Model (GLM) Univariate Analysis 3.7 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) 188.8.131.52.8 Crash Occurrence 3.2 Study 3 Analysis of the Data 3.7.3 Beck Hopelessness Scale (BHS) 3.8 Kolmogorov-Smirnov One-Sample Test 3.5. p-Value and χ2/df Ratio 184.108.40.206.7 Expected Cross-Validation Index (ECVI) 3.1 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) Scale 220.127.116.11.4 Study 2 3.6.5 Study 3 Formulation of Hypotheses Methods of Data Collection and Analysis 3.4 Aggression Questionnaire (AQ) 3.9 Injury Occurrence Research Design of the Studies 3.1 Independent-sample t-tests 3.2 Research Instruments 18.104.22.168.3.6 Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index (AGFI) 3.2 Levenson Locus of Control Scale 3.3 Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) and Root Mean Square Residual (RMR) 22.214.171.124.7.7.5 Hostile Automatic Thoughts (HAT) 126.96.36.199.188.8.131.52.7.7.7 Structural Equation Modelling 3.3
3.5 Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) and Comparative Fit Index (CFI) 3.2 One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) 3.8 Parsimony Goodness-of-Fit Index (PGFI) 3.7.
Skewness and Kurtosis Crash and Injury Occurrence Data Distal and Proximal Variable Data 4.10 Hypothesis 10: Demographic Factors Influence Aggression 4.3 Results of Study 3 Hypothesis Testing 4.CHAPTER 4: ANALYSIS OF DATA 4.4 Hypothesis 4: Demographic Variables Influence Locus of Control 184.108.40.206.1.3 Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 2 4.4 Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 3 Reliability and Validity 4.2.13 Hypothesis 13: Demographic Factors Influence Hostile Automatic Thoughts 4.1 Internality as a Moderator 4.6. Gender and Ethnicity 4.3 Hypothesis 3: Demographic Variables Influence Behaviour in Traffic 4.6 Hypothesis 6: Locus of control Influences Hopelessness 220.127.116.11 Hypothesis 14: Hostile Automatic Thoughts Influence Behaviour In Traffic 4.12 Hypothesis 12: Locus of Control Moderates the Relationship Between Aggression and Behaviour in Traffic 18.104.22.168.22.214.171.124 Age.126.96.36.199.6.6.3 4.2.5 Hypothesis 5: Demographic Variables Influence Hopelessness 4.5.1 Hypothesis 1: Behaviour in Traffic Influences Motor Vehicle Crash Outcomes 4.6.8 Hypothesis 8: Locus of control Influences Behaviour in Traffic 4.1 Reliability Test Results: Cronbach’s Alpha 4.6.6
.1 Description of the Sample 4.6.3 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the AQ Scale 4.2.7 Hypothesis 7: Hopelessness Influences Behaviour in Traffic 4.2 Results of Study 2 4.6.2 Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 1 4.2 Externality-chance and Externality-powerful-others as Moderators 4.11 Hypothesis 11: Aggression Influences Behaviour in Traffic 188.8.131.52 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Levenson Locus of Control Scale 4.3.4 184.108.40.206 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the HAT Scale Normality.2 Hypothesis 2: Driver Characteristics Influence Behaviour in Traffic 4.2 Parallel-Form Reliability 4.6.5
4.15 Hypothesis 15: Hostile Automatic Thoughts Moderate the
112 112 112 114 115 115 116 116 118 118 119 120 120 121 122 124 126 126 130 132 134 134 135 139 140 142 143 143 145 147 149 151 153 153 154 156 157
4.6.1 Results of Study 1 4.2.3 Validity Test Results 4.1 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the BIT Scale 4.5.9 Hypothesis 9: Hopelessness Moderates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Behaviour in Traffic 4.2
8.2 5.1 Advantages of Using SEM 220.127.116.11 5.1 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hopelessness and Crash Outcomes 4.5 What Can be Learned from Testing Contextual Models with SEM? Limitations of the Study and Methodological Considerations 18.104.22.168.8.6
Relationship Between Aggression and Behaviour in Traffic 4.3 Study 3 Testing Mediational Relationships Using SPSS 4.3 Study 3: Taxicab Drivers 22.214.171.124
4.3 Differences between Motorcycle Drivers and Taxicab Drivers
158 159 163 163 169 170 173 173 173 174 174 176 176 177 177 179
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION 5.1 Internal and External Locus of Control as Determinants of Driving Behaviour 5.3 Best Fit or Best Model 5.3 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hostile Automatic Thought and Crash Outcome 126.96.36.199 Summary of Hypothesis Tests Testing the Contextual Mediated Model Using Structural Equation Modelling (LISREL Analysis) 4.6.4 Testing the Contextual Mediated Model 5.2 Use of Self-Report Methods 5.3 Locus of Control and Ethnicity: Malay and Chinese-Malaysian Drivers Aggression Testing the Contextual Mediated Model Using Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) 5.9.1 Generalisability of Findings 5.2 Study 2: Motorcyclists 5.7
4.2 Study 2 4.3.2 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Aggression and Crash Outcomes 4.5.1 Study 1C: Automobile Drivers 5.2 Locus of Control and Ethnicity: Indian-Malaysian Drivers 5. Motorcycle Drivers and Taxicab Drivers 188.8.131.52.1 Study 1C 4.5
5.7.2 Goodness of Fit 5.4 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Crash Outcomes Comparison of Automobile Drivers.3.2 Differences between Automobile Drivers and Taxicab Drivers 4.8.1 184.108.40.206.6.3 A Contextual Mediated Model for Understanding Factors Influencing Unsafe Driving Hopelessness Locus of Control 5.7.1 Differences between Automobile Drivers and Motorcycle Drivers 4.3 Timeframe for Data Collection
179 182 185 185 187 189 190 194 194 196 197 201 201 202 203 203 204 204 210 211
212 215 215 218 220 221 221 221 229 230
CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION
REFERENCES GLOSSARY APPENDICES Appendix A List of Published and Research Scales Appendix B Personal Information (PIF)
.7.2 Factors in Behavioural Adaptation (BA) 5.7.4 Preventive Measures: “The Three E’s” 220.127.116.11.7. Models in Traffic Psychology 5.3 Driver Selection.18.104.22.168.1 Generating and classifying crash prevention interventions 5.4 Measurement of Driving Frequency Implications and Areas for Further Study 5. Training and Rehabilitation 5.7
5.3 Education 5.2 Engineering Interventions 5.4.1 Theory vs.
2 3.5 4.4 3. Kurtosis and Skewness Statistics
14 57 91 95 97 98 101 112 114
2.7 4.6 4.5 4.1 4.2 4. Gender and Ethnicity of Participants in Studies 1.4
115 117 118 119
111 121 121 122
Malaysian Roadway Crashes and Casualties.10 4.LIST OF TABLES
No. 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.3 3.9 4.1 3.3
. 2 and 3 States from Which Study 1 Participants Had Acquired Their Original Drivers’ Licenses States from Which Study 2 Participants Had Acquired Their Original Motorcyclists’ Licenses Summary of Internal Reliability Coefficient Results Parallel-Form Reliability for Form A and Form B (BIT) Validity of BIT scales – Summary of Confirmatory Factor Analyses Validity of the Levenson Locus of Control Scale – Summary of Confirmatory Factor Analysis Validity of the AQ scales – Summary of Confirmatory Factor Analysis Summary of LISREL Results on Validity for HAT (Study 1C) Normality Tests.
4. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1C (n=252) Means.28 4.20
138 139 144 145
4.4.13 4. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1A (n=301) Means.24
Crash and Injury Occurrence Crash Occurrence Frequency.27 4.21
4. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 2 (n=122) Means. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1B (n=302) Means.18
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
4. Gender and Ethnicity in Study 2 (N=122) 125 Means. Gender and Ethnicity in Study 1 (N=855)
Crash Occurrence Frequency.12 4.19
Direct Effects of Gender on AQ Total and Subscale Scores Direct Effects of Ethnicity on AQ Total and Subscale Factors
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
4.30 4.33 4.3
5.39 4.34 4.35 4.31 4.32 4.4
199 206 207
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
.2 5.37 4.
3 4. 2007) 50 Hierarchical Levels of Driving Behavior (after Keskinen.4 2.3 3.5
Figure Task Cube (from Summala.8
Proposed Contextual Mediated Model for Safety Research in Agriculture (from Downe.4 4.7 2. Behavioral Predictors and Motor Vehicle Crashes (from Sümer.1 3. 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
64 80 81 82 83 146
3.LIST OF FIGURES
.3 2. 1989) The Haddon Matrix (Noy.2
4. 1996.6 2.1 2. 2.2 3. 2000) Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen. Hatakka.1 4. 1996) Task-Capability Theory (after Fuller.9
2. 1997) Contextual Mediated Model of Personality. 2003) Inter-variable Relationships in Mediation Models Inter-variable Relationships in Moderation Models
Page 36 37 40 42
44 46 47
10 4.7 4.5 4.9 4.8 4.13
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
4.6 4.12 4.4.
is a matter of debate … Obviously. They quarreled and then left on his motorbike. I’m a fairly big guy. . I despair that we may never be able to snare this werewolf. they cut across a lane too quickly. I don’t cry much any more. I hope it makes a contribution. How important these factors are. She had needed to go on an errand.Talib Rothengatter & Raphael Huguenin. I like to watch boxing. at least not with real tears. He’d sent me a nice card at Christmas. externally-focused frustration. programme. She told me about the motorcycle crash that had claimed the life of her cousin.D. I knew the fellow. He was driving. only a trimester or two earlier. finally. are factors that influence the likelihood of occurrence. he’d taken the same course as she.
. I wanted to throw in the towel. I feel like it a bit right now.PREFACE Accidents occur. 2004 Some three years or so into my Ph. I feel like it each time I think of that moment. they are prone to other types of error as well.
The factors she described that evening were the same ones I’d been trying to study – freeway urgency. I got back to work on them. My research design needed a serious re-working. LISREL couldn’t. They were hurrying. they were focused on the errand. but she’d nagged him. She was afraid she had missed too many lectures. Her face and arms had been bruised and lacerated. and his mental state.
Then one evening into my office came a student from my first-year Critical Thinking class. and this thesis is the result. I was confused by the results I was getting. She had been badly injured. He died instantly and she spent three weeks in the hospital. I sure felt like it as I sat there beside her. when humans are prone to imagine fairies or werewolves. but accidents or encounters with fairies or werewolves are random events. lane deviation and all the rest. I’m pretty happy with it. she was riding pillion. But. handle the latent variables I wanted to include in my structural equation model. He was very popular with other students. I told her not to worry. He didn’t want to go. The behaviour of the traveller. And they crashed. She started crying and couldn’t stop. Her hands and voice quivered. or wouldn’t. I didn’t recognise her at first. things were not going well. But sometimes. they were frustrated and angry with each other. like encounters with fairies and werewolves. just every so often. to the weary traveler.
Sleet. perceptual difficulties and drink driving” (p. 2000). such as Malaysia. 2007. 2004). much of the recent attention on causal elements in roadway crashes has focused on the human factors involved. the most prevalent factors have been human failures associated with speed.CHAPTER 1
Notwithstanding the extensive literature that exists on safety design factors for automotive products (e. environment and human characteristics on the risk of accidental events and fatalities. where rates of roadway accidents and deaths have been consistently higher than in other parts of the world (Peden & Hyder. including the
. Trick. perceptual (Hong. Green. Stanton & Pinto. scholars still search to identify the relative effects of vehicle. Theeuwes. road. 1996. the quest for a better understanding of the causality and prevention of roadway mishaps has become an urgent task for safety researchers. 2007. commented that.. 2001. 2000). 2002. 2001). Consistently over the years. highway engineers and automotive design specialists.g. Even after decades of study. anticipation.2 million deaths in motor vehicle crashes worldwide
(Peden. Verwey. 2002) and road safety engineering (e. 2002) and their impairment (de Raedt & Ponjaert-Kristofferson. Furuichi & Kadoma.g. kinaesthetic (Zhang & Chaffin. 11). judgement. Sabey (1999). 2004) have been studied extensively. Drivers’ performance and avoidance of collisions depend on their skills. state of mind and physical well-being. 2004). Mohan & Hyder. Iwasaki. Ogden.
Drivers’ attentional (Most & Astur. “human factors play a major role in road accidents. Peters & Peters. for instance. Graham. cognitive (Vaa. Scurfield. 2002). This is particularly salient in developing countries. perceptual-motor processes (Young & Stanton. 1999).1
Background of the Study With an estimated 1. 2000. Enns. 2006. policy-makers. leading to a rich information base for regarding humancentred design as a “requirement for all elements in the traffic system. Olson. Mills & Vavrik..
2002. Malaysia is also a nation with a disproportionately high frequency of motor vehicle accidents. The high rate of roadway accidents and deaths has been described in both scholarly and popular print or internet media in extreme terms.112). including the study of a large number of variables.
. 1983). The research comprised five separate studies of Malaysian drivers aged 18 to 73 years. 2003). More challenging has been the attempt to link personality and psychosocial variables to driver behaviour and performance. 2005). describes its significance and presents an overview of the methodology used. as a “social menace”(Abdul Kareem.332 drivers and
15. Very early initial attempts to identify an “accident proneness” personality trait (Tiliman & Hobbs. There was a total of 341. often labelled as “tragic” (Koh. According to Dewar (2002b).
This dissertation is a report of research into relevant psychosocial variables and their effects on self-reported driving behaviour. 2004.252 accidents in 2006 and over 6. locus of control.2
Road Safety in Malaysia Malaysia is a nation of motor vehicle users. with the intent to determine the degree to which measures of aggression.351.790.732 motor vehicles were registered in 2006. This first chapter of this dissertation presents the background of the study. and as a “major public health problem” (Subramaniam. p. 1949) have since been replaced by more complex explanations that focus on the interaction between emotional. 21). hopelessness and other variables interacted to affect attitudes toward driving and the severity and frequency of participants’ self-reported involvement in motor vehicle crashes. A total of 10. 2007). However. “the literature on personality has a long history.000 fatalities were recorded (Ministry of Transport Malaysia. behavioural and attitudinal characteristics of drivers and the environmental situations in which they find themselves (Haight. The chapter
1. 1989). there are conflicting findings and associated problems with this research” (p. McKenna. the vehicle and the new technologies that are increasingly being deployed by the road and fitted in vehicles” (Carsten. concludes by noting the delimitations of the research.roadway.
leading many researchers and safety organisations to regard road safety as a leading international development issue (Garg & Hyder. Wells-Parker et al. 2000). 1994. 2006. 2002. Barjonet & Tortosa. Verwey. integrative and international viewpoint based on application in order to address changing situations and objectives” (p. Blasco. and (b) the elimination or reduction of effects of task-induced or environmental stressors on human performance when driving (Brown. 2004. 2007). aggression
(Parkinson. 2003). Trimpop & Kirkcaldy. Huang. Investigations of individual differences have included driver age and gender (Beck. Hartos & Simons-Martin. Draskóczy. Huguenin (2005) has argued that the field of traffic psychology arises from an “interdisciplinary. Özkan. Rimmö. Wells. locus of control (Arthur. 2001. 2005). 1993. 1997. Shinar. often with widely varying results (Dewar. 2001). 2004). Schwebel. that allow for better prediction and explanation of roadway crashes (Risser & Nickel. Hence. Stewart. Gal & Syna Desevilya. West & French. Ulleberg.
. 1997). Elander. 2002b.Trends toward high rates of motor vehicle crashes and fatalities have been observed in developing countries world-wide (Peden et al. Gonzalez. 2002. 2004. ethno-cultural background (Byrd. Barrett & Alexander. Severson. Lajunen & Kaistinen. 2002) and many others. Cohn. Lajunen & Summala. Many studies have been devoted to the examination of behavioural.
Historically. 2000. and the past twenty years has seen the emergence of the new discipline of traffic and transport psychology (Barjonet & Tortosa. 1997). Vasconcellos. risk-taking and sensation-seeking (Horswill & Coster. 1997). 2002. Parada & Cortes. there has been an increasing recognition of the need for theoretical formulations and specific models. 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. Loo. Renner & Anderle. 1999. Sumala & Zakowska. easily generalised to a variety of cultural and social settings. 2001. Wu & Yen. 2003. Lin. Hwang. 2005. attitudinal and personality correlates of roadtraffic crash risk. Dewar. 2006. 1991. Ball & Rizzon. 3). 1979. Gidron. 2005. 1997).
The Problem Statement Given widespread awareness about the high rates of death and injury
resulting from motor vehicle crashes worldwide and in Malaysia. vehicle. leaving the field with inadequate theory development from which testable. theoretical basis for traffic psychology (Huguenin. loss of attention and the
deliberate usurpation of right-of-way are frequent behaviours in traffic. in developing general and specific cognitive models of individuals’ interaction with the world around them (Brown. drivers still operate automobiles and motorcycles in ways that reduce the likelihood of safe arrival at destinations. aberrant driving behaviours) variables in predicting traffic accident involvement. Sümer (2003). for instance.
1. however. This has led to a growing interest in modelling human behaviour involved in the driving task and.. falsifiable hypotheses might be drawn (Summala. road and environmental conditions that comprise the driving situation. personality and demographic) and proximal (i.e.Increasingly. 1997.. 2005).
A frequent criticism. 1997). it has been recognised that the psychosocial factors involved in driving safely differ greatly across the range of human.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. What demographic and personality
factors are associated and interact with unsafe driving behaviour and. has been that such behavioural models have seldom been used as the foundation for developing an integrated. Parker. Speeding. Hampson & Morris. with the risk of roadway casualty?
. externally-focused frustration. Noy (1997). has recently proposed a promising contextual mediated model which distinguishes between distal (i. with resulting outcomes often involving crash and injury. in particular. 1996. 2004). in turn. 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.
with a view to assessing which preventive measures would be most effective.4
The Professional Significance of the Study With the frequency of roadway crashes. and (f) drivers’ hostile automatic thoughts would not only affect each other but also four self-reported measures of behaviour in traffic.
understanding the manner in which psychosocial characteristics of individuals might predispose them to engage in unsafe driving behaviour. 2005. the present research might be seen as making a contribution to our growing understanding of that very interface.
1. psychological and behavioural variables inherent in the dynamics leading motor vehicle crashes. While there is no doubt that collective knowledge pertaining to the causality and prevention of roadway crashes is growing exponentially. Fifteen hypotheses are formulated to predict that distal variables including: (a) driver age. this research is
important to organisations and people concerned with driving safety. in which distal psychosocial factors exert an influence on behavioural tendencies more proximally related to the crash event. situated as proximal variables. Results of the resulting analyses are detailed in chapter 3. injuries and deaths. “the basic question must be asked as to whether traffic psychologists can appropriately solve the tasks that are to be mastered at the interface between people and road traffic” (Huguenin. This is both a key goal and a persistent
challenge within the emerging field of traffic psychology. it becomes possible to construct a broader awareness of how demographic and personality variables contribute to motor vehicle crashes. By focusing on not only demographic. The 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. (b) driving experience. 9).The aim of the present research is to determine those factors contributing to traffic accidents on Malaysia roadways.
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. (c) driver locus of control. gender and ethnicity.
. (e) driver aggression. but also on their interactions. (d) driver hopelessness. p.
. Hatakka. they also have implications for a broader “theory versus model” debate in traffic psychology.
Findings of the present research have implications for driver selection and training.Of particular interest may be variables related to driver affect. p. 1997). Näätänen & Summala. the development and adaptation of in-vehicle safety devices or intelligent transportation systems and the construction of models to foster additional research. Utzelmann. 2005. Katila & Peräaho. 94). 1997. the Malaysian setting has remained relatively understudied (Richardson & Downe. 1993). Rothengatter. It is also the first attempt to examine closely the effects of the psychological construct of hopelessness on driver behaviour. Some authors have suggested that. 2004. There is a growing sentiment that.
Despite considerable popular attention to the problem of motor vehicle crashes and fatalities in the developing countries of Southeast Asia. The present
research adds to the growing body of literature dealing with driver aggression and its various forms of expression. an area that some authors have argued is overlooked in the current literature (Keskinen. 2004). in the applied
sciences. “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. the plethora of theories available. Recent trends in the philosophy of science call conventional hypothetico-deductive processes into question (Becker.
Moreover. all of which have been noted as purposes for traffic psychology (Brown & Noy. Laapotti. 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. 2000). 1974). road safety measures and public policy. 2004. 2001. The present research offers a perspective on this divergence of viewpoints by discussing how empirically-based models of behavioural processes can be strengthened through a priori integration with broader theoretical precepts.
in turn. This broader perspective. Radin Umar. Selection of alternate structural
equation models is also discussed. and on the manner in which those factors interact to affect safety outcomes on the roadway. this research draws on principles from a wide range of disciplines. this work represents the first instance in which Baron & Kenny’s (1986) widely-cited procedure for establishing mediation has been performed using logistic regression. Che Ali. A multi-disciplinary approach has been generally considered one of the hallmarks of the new field of traffic psychology (Rothengatter.. 2001). incorporating cognitive ergonomics. with emphasis on the importance of model comprehensiveness as a factor in addition to goodness-of-fit. attitude theory.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. although adding additional layers of variables and complexity to the analysis. 2005) and attempts to link driver performance to road engineering (e. 2001).. This has left the door open for largely unsupported speculation about the character of Malaysian drivers and.
1. goes some distance in differentiating the present study from other more narrowly-defined examinations of driver behaviour. cultural anthropology and applied psychology.
In doing so. which deals with methodology. It is useful.
Certain methodological considerations add to the professional significance of this research. and is appropriate for this examination of psychosocial features of the Malaysian driver. human motivation. very little research has been focused on the psychological and social features of the motoring population in Malaysia.Notwithstanding a handful of well-founded reviews of statistical trends and risk factors (e.
.g. may be limiting the development of effective public policy and intervention measures. 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. To the author’s knowledge.
Maruyama (1998) has argued that the two prominent reasons why researchers use structural equation modelling techniques lie. In this case. 1B and 1C). 711). The final result. in their capacity to predict outcomes and. In Study 1. second. but where differences which already existed between subject groups on independent measures were evaluated to determine their naturally-occurring influence on dependent. Anderson & Tatham. was a multi-dimensional path analysis depicting causal. different combinations of variables were added to the respective structured equation model and the level of complexity was examined. at the conclusion of Study 1C. gender. hopelessness. cultural background). These equations depict all of the relationships among constructs (the dependent and independent variables) involved in the analysis” (Hair. the effects of
selected demographic (age. This model drew on the similar conceptual theory used by Sümer (2003) in the construction of his earlier contextualmediated model. variables (Sekaran. destination-oriented activity) and two self-reported measures of accidentrelated (crash occurrence and injury occurrence) outcomes were assessed. hostile automatic thoughts) on four self-reported measures of behaviour in traffic (usurpation of right-of-way. driving (experience. access to vehicle) and psychological (locus of control. Structural equation modelling is a family of statistical methods that “examines the structure of interrelationships expressed in a series of equations.
Structural equation models were also used to explain the relationships between these variables. or outcome.however. p. each entailing data collection from a different sample. externally-focused frustration.
The present research applied an ex post facto research design. in their capacity to explain which specific predictors
. similar to a series of multiple regression equations. Black. moderating and mediating relationships between variables. 2006. to include in this first chapter a general statement of the method used in order to round out the introductory picture presented. aggression. Study 2 and Study 3. Babin. The present research consisted of three studies: Study 1. In each successive study. first. freeway urgency. three separate phases were carried out (Study 1A. 2003). in which there was no direct manipulation of independent variables in the laboratory or field setting. driving experience.
In Study 2. data were collected through classroom-based group administration of research instruments. behavioural inventories and personal profile questionnaires.
Student participants sampled for two of the three studies were selected from an undergraduate population at a single university. 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. where it is argued that the “convenience sample” used in the model-building phases was.
1. with resulting variable relationships compared to the model that had been built from the responses of automobile users in Study 1. this time sampling professional taxicab drivers in the Kuala Lumpur area. These are
discussed in detail in chapter 5 of the thesis but relevant issues are introduced here. a third model was constructed.are most important in predicting.
After the initial model-building had been completed. verbally administered psychometric instruments. A team of researchers flagged down taxi drivers at random and.
. a model was constructed using a sample of undergraduate participants for whom motorcycles were the primary mode of transport. This
issue is discussed at some length in chapter 5 of the thesis.
In Study 3. two additional studies (Study 2 and Study 3) were undertaken to test the resilience of selected components of the resulting structural equation model with different driver populations. over the course of 30. Such predictive capabilities were considered to be of importance in any examination of the dynamics leading to risks of roadway crashes and fatalities. leaving room for questions about the generalisability of findings to populations within and outside Malaysia.6
Delimitations All research is confined by the boundaries of its scope and design. Again. representative of the characteristics of high-risk Malaysian drivers.to 45-minute trips.
1990). Stradling. 1997). The present research included procedural elements to mitigate. (b) time-period for calculating accident frequency. Are the attitudes. Violations are deliberate deviations from those practices believed to be necessary to safely operate a vehicle and include such behaviours as speeding. Baxter & Campbell. 2001) and others down-playing them (Hattaka. at least to a certain extent. Manstead. lapses and violations as differing behavioural responses underlying the crash event (Reason. The prevalence of self-report measures in traffic safety research. there has been a vigorous debate about the utility of self-report measures in safety research for several years.Concerns with research of this nature also frequently centre around the question of self-reported data. while recognising the distinction. Katila & Laapotti. However. The present research. much of the recent driving safety literature has distinguished between errors. 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. and (c) culpability for crash outcomes. including: (a) test-retest reliability of predictors. such as failing to check the rear-view mirror before pulling out or changing lanes. The relationship between the manner
. social desirability or response set biases? Indeed. Boyce & Geller.
Finally. against the first two and these are covered in chapter 2. Keskinen. 2002. close following or taking aggressive actions against another driver or vehicle.
In a meta-review of traffic safety research. the research did not address the question of differences arising from the extent to which drivers considered themselves to be liable for the self-reported crash outcomes. Errors are a type of driving mistake involving failures of observation and misjudgement. is discussed in chapter 5 of the thesis. as well. accident histories and behavioural trends reported by participants really valid? Or are they prone to the influences of confabulation. Lapses involve problems with attention and memory and include such things as switching on one thing when meaning to switch on something else. 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.
in which behaviour in traffic was measured in this research and the dimensions offered by Reason et al is discussed in chapter 5.
fatalities were recorded (Ministry of Transport Malaysia. “discourteous” (Davin Arul. “reckless”. 2005).1 2. inconsiderate and aggressive. A succession of online weblogs and internet sites authored by tourists and local writers alike have condemned Malaysian drivers as dangerous. Malaysia has experienced
remarkable increases in population. “bullies” and “selfish”. “peaceful”. 2007). In newspaper reports.1. 2003). 2005). in aggregate. pointing out that annual fatalities exceed the total deaths among American combat personnel over four years of fighting in Iraq (Zolkepli. they indicated “angry”. economic expansion. Malaysian drivers have been consistently characterized as “confrontational”. “obnoxious” and “cowardly” (“Cowardly Malaysian Drivers”. 1989). 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. when asked to provide five adjectives which would “describe what Malaysians are like”.
Nation-wide statistics seem to underscore the popular concern over safety issues. the Minister of Health characterised Malaysian roads as “worse than a war zone”. 2007). Over 6. 2005). 2007). Downe and Loke (2004) reported that. “selfish” (“Our Roads are Filled”. “patient”. “ugly motorists” (“Rude Drivers”. there were 341. in order of frequency. A developing country in Southeast Asia. “friendly”. “impatient”. but when asked to “describe what Malaysian drivers are like”. 2006).CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
2. These are thought to have contributed. industrialisation and motorisation. “laid-back” and “considerate”. 2007). a sample of 348 first-year university students indicated. often labelled as “tragic” (Koh. The high rate of roadway accidents and deaths has been described in scholarly and popular print or internet media in extreme terms. or as “negligent” (“Malaysia Records Highest Single-Day Death Toll”. to a rapid increase
. as a social “menace”(Abdul Kareem.1
Human Factors and the Motor Vehicle Safety Problem in Malaysia Roadway Crashes in Malaysia and Public Perceptions of Causality In 2006.252 motor vehicle accidents in Malaysia. and as a “major public health problem”
425 2003 6.287 in 2006.218 2005 6.98 deaths per 10.252
Motor Vehicle Casualties
2002 Fatalities Severe Injuries Minor Injuries Total 35.7111 2003 298.012 19. Mohd Zulkiflee.815 2005 328. one-
third of all crashes in Malaysia involve automobile users or motorcyclists within the 16.417 47.286 9. in Malaysia. 2005).000 vehicles (Law.264 2006 341.236 49. 2003. higher than any other age grouping or combination of consecutive age groupings.653 2004 326.2). Abdul Rahman.252 in 2006 (Ministry of Transport Malaysia. Subramaniam & Law. from 189.253
source: Royal Malaysian Police (2007)
The road accident death rate in Malaysia dropped from 8.645 54. 2005). & Wong. but still lags behind frequencies in developed countries which generally fall below 3 deaths per 10.395 2006 6.in the number of road traffic crashes (Abdul Kareem.891 8. the number of crashes has increased 80% over the past ten years.287 9.552 37.200 9. 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.
Table 2. Radin Umar.000 vehicles in 2006.109 in 1996 to a total of 341.1: Malaysian Roadway Crashes and Casualties.1 summarises the five-year incidence of crashes and injuries.20 deaths per 10.304 in 1994 to 6.040 2004 6. 2007). Generally. The number of road fatalities has decreased slightly from 6. 2002-2006
Motor Vehicle Crashes
2002 Total 279.415 52. Studies
.228 9.741 38. Table 2.
In Malaysia.425 5.091 37.000 vehicles in 1996 to 3.885 35. This suggests that studies.to 25-year-old age group (see table 2. 2005).
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.
967 100 19.29 2.086 9.99 164 0.05 1.593 11. 2001.709 8.997 14.953 17.025 9.76 22. has resulted in considerable economic loss for the country.947 10.08 585 2.4% of the Gross Domestic Product (Asian Development Bank.389 6. Table 2. 2005). or about 2.551 12.65 2.469 15.4 billion to RM5.180 10.049 15.77 3.50 979 4.81 1.15 572 2.21 3.329 100
source:Royal Malaysian Police (2000. 2006). general insurers paid RM1.08 541 2.85 2.08 1.94 625 3.620 7.71 543 2.23 2.921 100 20.29 708 3.48 323 1.61 99 0.820 13.448 17.
.038 13. 2001).48 105 0.97 1.91 984 4. with one road accident victim admitted to hospital every six minutes (Bernama.15 43 0.82 1. 2002.40 1.803 9. Some Ministry of Health estimates of medical costs alone have been as high as RM5. or an average of RM4.309 10.84 1.7 billion.418 100 19.205 11.49 450 2.92 2.94 1.378 11.08 2.81 3.26 463 2.431 7.341 12. Recent international analyses have placed the total economic burden at around RM7 billion yearly.45 30 0.72 554 2.37 337 1.63 160 0.216 10.67 206 0.68 3.10 3.85 147 0.94 2.68 128 0.2: Numbers of Automobile Drivers and Motorcyclists Involved in Road Crashes by Age Group 2000 2001 2002 2003 Number % Number % Number % Number % 37 0.005 15.56 3. in 1999 alone.27 458 2.06 608 3.034 4.110 10. Palamara.47 280 1.023 5.80 203 0.64 135 0.11 2.41 302 1. and particularly among younger drivers.07 2. 2003). 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.31 3.178 15.67 billion.07 2.16 90 0.05 2.416 6.92 1.65 121 0.81 2.15 3.90 159 0. It has been reported that.6 million a day on motor claims (Abdul Kareem.of university-aged drivers are critical to understanding behavioural and situational factors that predict the most commonly occurring class of crashes (Stevenson.22 150 0.05 2.54 708 3. Morrison & Ryan.315 17.
which is actually a nightmare.Yet.
Public interest and political frustration has given rise to extensive speculation over the possible causes of the problem. traffic congestion. There is no way to A popular
measure the grief of those who have lost their loved ones. In 1999. What else can we do. but miniscule compared to the expenses of medical care and rehabilitation. 1999). 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. The economic consequences can be estimated. 2006). physician and journalist has commented that: The human toll is unquantifiable.
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. Criticisms of road configuration. or the pain of the maimed. (Bernama. economic figures and accident statistics provide only partial indications of the impact of the highway safety problem on Malaysian society. if people want to die? (Lim. signs and lighting have been levied in certain quarters
. In spite of numerous road safety campaigns the number of accident cases have been increasing. and that alone justifies making concerted efforts to address the issue … The economic costs in property damages are huge. Some seven years later. lane definition. The loss of potential income of the dead and maimed in turn dwarfs those medical outlays (Bakri Musa. 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. 2005). But it is nothing compared to bringing down the number of road deaths.
serious injury and death (Per and Al Haji. 2001. In a recent newspaper interview. They don’t even stop to look left and right or look in the rear view mirror. In 2006. senior policy-makers and politicians alike are shining the spotlight on the way in which Malaysian drivers’ traits and states may be contributing to the incidence of roadway accidents. 1997).
how they think. They are also bad in giving ample time to others and this is an example of non-defensive driving. approximately 45 per cent of all registered vehicles in 2006 (Road Transport Department Malaysia.215 deaths among motorcar drivers and passengers. what they do – virtually all facets of the Malaysian driving population have come under increasing public scrutiny in an effort to further a better
. unlike in other countries. 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. as compared with 1. is often mentioned as a factor. The relatively high population of motorcycle riders.(Abdul Rahman et al. 2005). given greater risks of accident. 2007). for instance. 2006). most accounts have come around to commenting on driver demographic and behavioural characteristics as significant factors in motor vehicle crashes (Che Ali.
Researchers. Those countries have had a
motoring culture for nearly a century but our road-users are relatively newer to motoring (Sadiq. newspaper columnists.693 deaths among motorcycle operators and pillion riders. 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. 2005). Krishnan & Radin Umar. though. Maybe these drivers just never realised how simple it is to avoid accidents (Looi. the Royal Malaysian Police (2007) reported 3.
Generally. Who they are. 2007).
Studies of Causal Factors in Malaysian Roadway Crashes Notwithstanding this public outcry. Chalmers & Langley.
. perhaps. since studies in other parts of the world have found that individual differences play a significant role in determining rider training outcomes. risky behaviour (Chang & Yeh. Mohd Nasir. Conducting time-series regression analyses of police data.1. was personality or demographic factors of motorcyclist samples investigated. Ahmad Hariza.
In the same study. or else on the evaluation of specific safety interventions. (2005) also examined the impact of a national motorcycle safety programme (MSP) on crashes and found that it had effected a 25% reduction in the number of motorcycle accidents. Zulkaurnain and Kulanthayan (2005) examined the impact of economic variables on motorcycle-related crashes. Radin Umar. Law. reasons and social contexts of motorcycle use (Reeder. respectively. causal factors underlying crash and injury
rates on Malaysian roadways have remained largely understudied. conspicuity and excessive speeding.
2. with a 27% and 38% drop in the rate of motorcycle casualties and motorcycle fatalities. 1996). however. Radin Umar and Kulanthayan (1999) found that the same MSP had significantly improved motorcycle riders’ perception and understanding of safety issues. In a separate study. a needed focus in the analysis of programme effects. 2007) and crash Type And liability (Clarke. injuries and fatalities. 2007). The research that has been undertaken has tended to focus largely on the contribution of broader economic and social variables. they
reported that the Asian-wide economic recession significantly contributed to a reduction in traffic fatalities. Law et al.
For instance. In none of the studies of the MSP. Ward. Bartle & Truman. This is. MSP
interventions had been aimed at modifying motorcycle riders’ awareness and attitudes of safety issues related to helmet use.general understanding of the causes and potential prevention strategies related to the country’s traffic safety problem. Musa. rather than personality factors. due to fewer trips and reduced traffic exposures as a result of slower economic activity.
however. the factor that made the high speeds possible. has linked peninsular communities. Describing the expressway as a “stunning infrastructural achievement” (p. According to Williamson. presented new circumstances because driving in empty space made staying awake a persistent problem … One strategy drivers have pursued to combat the boredom of the expressway is to drive faster … One of the potential challenges for drivers was the emptiness of the roadway itself (pp. they are accident prone. motivated largely by the government’s fear of unregulated public assembly. resulted in a myriad of problems. 110).
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. “many Malaysians claim that as drivers. The very monotony of the road surface. 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. since 1994.
. he argued that national leadership intended it to be both a symbol of progress. 121-122).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. a capacity that makes them distinct as a society” (p. He argued that. 1996). road engineers devoted their efforts to creating a public artery in which speed and limited stoppage were design priorities. including speeding and falling asleep at the wheel (“N-S Highway”. 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. This. these conflicting aims of speed and safety seemed to exacerbate them.122). generalising to all driving environments and situations.
The Professional Background Human Factors in Roadway Crashes: A Vexing Research Challenge Attention to the demographic. 1993). 1993. 784). driver behaviour (what the driver chooses to do) has much greater influence on safety than driver performance (what the driver can do).2. levels of driving experience and. but rather
. personality characteristics (Elander. Among human factors. 1991).
Lajunen and Summala (1997) noted that traffic safety researchers have attempted to identify the relationships between drivers’ individual characteristics and their involvement in motor vehicle crashes. experiential.2. personality and behavioural
characteristics of drivers has not been exclusive to the Malaysian scene. Panosch and Bukasa (2004) argued that: Road safety is less a technical but rather a human factors problem. roadway engineering has a much greater influence than automotive engineering (p. The majority of accidents are not caused by
problems of the vehicle. Christ. Åberg. Among
engineering factors. driver experience and skill and the relationship between risk and factors such as speed choice and alcohol consumption” (p. This has included the examination of age and gender. 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. the largest opportunities for harm reduction: A clear hierarchy of factors can be specified. Human
factors are far more important than engineering factors. particularly. etc. bad road conditions.
Evans (1996) further argued that changes in driver behaviour offer. by far. According to the Commission for Global Road Safety (2006). Because at least one driver is involved in every traffic crash. 62). West and French.2 2. “human behaviour makes a direct contribution to crash risk through the extent of knowledge and understanding of traffic systems.
conflicting or of relatively little importance (Iversen & Rundmo. (b) the choice of time periods for calculating the frequency of crash-related outcomes. 2004) and other contextual variables. Lajunen & Summala. 377). Further. Haddon (1963). 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. 641). weak. and (c) the failure to differentiate between culpable and non-culpable crashes. prior accident experience (Lin et al. empirical findings to date about the relationship between driver characteristics. 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. or at least predict. 2002. He conducted a meta-analysis of some 136
previous studies researching the effects of at least one psychological predictor of
. 2005). unclear. Ranney. the individual-centered approach directly focuses on traffic relevant performance and personality aspects. Dewar (2002b) concluded that conflicting findings have been due largely to poorlycontrolled studies based on limited samples and on failing to control for driving exposure or alcohol use.by the behaviour of drivers. psychological factors may play different roles according to driver age (Dumais et al. 2004).
The lack of progress in trying to identify psychological factors that cause. 1994).
However. as well as on the attitudes and behaviour of single drivers (p. personality and traffic safety have been regarded by many as debatable. in reviewing early findings on human factors in this field. While the system-centered approach aims at creating those road conditions that reduce the chance of accidents in advance.
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. 1997. organisational climate (Caird & Kline. to a large degree.
Wagenaar & van Koppen. 2003). 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. 482).2
The Emergence of Traffic Psychology as a Scientific Discipline
2. Nevertheless. the picture that emerges is indeed grave. information processing. It would seem that very few of the studies on accident predictors are actually possible to interpret in any straightforward way. driving behaviour and crash-related outcomes include: the use of self-reported crash data. and the influence of car and driver stereotypes on attributions of crash blameworthiness (Davies & Patel.
Other methodological factors that may cloud the relationship between psycho-social variables. Novaco (2000) argued that: The field of transportation has always had a rich potential for psychology. 1997a). motivation and behavioural performance as potential underlying causal factors in driver behaviour (Jonah. 1996.
2.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. 1993). 321).
. there has been an interest in driver personality. the lack of replication of many studies. 2005). the use of inconsistent crash definitions.2. especially considering the salience of transportation in the routines of daily life. 1961. psychologists have given scant attention to this topic. accuracy of witness recall of crash details (Crombag. 2002. the extent of exposure of drivers to the driving task (af Wahlberg. 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. and we are left with a very vague knowledge of what psychological variables can actually predict accidents (p. Underwood & Milton.2. Preston & Harris.2.
traffic and transportation. 4). Groeger (2002) argued that there is “no psychology which is specific to. medicine. psychology.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. that individuals tend to combine their interests in traffic psychology with some other area of specialisation such as educational psychology. These interrelationshps provide a vast terrain for psychological research (pp. 2002). 4) and describes it as an “interdisciplinary. Huguenin (2005) defines traffic psychology as “the psychological intervention.2. According to Rothengatter (2001). “the task of traffic psychology is to understand. or the psychological support for intervention.654-655. traffic psychology has drawn from multidisciplinary perspectives. Temes and Hermida (2001) found.2 A Multidisciplinary Approach From the outset. eoncompassing engineering. ergonomics. conferences and coordination of professional affiliations ever since (Groeger. Ochando.)
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. or peculiar to.
To wit. predict and provide measures to modify road user behaviour at the levels identified with. anthropology and sociology. integrative and international viewpoint based on application in order to address changing situations and objectives” (p. 3). Indeed. transportation planning. in a Spanish survey. attitudes about the origin and destination of the trip and resources for choosing alternative travel modes and schedules.” (p.
2. but that complex traffic
. This includes the research that serves this purpose” (p. as a general objective to minimise the harmful effects of traffic participation” (p. in the field of traffic.2. 246).
which are sometimes expressed in road markings and road signs (p. 2003.
In a recent special edition. both by providing a better understanding of human-machine interaction. emphasising the primacy of attitudes and attributions. 1995. 2004. Much of the ergonomic research carried out to date has been focused on adapting motor vehicle conveyances. and of cognitive control over vehicle and highway systems involved (Bridger. 1158). Peden & Hyder. 2002). Odero. Johnston. Parker (2004) pointed to the role played by social psychology in the area of road safety. a paradigm that has been applied increasingly to driving safety questions in developing countries (Dharmaratne & Ameratunga. Stanton (2007) noted that. which she described as the two main planks of social cognition. in particular. 1997. Spielberger and Frank (1992) made similar comments with regard to the contribution of health psychology through the use of public health models and methodologies. In the broadest sense.behaviour is a very important and worthwhile test-bed for psychology and psychological theory and. Garner and Zwi.
Ergonomics has made a contribution. as well. 24). commented that: From the perspective of the driver. Hyder & Peden. the road environment comprises the vehicle. the design of driver interfaces and driver assistance systems with motor vehicles. over the past ten years. It also includes the rules of the highway code Saad (2002)
governing the use of the road infrastructure and interactions with other users. surrounding environments and
. 2000). Wilson. and that “ergonomics has much to offer in the design of driver education and training programmes. the study of cognitive processes. ergonomics is concerned with identifying and designing technical and organisational means for facilitating the driver’s interaction with the road environment. the design of vehicle automation and a deeper understanding of why drivers behave as they do” (p. the road infrastructure and other road users. there have been 103 papers published in the Ergonomics journal alone. 2007.
tasks to human capabilities and limitations.1
Theories of Driving Behaviour Concepts.
assumes a necessary communication between person and machine led to a dialogue between the various designers of car interiors.3.3 2. Noy. Walker. Concepts are the building blocks for theory and may be defined as:
. though. a paradigm that Boff (2006) described as “Generation One” ergonomics. Neerincx & Schriebers. 1997. the most significant contribution of ergonomics was that it introduced the idea that motor vehicle operation was a task and therefore brought to traffic psychology the broad range of concepts and methods operating in industrial psychology and work-related accidents. Theories and Models In attempting to understand. which focuses on symbiotic technologies that amplify human physical and cognitive capabilities. Stanton & Young. in which the goal is to manage automation and dynamic function allocations. 2001). Jannssen. “This school of though. and “Generation Three” ergonomics. 2006. These applications are consistent with the paradigms Boff (2006) has described as “Generation Two” ergonomics. 26). 2004). 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. 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. traffic
psychologists frequently engage in theory-building. 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. predict and modify road user behaviour.
2. error and cognitive modelling.
According to Barjonet & Tortosa (2001). particularly the notions of mental load. This involves the coherent grouping of general propositions for use as principles in explaining various classes of driving phenomena.
3. Many of the theories that have been proposed have failed to generate testable hypotheses. in traffic psychology. A-18)
Often. or both. In traffic psychology. 8)
Any set of systematically interrelated
hypotheses that purports to explain and predict phenomena (Robbins.
2. “theory” is a term used interchangeably with the word “model”. many models have been proposed. which attempts to provide a generalised working construct that can account for empirical data or relationships” (Chaplin. generalisable understanding of the driving process can be deduced. On the other hand. this may be due to
. often in mathematical form. 1995). 2000. each ordering
driving reality from its own particular set of empirical observations. Ericsson & Bourne Jr. which may be defined as: A set of interrelated principles and definitions that present a systematic view of phenomena by specifying relationships among variables with the purpose of explaining natural phenomena (Kerlinger. p. p. but for the purposes of this thesis. 2005.. there is no generally accepted theory which elucidates principles from which a broad. which is then followed by a process of generalisation (Schneider. 1969). often providing a category for the classification of phenomena (Theodorson & Theodorson. the latter is defined more narrowly as “a set of assumptions or postulates. To a degree.
Concepts are formed by a process of mental abstraction.A word or set of words that expresses a general idea concerning the nature of something or the relations between things. Healy.2
Traffic Psychology: Slow Progress in Theory-Building Theory development in traffic psychology has not progressed well (Summala. Concepts can be linked together to form a theory. whether theories should explain everyday driving. 1985). or accident-causing behaviours. Ranney (1994) pointed out that it has never been clear. Reasons for this are likely several.
2004. and emotional determinants.
Notwithstanding these difficulties. researchers have been trying to determine individual differences that lead to disparities in crash occurrence and outcomes and the literature associated with differential road-crash involvement is extensive. enjoy driving. cognitive. For over ninety years. taskcapability frameworks and attitude-behaviour models (Keskinen et al. Rothengatter. 2002). risk adaptation theories. attitudes.
2. feel in control. it is highly improbable that a single theoretical stance is likely to be sufficient to account for behaviour in traffic. 2005). or ever had sufficient knowledge of possible outcomes on which to base a deliberate action (p.3
The Individual Differences Approach Placed in similar situations.3..
. minimise delay and driving time. given the complexity of human behaviour. These may be classified as: theories of individual
differences. it does not mean that the driver had safety as a primary goal. but it is also a reflection that the driving task is a highly sophisticated multi-factorial process involving perceptual. Groeger and Rothengatter (1998) argued that. I believe it is but one of the goals a driver has. social. the driver’s aspirations are to reach destinations. perceptions. and most of the time is not especially influential.
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.the imprecise definition of concepts. five areas of theory attempt to explain and predict driving behaviour. hierarchical theories of driver adaptation. motives and personalities (Robbins. Instead. etc. … Just because we as
investigators have an understanding of safety as a goal. avoid obstacles. 189). not all people act exactly alike and this is a
function of their differing values.
2000). 1980) and other safety outcomes. Of the five factors examined – extraversion. conscientiousness. Drawing from a large pool of data that included personality measures and both traffic and work-related statistics for 34 nations. aged 16 to 29 years. found that a sample of young Canadian automobile drivers.
extraversion was found to predict traffic accidents. McRae &Costa. thrill and adventure seeking and tended to avoid socially stimulating situations when compared with violators. for instance. anxiety and driving anger. the search for individual differences relevant to crash involvement continues to yield a large body of literature. the extraversion variable has been associated with a higher frequency of traffic offences (Renner & Anderle. In an attempt to identify subtypes of young Norwegian drivers. 1995. 1979). In a large number of studies of specific samples from various countries.Trimpop and Kirkcaldy (1997). Ulleberg (2001) found two high-risk groups. However. the first of which was characterised by low levels of altruism and anxiety and high levels of sensation-seeking. but not occupational accidents. irresponsibility and driving related aggression. “these findings have yet to be embodied in a general theory of differential crash risk.
Clarke and Robertson (2005) conducted a meta-analysis of 47 studies reporting relationships between accident involvement and the dimensions of the Five Factor Model (FFM). aggression. Lajunen (2001) reported that countries with high extraversion scores had more traffic fatalities than those with moderate or low extraversion scores. without driving violations had lower scores on measures of risk-taking behaviour.
According to Rothengatter (2002). crash frequency (Pestonjee & Singh. poorer perception of traffic signs (Loo. 1990). There have been theories of crash causation that have focused on particular groups of
. Similar studies of driver risk-taking and other individual differences have been largely absent with Asian populations and non-existent in Malaysia. 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. while the second high-risk group reported high sensation-seking. neuroticism. or “Big Five” personality model (Costa & McRae.
the British government established the British Industrial Fatigue Research Board. personality.finding. The individual values of each worker’s λ became known as the degree of accident proneness. during and following the war years. found first that the frequency of accidents. and that this is due to some characteristic or summation of characteristics associated with corporeal dexterity.1 Accident Proneness One concept that sought to integrate individual differences within a predictive theory relates to the “accident-prone personality”. occupational and otherwise. It provided a challenge to the psychology
profession to devise a way to measure it.
2. The designation of a high-λ individual as “accident prone” implied that. his or her accident proneness. λ. differed from person to person (Greenwood & Yule. If each individual has a unique λ-value. 1962. 290). “irrespective of environment. in certain cases. Research by board statisticians.3. 1993. in response to concern over the number of accidental deaths and injuries in World War I production industries (Blackler & Shimmin. The difficulty was that no one knew how to determine its value for a given individual. or higher conative or cognitive function” (Cresswell & Froggat. but persists today.
In 1917. 1920). that individual is more likely at all times to incur an accident than his colleagues even though exposed to equal risk. it should be a reasonably simple matter to find
. p. 1984). ‘Accident proneness’ had a nice ring to it.152). sensori-motor skill.
According to Haight (2004). an idea that has had an uneven level of acceptance by ergonomists and traffic psychologists through the years. weight and perhaps even intelligence. p. West & French. the average number of accidents. but none have attempted a more general integration” (Elander. could be modelled almost exactly by the Poisson distribution but then that.3. just as one can meaure height.
2004). noting that. a certain percentage would experience a higher accident frequency than would other groups year after year. replicable result that correlated substantially with the accident experience of individuals (Haight. by devising clever tests. inappropriate. more probably psychological (p. None of the experiments. in traffic or when playing
. A study by Salminen and Heiskanen (1997) provided empirical support for this position. 422). 1956).
The theory of the accident-prone individual also came under attack on a conceptual basis. in any sample. “Because crashes are so infrequent. produced a positive. however. subjects reported significant. that high-λ group would be comprised of the same individuals or of an entirely new cohort (Haight. Johnson (1946). in a Finnish telephone survey. 294). The accident-prone concept. 1997). as well. perhaps physiological. inadequate or irrelevant. motivated largely by a desire to select lorry drivers in Europe who were less likely to become involved in costly roadway crashes (Barjonet & Tortosa. Arbous and Kerrich (1951) and much later McKenna (1983) systematically destroyed the supportive literature. in successive years. p. 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.out what that value is. 1991.
Early work on the concept attempted to do just that. it was pointed out are highly sensitive to the length of the survey period. Mintz and Blum (1949) argued that “the method of studying accident proneness by demonstrating that small percentages of people have large percentages of the accidents is unsound and fallacious” (p. with a series of tests constructed by Greenwood and Woods (1919). 1929. with extensive critiques that concluded statistical analyses were almost all invalid. Scores on the λ dimension. but very low correlations between accident frequency at work. with shorter periods giving sharper contrasts (Moore. 1939) and many others. 195). 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. 2004). but did not take into consideration whether. made an assumption that. at home. Farmer and Chambers (1926.
So. in no case did correlations between traffic crashes and other types of accidents exceed r =.
Despite the low repute in which many have regarded the accident proneness concept. therefore.05. but the authors reported that the heterogeneous nature of sub-groups did not permit comparisons. the consensus position became that: Accident proneness as a concept has little use in practical accident prevention. sports and family settings. Alternative explanations must be found for persons experiencing multiple accidents (Lindsey.sports. Only 15% of the studies included in their analysis had been conducted on road user crash experience.3.. Neeleman and Rosmalen (2007) have published a meta-review of 79 studies. While their stated conclusion was that an accident prone group definitely existed. “it is still difficult to identify the accident prone individuals that compose this group. This concept does not prejudge the issue of causation. 8-9). Visser. 562). pp. and assumes that individuals may vary along a continuum with regard to factors that affect their risk of crash (Elander et al. Ultimately.2 Differential Accident Involvement McKenna (1983) suggested that the accident proneness concept should be replaced by the less historically loaded term “differential accident involvement”. 1993). moving away from the main conceptual criticism of traditional
.3. Pijl. The concept itself is ill-defined. roadway. Stolk. because individuals can experience multiple accidents because of chance alone and also because of a higher exposure to risk independent of personal factors” (p. It is seen as preferable to earlier formulations because it places more emphasis on contributing factors outside the person. screened for operational and prevalence rates related to accident proneness within work. it is still generating research and controversy (Vavrik. no stable personality characteristics that can be identified with accident-proneness have been discovered. it denotes an area of study rather than a theory.
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.
2. 1980. 1998).
crash barriers. they adjust their behaviour to eliminate the discrepancy. in fact. A driver who enters a
construction zone. Wilde (1982.accident proneness (Chmiel. and that transient factors probably interact with stable traits of the individual in their causation. when they perceive a discrepancy between the observed level of risk and the desired target level of risk.
following their review of the literature. substantially. researchers began to turn their attention to not-so-easy measures for changing driver behaviour.
Dewar (2002b) noted that the notion of
differential liability allows for the observation that some individuals do.. 2000). After the relatively easy engineering measures were implemented to reduce the seriousness of the consequences of driver behaviour.3. For example. concluded that differential crash risk is not readily accounted for by previous crash rates. albeit not crash occurrence.
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. people strive to maintain a target level of risk all the time and.
However. experience more accidents than others.3. suddenly confronted with uneven pavement.
2. The introduction of
divided highways. Elander et al.
2.4. That is.1 Risk Homeostasis Theory (RHT) In an attempt to explain these findings. in a study of driving on icy roads. compulsory seatbelts and vehicle design improvements reduced motor vehicle crash fatalities. 1988) proposed that a control mechanism operates to keep overall risk per unit time constant. large earth-moving
. 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. but avoids the assumption of a stable phenomenon that accounts for more accidents in all situations.
Initially. 1994. 1986. When others (Haight. 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. 2008. “the aggregate target risk in a community is what produces the accident toll and the only way in which this toll can be reduced. Wilde’s theory was couched at a societal level. Ranney. The central implication of RHT is that safety interventions need to be values-oriented and aimed at lowering the level of
. postulating that the number of accidents in any given country would only depend on the accident rate which the population is willing to tolerate. 1997). flat. would perceive a level of risk above his target and would tend to reduce speed and increase vigilance. and not on the specific measures taken in other sectors of the control system. p. 14). a driver motoring along a wide. in turn. Wilde (1994) reframed the concept of target risk as an individual variable based on four perceived utilities. 1989. many of which have attempted to observe and comment on individual behavioural change after the risk variable is manipulated. at least until the target risk level was reached. 1988. RHT research of this nature has been used to argue that most engineering interventions and roadway regulations have little or no benefit (Smiley. 2005). Collectively. Fosser & Sætermo. 1994) argued that this made the theory essentially untestable. 2001. McHugh & Pender. Sagberg. reduced the predicted safety benefits of such systems (Wilde. for example. according to the theory.
Huguenin (2001) noted that RHT has spawned a considerable number of studies.” (Fuller. 2002) and that driver education programmes need to be extensively revamped (Wilde. observers posing as passengers rated German taxicab drivers in vehicles equipped with anti-lock braking systems (ABS) as driving more aggressively. performing more dangerous manouevers and driving with significantly shorter headway distances than those driving without ABS (Aschenbrenner & Biehl. Conversely. is if the level of target risk is reduced. RHT proponents argued that drivers were
adapting behaviourally to the effects of ABS by driving less safely and that this.vehicles and warning flags. Michon. Wilde. according to the theory. 2002). given that human behaviour will continue to be motivated by internal homeostatic processes. In two separate studies.
Rothengatter. 2002). the community. 223). (p. Slovic. a tenet for which no convincing support has been yet generated (Michon. “Costs and benefits are central to the model. 1989. and not on the available technology” (Wilde.. p. psychologically weighing at every moment the perceived and targeted risk levels inherent in every environment. “The extent of risk taking with respect to safety and health in a given society ultimately depends on values that prevail in that society. Also. Wilde’s RHT has generated controversy and opposition (Keskinen et al. but that the RHT neither adequately explains nor predicts the circumstances under which it does.target risk that people are willing to tolerate. but they are not defined in psychological terms. 53). Robertson and Pless (2002) made the case forcefully that: … some drivers may sometimes slow down in rain. however. or the nation” (Brown & Noy. 2008. To the contrary. the notion of target risk implies that drivers are constant “comparers”. 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.
Criticisms have been aimed at Wilde’s theory on empirical as well as conceptual grounds.” (Vaa. General consensus is that
behavioural adaptation to vehicle and environmental conditions often does occur (Rothengatter. 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. 1994. pay sufficient attention to risk. The notion that people have a constant point of acceptable risk. Corrigan & Coombs. p. In a review of research offered as support of the RHT. 2002). Fischoff. 2001. it has been argued people are not sufficiently sensitive to changes in low risk probabilities to react behaviourally as RHT predicts (Fuller et al.
More than any other driving theory. Considerable criticism revolves around the
imprecise nature of the theory itself. Lichtenstein. 1151).. “It is unclear whether risk homeostasis occurs at the level of the individual. 2004). 2004). Evans
for example. Summala’s zero-risk model of driver behaviour (Summala & Näätänen. Only when the subjective risk reaches a level that was not anticipated will the drivers change their behaviour. or expecting. Rothengatter (2002) has questioned how drivers can determine that a threshold has been exceeded if they do not constantly assess risk. after a similar review. a necessary and highly controversial assumption in Wilde’s theory.(1986) concluded that “risk homeostasis theory should be rejected because there is no convincing evidence supporting it and much evidence refuting it” (p.4. O’Neill and Williams (1998). Fuller (2005) has argued that the theory’s premise that safe margins are learned creates an implausible requirement to recognise. 1988) proposed that drivers do not constantly assess risk while driving. some degree of risk during the performance of this task. zero-risk theory still retains some of its conceptual shortcomings. 26). drivers compare the distance from hazards or time-tocollision to a subjective safety margin threshold and take action only when the threshold is exceeded. p. 81). and
. Summala (1986) suggested that estimating time-to-collision. In other words. increasing safety margins” (Brown & Noy.3. At this point. 1987. is a very basic human skill that can be carried out in the absence of extensive conscious processing. Michon (1989) noted that most studies attempting to support the RHT deal with data only at the aggregate level.
While overcoming many of the criticisms levied at RHT with regard to the concepts of target risk and the risk discrepancy comparative process.
2. 2004. Rather. 92). Summala. drivers avoid ‘feeling fear’ (hence. 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. In addition. experience ‘zero-risk’) when they drive by anticipating.2 Zero Risk Theory Another risk-based theory. they experience uncomfortable feelings of fear and abruptly change behaviour. while Brown and Noy (2004) noted that it remains possible that factors other than risk underlie the behaviour changes that follow alterations to the traffic system.
Reeder et al. 1998.learn how to respond safety to. age and social variables.3.
A major element in the zero risk theory was the influence of motivation. much of which arises from personality. Meijman & Roghengatter. Summala (1996. would vary depending on the combination of factors from the three dimensions. If behavioural adaptation were to take place in response to the presence of a supplementary restraint system (SRS). for instance. 1996. 2002. pre-meditated decision not to wear seatbelts. 1999). Keskinen. very little if any research has been carried out with respect to intrinsic motivation. such as time pressure. their behaviour becomes less adaptive to prevailing circumstances (Delhomme & Meyer. On the other hand. Glad & Hernetkoskis. and when confronted with various environmental conditions or psychological processes. in which he introduced a “task cube” to explain the driving process. Summala argued that behavioural adaptation. what is a virtually infinite number of roads and traffic scenarios. Hataaka. as a result. The cube presented three dimensions of driver behaviour: a functional hierarchy. Gregersen.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. A large number of studies show that external motives. used to explain drivers’ tendencies to approach as closely as possible to the risk threshold.
. it may not manifest itself as a less cautious speed or headway choice but rather as a conscious. In an attempt to deal with this and to expand on the role of extrinsic and intrinsic motivators.1). level of psychological processing and a functional taxonomy of driving actions (see Figure 2. 1997) refined his earlier theory into a hierarchical model of driver behavioural adaptation. Van der Hulst. and specific driver actions. do appear to affect drivers’ willingness to accept risk levels that approach thresholds and.
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. (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. a property absent within the task cube concept.1: Task Cube (from Summala. criticised the model for being overly complicated and resembling “more a description or a list of important variables than a solid model” (p. for example. Automated)
Navigation Speed and time control Guidance Vehicle control
Lane keeping etc.MOBILITY NEEDS
LEVEL OF PSYCHOLOGICAL PROCESSING
Decision making Supervisory monitoring
FUNCTIONAL HIERARCHY Vehicle choice Trip decisions MOTIVATIONAL MODULE: MOTIVES EMOTIONS
Perceptual-motor Control (constant mapping. 15). 1996)
Keskinen et al.
Passing and other maneuvers
Figure 2. 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. at the same time. Rothengatter (2002) questioned the concept of a
hierarchy. Even though it is true that the performance on one task can bear consequences for the performance for the other. but that is not
. seemingly concurrently.
either by modifying task demand or by altering their capability. Fuller
(2000.sufficient reason to presume they are two distinct levels of the same task rather than two different tasks (p. 1982.2: Task-Capability Theory (after Fuller.. Loss of control occurs at the point where capability is less than that required to carry out the task safely. unexpected changes in task demand (decreased visibility.
Compensatory action by others
Loss of control
C<D Task Demands (D)
Figure 2.1). 1988) and the zero risk theory (Näätänen & Summala. Fuller argued that loss of control occurs when task demands exceed drivers’ capabilities. unsafe behaviour of other road users) or over-estimation of capability (through lack of experience or impairment) and the driver is pushed closer to the critical control threshold. However.g. Most of the time. this becomes more difficult when factors external to the driving task (e. affective states). 252). 2000)
. 2005) integrated competing components of the RHT (Wilde. drivers are able to manage the interface between demands and capabilities (see Figure 2.6
Task Capability Interface (TCI) Theory In perhaps the most ambitious of the leading driving behaviour theories.
2. high speeds. 1976) by proposing that drivers attempt to match task demands with their capability to maintain control.3.
Intention is the cognitive representation of an individual’s readiness to engage in a given behaviour. such that it is not capability but perceived capability that interfaces with task demand. largely due to the focus that has been provided by the theory of reasoned action (TRA. providing an account of the way in which attitudes. objects. for the most part. Rothengatter (2002) has stressed that the perception of capability is often influenced by external factors (impairment. and Keskinen et al. Since 1985. p. and is considered to be the immediate antecedent of behaviour.3. According to the TRA.6. 1975) and the subsequent theory of planned behaviour (TPB: Ajzen. been regarded as potentially more productive than earlier risk-based theories. 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. institutions or issues (Chaplin. traffic psychology has seen a resurgence of interest in the role played by attitudes.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. 1985. generally referring to a positive or negative
. people’s behaviour is determined by their
intention to perform the behaviour. (2004) have argued that it is deserving of more attention than it has received to date. p. time pressure). 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. 1991). It generally refers to the thoughts and feelings that impel us to behave in one way and not in another” (Parker.
2. emotional state. Generally. 2004. 126). however. 40).Fuller’s theory has.
Langdridge (2004) describes the theory of reasoned action as one of the most important theories in attitude-behaviour research.3. the notion of matching competence with task demand promises to be very useful in understanding driver behaviour. neither of which was originally intended as a way of explaining driver behaviour. subjective norms and behavioural intentions can be used to predict behaviour. Intention is determined by the summed effects of: (a) attitudes toward the behaviour. Two limitations have been noted. Fishbein & Ajzen.
. 24). Ajzen and Fishbein (2000) argued that intention is the best predictor of behaviour. subjective norms (“do others feel this is a good thing for me to do?”). see Figure 2. 2007). are sometimes subject to the influence of factors beyond one’s control. and perceived control (“do I really believe that I can do this?”). 1985. however (Sharma & Kanekar. 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”). This extended framework was introduced as the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB. such that every intended behaviour is a goal whose attainment is subject to some degree of uncertainty. and a meta-analysis carried out by Sheppard.2 Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) Complications hindered the application of the TRA in circumstances where behaviours were not fully under volitional control. denoting the subjective degree of control which individuals perceive themselves having over the performance of a behaviour. Hartwick and Warshaw (1988) found that the theory had strong predictive utility. “Even very mundane activities.
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.7. then. he incorporated the concept of “perceived behavioural control” (PBC).judgement with respect to behavioural performance (“accelerating to pass through a cross-junction against an amber light is bad/good”). p.2). According to the TPB. To deal with this uncertainty.3.
PBC is considered a determinant of both the individual’s intentions and the individual’s behaviour. 2003). 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.
The TPB has spawned a huge body of research. 2002. to the extent to which PBC reflects an individual’s level of actual control. Its inclusion as a predictor of behaviour is premised on the notion that. creating a proxy effect that increases the likelihood that behaviour will be successfully performed. or sense of self-efficacy.. 253). when intention is held constant.
. 1989) Within the theory. A belief that the described violations were not all that serious (attitudes). It has been applied to every conceivable type of road user behaviour and has reliably been able to produce comparatively robust relations between the model components and the behaviour in question” (Rothengatter. In one study. stronger feelings that “I can do it”) will heighten an individual’s confidence level.e. speed on a major road or overtake dangerously. 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. p. greater perceived control (i.Behavioural beliefs and outcome evaluations
Attitude toward the behaviour
Normative beliefs and motivation to comply
Control beliefs and perceived facilitation
Perceived behavioural control
Figure 2. including driving and “it has to be admitted that the theory of planned behaviour has stood up well.3: Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen. Further. it will directly influence behaviour (Armitage & Christian. on the performance of a wide range of behaviours.
vehicles. subjective norms and PBC were all
significant determinants of self-reported speeding.In another study. 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.
Scuffham (2003) used a different approach to model the changes in seasonal patterns of fatal crashes in New Zealand according to unemployment rate. Attitude toward speeding.2. it was not significant (Scuffham & Langley.4 2. based on data extracted from police record forms. Wállen Warner and Åberg (2006) used structural equation modelling to predict drivers’ everyday speeding behaviour using the TPB as a frame of reference. used a negativebinomial regression technique to analyse highway-rail crash statistics within a sixstate radius in the USA and derived a predictive model in which the contribution of traffic characteristics. Gross Domestic Product per capita and alcohol consumption. Similar to later findings by Law et al. but after controlling for distance travelled.1. Austin and Carson (2002). A large number of studies have reported epidemiological
characteristics of drivers.4. there
has been no shortage of empirically-based models that show statistical relationships between specific variables related to given situations. for instance. while Rautela and Pant (2007) modelled crash risk on mountain roads in India using geographical information system (GIS) data. to predict weather-related crashes in England and Wales. Many of these use accident
data collected by national or sub-national government bodies or by the police and advanced statistical techniques to describe variable interrelationships that describe or predict crash outcomes. (2005) in their Malaysian study (see sect.1
Descriptive Models of Driver Behaviour Statistical Models If traffic psychology lacks a general unified theory of driving behaviour. Edwards (1996)
developed a spatial model. pedestrians and road environments in a range of
2. roadway configuration and crossing design were weighted. This might be seen as evidence of the proxy effect earlier described by Armitage and Christian (2002). 2002). they found that real GDP per capita was related to the number of crashes.
4: The Haddon Matrix (Noy. Richardson & Downe. This model has been instrumental in stimulating research designs and accident interventions for the last thirty yeasrs (Williams. One way of accomplishing this may be through the creation of models
that stress the mediational role played by certain V. however.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). Koonchote & Tantiratna.g. 1998. and have proposed expanding the matrix to better provide for the analysis of inter-relationships between each of the four basic elements. 1997)
. some researchers have argued that the Haddon
Matrix is limited by the way it considers each element independently. Seow & Lim.
BASIC ELEMENTS OF A HIGHWAY EVENT
Human (H) Vehicle (V) Road (R) Environment (E)
Figure 2..4. 1997. Law. Swaddiwudhipong.4. Nguntra. Mahasakpan. More recently.
2. R. 1999). 1994). concealing the interactions that underlie the behaviour of real traffic systems (Noy.4).2
2. the vehicle (V). the road (R) and the environment (E).locations and settings (e. within specific situational contexts. Haddon (1970) proposed a framework in which each of these elements could be examined as part of an analytical matrix (see Figure 2. 2000).2. E and especially H factors.
contribute directly to crash outcomes. (1993) discussed the problem of choosing predictor variables in studies of behavioural and personality influences on road-traffic crash risk.g.2. or crash risk may influence the behavioural measure (p. as well. when one observes a correlation between a behavioural measure and crash risk. Personality factors within the
. on one hand. on the other hand.
Sümer (2003) argued that the contextual mediated model could explain the relatively weak associations between accident involvement and personality characteristics observed in many previous studies. driving experience) and psychological characteristics (e. reckless lane transitions or overtaking. relevant factors are
grouped as occurring within either the distal context or the proximal context of the accident (see Figure 2. Within the generic model..
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.4.g. aggression). extraversion. gender.g. Therefore. arguing that: Correlational studies suffer from the inescapable problem that causality cannot be established. speeding. it may influence crash risk through some other. the proximal context is made up of driver behaviours and attitudes (e. 283). it may happen to correlate with some other factor that influences crash risk but play no role itself.2.. more proximal variable. age.5). vehicle and environmental conditions related to accident causation but a range of driver demographic (e. sensation seeking. are affected by specific or collective factors from the distal context and.. substance abuse) that. By
contrast. Factors within the distal context include not only road. there are four possible explanations: the behavioural measure may directly influence crash risk.2 A Contextual Mediated Model of Personality and Behavioural Predictors of Motor Vehicle Crashes Elander et al.
g. Sümer examined the effect of three distal elements – sensation seeking.
Road and vehicle condition Demographic characteristics Culture-specific factors. e. Variables within the distal context would be expected to affect accident frequency indirectly and through their relationships with measures of proximal behaviour factors. aggression and psychological symptoms (anxiety. risk taking. sensation seeking. hostility and psychoticism) – both on three proximal elements – aberrant driving behaviour. it would be expected that relationships between the distal and proximal contexts would be stronger than those between the proximal context and crash outcomes. 2003)
. psychological symptoms. cultural driving habits and beliefs
Relatively stable personality
characteristics. choice of preferred speed and dysfunctional drinking habits – and on the frequency of self-reported accidents. such that direct effects of distal factors would be most likely insignificant or weak.distal context were assumed to be capable of creating generalized tendencies that increased risks of accidents within behavioural variables measured within the proximal context.
Safety skills Aberrant driving behaviors Violations Errors Speeding Drinking and driving Dysfunctional drinking
Figure 2. Behavioural Predictors and Motor Vehicle Crashes (from Sümer. As such. depression.g.5: Contextual Mediated Model of Personality. 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.
.6(i). In Figure 2. proximal variables (including safety skill levels. such that path c′ is zero. driver impairment and so on) were hypothesised to mediate the effect of distal variables on the frequency or likelihood of crash outcomes. Tix and Barron. then the significance level of path c would be reduced to insignificance or a less significant level (path c’). Also termed intervening variables.
Mediation can be said to occur when some mechanism. driver propensities to commit errors or violations. moderating or mediating effects. which in turn exerts an effect on Y through path b (Baron & Kenny. in which there are two causal paths feeding into the outcome variable: path c′ depicts the direct effect of X on Y. 2006). 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. then it can be concluded that complete mediation occurs. In Sümer’s (2003) generic contextual mediated model.4. Heppner & Mallinckrodt. called the outcome.2. 2004). process or transformation exists through which one variable influences another (Frazier. In the case where X no longer affects Y after M has been controlled.3 Core Concepts in the Contextual Mediated Model: Moderation and Mediation Inter-variable relationships within the contextual mediated model can have direct. Figure 2. 1986). 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. for instance. the variable X is called the initial or predictor variable and it causes the variable Y.6(ii) illustrates the basic causal chain involved in mediation. Regression analyses can be used to test these causal paths to the outcome variable. 2004) and a distinction can be drawn between partial mediation and complete mediation (Wei.
mediators are variables that represent constructs proposed to explain the association between two variables (Hoyle & Robinson. M.2.
the impact of a moderator (path b).6: Inter-variable Relationships in Mediation Models In contrast.(i) X Predictor Variable (Distal Variable) c′ c Y Outcome Variable (Crash Outcomes)
X Predictor Variable (Distal Variable)
M Mediator Variable (Proximal Variable)
Y Outcome Variable (Crash Outcomes)
Figure 2. variable (see Figure 2. Only if the interaction (path c) is significant.7): the impact of a predictor. there are three causal paths that can effect the outcome. or dependent. these are not directly relevant conceptually to testing the moderator hypothesis. 1986). 2003). or testing the moderating effect.
. Baron and Kenny have further added that although the predictor and moderator can have significant effects on the outcome variable. a moderating variable is one that has a strong contingent effect on the relationship between independent and dependent variable (Sekaran. can the moderator hypothesis be concluded as supported (Baron & Kenny. and the interaction or product of these two (path c). or independent variable (path a).
hostility. a proximal variable significantly mediated the relationship between the three distal variables and the frequency of crashes. No
attempt was made to differentiate between these two groups.4 Studies of Driving Behaviour Using the Contextual Mediated Model In his initial study.4. Using structured equation modelling. In turn.7: Inter-variable Relationships in Moderation Model
c Predictor X Moderator Figure 2. more relevant to the model he proposed.
A number of questions may be raised about Sümer’s (2003) analysis. He examined their effects on three proximal variables: aberrant driving behaviour (violations. errors). he found that. mostly from taxi and heavy trucking. intensity) and aggression (physical aggression. the effects of the proximal variables on the number of crashes experienced within a three-year period was examined. Further. dangerous drinking). Sümer (2003) identified three classes of distal variables: psychological symptoms (depression. His sample of 321 participants combined both professional drivers. and non-professional students who were mostly students. while psychological factors did not predict speed choice. verbal aggression. they did have a significant association with both dysfunctional alcohol use and aberrant driving behaviours. anger). Sümer also find that aberrant driving behaviour. However. anxiety. choice of speed and alcohol use (antisocial drinking. psychoticism). given wide
. sensationseeking and risk-taking (novelty.2. hostility.
extraversion (interpersonal warmth. sensation seeking). Arthur. it was somewhat surprising that no attempt was made to control for differing levels of traffic exposure. 2003. for high-λ individuals. 2002. lapses. agreeableness (helpfulness. Tubré & Tubré.. The proximal factor was again aberrant driving behaviour (errors. broad-mindedness). Elander et. driving style and other distal and proximal variables were the same at the time of the crash as they were when data were collected (af Wahlberg. In a
subsequent study. 2005.variation in the number of kilometres driven annually by participants (SD = 14. tends to fit a Poisson distribution or. trust). sensation seeking patterns. in that the standard multivariate correlation methods applied as part of his LISREL analysis assumed a normal distribution of crash frequency scores. 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. including the three-year time-frame over which drivers were asked to report crash occurrence. Sümer’s decision to use self-report data is subject to the usual validity considerations raised by several authors (af Wahlberg. responsibility.
Sümer’s model construction might also be questioned. Greenwood & Yule. as recommended by Elander et al. It is questionable whether crash details can be recalled accurately for up to 36 months and requires the assumption that the psychological characteristics. while it has been accepted since the early accident proneness studies of the IFRB that crash frequency. in most cases. a negative-binomial distribution (Greenwood & Woods. conscientiousness (dependability. 1919. 1998). 1920). McRae &Costa. al. (1993) and others. Sümer.
Notwithstanding these methodological considerations. self-discipline) and openness (adventurousness. Lajunen and Özkan (2005). Edward. 1990) to a similar analysis. personality model (Costa & McRae. 1993). Finally. violations) and the outcome measure was expanded to include the self-reported number of crashes and traffic offences committed over a three-year period. Day. Bell. Watson. the distal factors were: neuroticism (a tendency to experience
negative affect and anxiety). applied the five factor. or “Big Five”.739). 1995. Here. Results indicated that all five of the personality factors had indirect effects on crash risk through their effects on
self esteem. anxiety. 225). within Sümer’s contextual mediated model) had direct effects on measures of more proximal risky driving tendencies. reported that driver anger. Sümer. while the risky driving variables had strong and significant effects on accident involvement. In another study.
. The authors recommended that “the contextual model should be refined considering other potential mediators.5 Use of the Contextual Mediated Model in Other Research Sümer’s model has been applied outside the traffic psychology domain. proximal behavioural variables
mediated personality factors. Iverson and Rundmo (2002). moderators and bidirectional associations between personality and accident involvement to better understand the underlying mechanisms” (p.
In other words. Berument and Gunes (2005).2. material loss.4. navy. They found that the effect of proximal variables.
2. psychotic tendencies and psychosomatic complaints among a large sample of noncommissioned officers in the Turkish army.
Although no other studies of driving behaviour. air force and gendarmerie. but weaker significant effects on self-reported accident involvement. some researchers have worked with models that are conceptually consistent with the contextual mediated model. Both studies were concluded to have demonstrated support for the use of the contextual mediated model. including perceived control. for instance. using a similar research design. Bilgic. Karanci. sensation seeking and normlessness (all of which which might be classified as distal. phobia. have acted on those recommendations. Sümer and Erol (2005) found that a contextual mediated model was successful in showing relationships between distal and proximal predictors of depression. perceived threat and gender on distress levels were partially or fully mediated by individuals’ feelings of coping self-efficacy. for instance used the concept to examine predictors of psychological distress following the 1999 earthquake in Turkey. prior to the present one. yielding support for the contextual mediated model. hostility.aberrant driving behaviours. optimism. Sümer.
.8: Proposed Contextual Mediated Model for Safety Research in Agriculture (from Downe..g. but young drivers are more likely to sustain crash-related injuries and to die in vehicular crashes (Massie. Williams & Shabanova.g.5. 2002. proposed the use of a contextual mediated model for further research on agricultural safety (see Figure 2. Type A. 1997.8). Not only are they the most likely age group to be involved in crashes. Weinstein & Solomon.
knowledge transfer ergonomic design safety audits
worker attitude toward safe work perceived management priority employee empowerment and control over safety post-injury administration return-to-work policies operating policies & procedures
lower injury rates and lost time relative to labour input and output reduced accident severity reduced risk assessment standards compliance increased worker satisfaction
locus of control risk acceptance/aversion impulsivity cultural factors (e.. 2007)
2. 2003. Campbell & Williams.1. 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. uncertainty avoidance) temperamental factors (e. Odero et al.5.5 2.1
Distal Variables in the Present Study Demographic Variables
2.Downe (2007). 2003). 1995). heterogeneity in group composition: Part of this may be due to
. in a study of safety training methods and personality factors in Malaysian rubber and palm oil plantations. Yet. Retting. 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
safety awareness domain-specific skill years of work experience prior accident experience
2001. for these difficulties. Jehle. drive while fatigued.to 29-year old drivers in New Zealand and found a marked crash-risk optimism. this is a reflection of lifestyle. 2002a. Vassallo et al. in many cases. at least in part. finding that the riskiest young drivers in an Italian sample were also more likely to have adopted a lifestyle characterised by higher involvement in antisocial behaviour. Jonah. Younger drivers tend to have a riskier driving style than others. Billittier.. follow too closely. 221). less experienced with the use of alcohol and has different social and motivational needs that may contribute to risk taking on the road. not all young new drivers are alike (Dewar. Bina. comfort eating and time spent in non-organised activities with friends. are more likely to engage in alcohol use when driving and are less likely to use seatbelts when compared to other drivers (Lerner. 1986). tobacco smoking. This was consistent with many other studies in which young drivers tended to overestimate their own skills and under-estimate crash risk (Dewar. Connery & Stiller. specifically more likely to drive too fast. Ulleberg (2004) found that drivers reporting higher preference for risk-taking were also characterised by low levels of altruism and anxiety. The former is less experienced at driving. less emotionally mature. overtake dangerously. The problems encountered by novice drivers are often attributed to age and inexperience together.The “young” category typically ranges from 16 to 25. 2007). the contrary appears to be true. Moscati. Matthews & Moran.
Harré. McDonald (1994) reported
. The factors of driving style and driving skill may account. However. irresponsibility and driving related aggression. and by high levels of sensation-seeking.
Several reasons have been proposed for high age-related crash risk levels. Graziano and Bonino (2006) have argued that. In fact. 1997b. p. in which they believed that they were better drivers and luckier in avoiding crashes. but there are a great many differences between a 17-year-old and a 23-year-old driver. 2002a. Foster and O’Neill (2005) studied self-rated driving attributes of 16.
angry or sad (strong negative emotions). and 55 per cent had seen them exhibit behaviour described as “road rage” (Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and State Farm Insurance. age was hypothesized to interact with emotional states such as hopelessness and aggression. it was hypothesised in the present study that.39). 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. 1999. Since previous research had highlighted the association between age. particularly with respect to controlling deviations. Stevenson et al. behaviour in traffic would become less safe and crash occurrence would be more likely. capable of distracting attention from driving and increasing crash occurrence. 74 per cent had seen tem drive while very happy or excited (strong positive emotions). managing velocity and regulating acceleration. are like to perceive the driving task with overconfidence and inadequate attention to risk. Similarly. and that young drivers. age was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. Ulleberg. 2002). they have cognitive schemata that are inaccurate and relatively undetailed. on crash and injury occurrence. 2007). In a nation-wide survey of American teens.
. particularly under conditions of heightened emotionality.
Young drivers may also be more prone to drive under the influence of strong emotional states. indirectly. so they have little spare attentional capacity” (p. as age decreased. This means that “young drivers must devote a greater proportion of their attentional resources to conscious decision making and monitoring their driving.that young drivers are less skilful in vehicle control tasks than older drivers. 76 per cent had seen peers drive while very upset stressed. In the present study. and have poor information processing and attention-switching skills. Vissers & Jessurun.
Justification of age-related hypotheses. (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. They have generally lower skill levels in acquiring and integrating information. risky driving and crash frequency (Lourens.
it was also hypothesised that. darkness)” (p. Smiley and Lee-Gosselin (1992). Hasselberg and Laflamme (2006) analysed Swedish police records and found the same ratio. Waller. and behaviours predictive of fatalities. as well. Dewar (2002b) stated that “some of the reasons for this are obvious – men drive greater distances. Shope. in addition to having a higher number of crashes. and so on – were associated with greater risk of injury.failure to use seat-belts. without exception. p. self-reported injury would also increase.g. rush hour) and in hazardous conditions (e. Åkerstedt and Kecklund (2001). but is also evident among older drivers” (Social Issues Research Centre [SIRC]. found that men had twice as high a risk as women of being involved in a motor vehicle crash during the late night hours. Raghunathan and Little (2001) noted that. “In all studies and analyses. Laapotti and Keskinen (1998) showed that when male drivers lost control of their motorcar. as age decreased. for instance. This gender difference is most marked in the population under 25 years.. Kuhn and Layde (2001) found.
There appear to be differences in the types of crashes experienced.4). that males were significantly more likely to be involved in a loss-of-control accident. Chipman. it
. male drivers incur their first crash earlier in their driving careers and are more likely to be held to blame for the incident. Turner and McClure (2003) showed that young male drivers scored higher than females in driver aggression and thrill seeking and in their general acceptance of risk.
Marked differences also occur between the genders in terms of the number of fatalities. 2004. with respect to both driving behaviour and to crash involvement.g. Tavris. for instance.1. 129). However. more often at hazardous times (e.5. men have been shown to have a higher rate of crashes than women. reported that crash incidence for men in the United States was nearly double that of women. MacGregor.. Monárrez-Espino. Elliott.
2.2 Gender A large number of studies have found differences between males and females. Williams and Shabanova (2003)
found that young American males were significantly more likely than young females to be responsible for crash deaths. for instance.
but for female drivers the loss of control usually resulted in a collision with another car. 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. for instance. found that while male drivers. and (c) female drivers are involved in more motor vehicle crashes than ever before. 525526). as marked changes in the roles of women in society have profound implications for the design of transportation systems (Waller. Ball. 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. which typically took place during evenings and nights. While there is much of value in such an approach. Laapotti and Keskinen (2004a)
indicated that. Male drivers drove too fast and under the influence of alcohol more often in loss-of-control crashes. to date.usually led to a single-vehicle crash. Brown. worldwide. state of Washington. reported more traffic citations and injuries. Dobson. 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. (b) females drive increasingly more. 1997. Welsh.
Lonczak. Female drivers’ loss-of-control crashes usually took place under slippery road conditions and were more likely due to deficient vehicle handling skills. Neighbors and Donovan (2007). This is important. they did not differ from female drivers in reported driving
. Flyte & Garner. 2001). (a) the number of female drivers is increasing. Woodcock. 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. At the same time. Lenard. in a sample taken in the U.S.
In a subsequent report.. gender was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. Laapotti. on the other hand. Waylen and Burke (1998) disagreed. McKenna. as per the traditional pattern. had proportionally more crashes connected to inadequate vehicle manoeuvring. In a study of Dutch drivers. In a study of male and female drivers in Finland. committed fewer traffic offences and had a more positive attitude toward traffic safety and rules than males. crash frequency and risky or aggressive driving behaviour (Monárrez-Espino. Since previous research had highlighted the association between males. Turner & McClure. 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. it was hypothesised that males and females would differ on measures of behaviour in traffic. alcohol consumption and for risky driving. Keskinen and Rajalin
(2003) reported that Finnish females in 2001 drove less than males. were less frequently involved in crash situations. on crash and injury occurrence. In other research. control of traffic situations. In the present study. commenting that “despite the fact that there has been a massive shift in the population of women drivers. et al.
Justification of gender-related hypotheses. and loss-of-control incidents. Forward. 2006. (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. there is little evidence that the sex difference in the pattern of accident involvement is changing over the years” (p. evaluated their driving skill lower. Lourens et al. Linderholm and Järmark (1998) reviewed studies dating from 1970 to 1984 and compared them to results obtained between 1985 and 1997. Laapotti and Keskinen (2004b) provided evidence in support of this view. Female drivers.anger. 2003). (1998) and Laapotti and Keskinen (2004). involved in proportionally more crashes connected to speeding. 11). 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. Consistent with the
findings of McKenna et al. showing that male drivers were. just as they had in 1978. though.
being a wealthy Catholic country was associated with more traffic fatalities than were wealthy. for instance. Tippetts and Voas (2005) found no differences between African-American. In one of the few studies reported. Marine. Garrett. But. To a large degree. lower rates of safety belt use. Lezotte and Lowenstein (2000) compared Hispanic and non-Hispanic white motorists in the state of Colorado. differences in fatalities persisted. Conducting curb-side inspections of taxicabs in Kuala Lumpur. more frequent histories of speeding offences and more extreme alcohol use. Summala and Hartley (1998). Levine. this has been the result of a change in reporting protocols within the U. Corry. Lajunen.
A few studies have endeavoured to compare national driving cultures in terms of crash risk. Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS).1. traffic safety regulations and traffic fatalities. On the other hand. finding that the former group had higher fatality rates. Romano. Haliburton. Hauswald (1999) studied the incidence of covert non-compliance with seat belt regulations among Malaysian taxi drivers. Goldweig and Warren. Schlundt. Melinder concluded that the type of religion and wealth were important distal factors. Being a non-wealthy Catholic country was associated with higher fatality rates than being a wealthy Catholic country.
Very little cross-cultural research related to traffic safety has been carried out in Southeast Asia. nonCatholic countries. that expanded the standards for collection of data on race and ethnicity in 1999 (Briggs. he found that 60% of drivers had positioned belts or shoulder straps in a manner that appeared to
.3 Ethnicity A growing number of studies have examined the effect of ethnic differences on driving behaviour and crash outcomes. Melinder (2007) compared 15
Western European countries with regard to the relation between different sociocultural factors. White and Hispanic drivers regarding red light violations.S. Despite the fact that countries’ regulatory frameworks were becoming increasingly similar.2.5. reported few differences between Australians and Finns. 2005). Harper.
Strong relationship orientation. dependence on family for direction in social and career decisions. cultural differences can be more subtle. While religious affiliation.
The Malaysian population is comprised of three distinct ethnic groups: Malay.. there was no statistical differences between ethnic groups in the frequency of this practice. cooperation. prosperity and integrity. brotherhood/sisterhood. Fatalistic. polite behaviour. Spirituality.
Differences have not always been consistent. in fact. Indirect communication. Strong relationship orientation. respect for knowledge. hierarchical.3: Key Value Clusters for Each Malaysian Ethnic Group Key Value Orientations
Man’s relationship with God. Karma. 1999). shame-driven. indirectly. ethnic-Chinese and ethnic-Indian (Williamson. humility. religion. respect for elders. Chinese-Malaysian Pre-determined future. They concluded that there were. on crash and injury occurrence. courtesy. respect for elders. In a study of 324 employees sampled from a cross-section of Malaysian industries. Family centeredness. it was hypothesised that ethnicity would have a significant effect on
.have them restrained but had not fastened the latch. hard work. face saving. Abdullah and
Peterson (2003) have outlined value orientations for each ethnic group (see Table 2. respect for elders. Education.. peace.
Table 2. family honour. gender was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. Roman et al. filial piety. family ties. 2005). harmony with nature. In the present study. 1999). Based on studies that have demonstrated ethnic differences in driving behaviour (Harper et al. 2000. Conscious of what other people say about us.
Justification of ethnic difference hypotheses. regional distribution and socioeconomic status differs considerably between the three groups (Gomez. prosperity. Indian-Malaysian Pre-determination.2). However. piety. few significant value differences between ethnic groups. Fontaine and Richardson (2005) found that 82% of values were shared by all three ethnic groups.
inexperienced drivers may (a) not know the correct manoeuvre so they try a different manoeuvre which turns out to be unsafe. and indicating that those recording higher mileage per year have fewer accidents per mile (Pelz & Schuman. Keskinen. or (d) not have had enough experience of dealing safety with the effects of human factors on their performance (Fuller. A large number of studies have shown that. directionality of the effect was not predicted. with different weather conditions. 2002). journey lengths. 1995.2
2. and as such.
On the other hand. allows many otherwise incompatible tasks to be performed together. Groeger (2000) reviewed the reasons for this: … the weight of practice more experienced drivers have makes much of what they do routine.
2.g. passenger distractions different vehicles. in a given road and traffic scenario..
although not always. Laapotti. as drivers become more experienced. 1971).5. As experience grows. (b) not know how to carry out a particular manoeuvre correctly.behaviour in traffic. such as driving at different times of the day or days of the week.
Given the absence of relevant prior research on Malaysian
A useful way of conceptualising the experience effect is to draw on a cognitive framework proposed by Mikkonen and Keskinen (1983) and later extended
.5. Allied to this. etc. increased experience usually. the motorist is less likely to encounter situations very different from those they have encountered before (p. Hatakka and Katila. (c) not have had enough practice in carrying out the manoeuvre correctly.1 Experience Driver experience makes a difference in crash risk. Lajunen & Summala.2. implies the driver has had a broader variety of driving experiences. they are less likely to make errors and commit violations that result in crashes (e. 2001). 166).
The effects of driving experience and age are closely linked.by Keskinen. Yet. 2001). they take actions based on whether they are perceived to reflect lifestyle priorities and values.9). as young drivers generally have less experience than their older counterparts. Experience can be gained through personal participation in traffic as a driver and through observing the behaviour of others. or most important facets of driving at different levels (see Figure 2. When using those at the top of the hierarchy. they tend to priortise conscious control of the vehicle over other elements of the driving experience. direction and position
Figure 2. Hatakka. Hataaka and Katila (1992). and can be organised in a hierarchy that reflects the key purposes. Internal models have connections to motivational and emotional systems of the driver. When drivers tap into models at the base of cognitive hierarchy. Internal models contain knowledge of route. in many studies of age and gender
differences. 1996. experience effects have not been controlled (Rothengatter. but also through verbal and pictorial description or by imagining the course of traffic events (Keskinen et al.
GOALS FOR LIFE AND SKILLS FOR LIVING
Importance of cars and driving for personal development Skills for self-control
GOALS AND CONTEXT OF DRIVING
Purpose. and sometimes confounded by gender differences.9: Hierarchical Levels of Driving Behaviour (after Keskinen. as individuals acquire experience. 2004). including start and
destination point and corresponding visual scenes. 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. It assumes that. social context company
MASTERING TRAFFIC SITUATIONS
Adapting to the demands of the present situation
Controlling speed. environment. as well as knowledge of risk elements and a cognitive map of control equipment in the vehicle and how it behaves.
Laapotti et al.and medium-severity traffic violation penalties as unjust than are non-professional drivers (Rosenbloom & Shahar. the number of years since a driving licence was first obtained. Mintz. found that risk taking within a sample of 130 drivers of minibus taxis in the Pietersburg area of the Republic of South Africa. many studies have focused on the effects of experience. Young novice drivers. 1948. taking risks and consuming alcohol or drugs. on the other hand. Burns and Wilde (1995) found no relationship between collision history and personality when they studied sampled male taxi drivers in a small Canadian city.. 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. 1949. was used in this study.g. Peltzer and Renner (2003). They found that young drivers failed in applying both lower and higher models of the hierarchy than did middle-aged drivers.
One way to understand experience effects is to study occupations for which driving is an important work component. was inversely correlated with driving experience and numbers of accidents witnessed. 1954).
Justification of driver experience hypotheses. Female
novice drivers. Brown & Ghiselli. and that taxicab drivers are more likely to regard low. all of which were seen to reflect deficient self-control and lifestyle management abilities. (2001) used the cognitive framework to explain the differing effects of experience. such as problems in vehicle handling skills. frequently showing that they are lest frequently involved in motor vehicle crashes than other classes of drivers. Studies of crash predictors among
professional drivers have been undertaken for over fifty years (e. explained because adult identity is still under construction so life goals and living skills are still under development. Driving experience was considered a distal variable that would have an
. 2007). Ghiselli & Brown. and
especially young male drivers. age and gender on motor vehicle crash risk. showed more problems than males connected to the lower cognitive levels of the driving hierarchy. While motivational and differing skill levels are also important predictors of professional drivers’ crash risk. for instance. 2004). showed more problems connected to showing off driving skills to peers. A simple measure of driving experience.
the miles they drive. 2002a). In individual differences research. (1993) noted that: People vary in the time they spend on the road. with greater experience associated with safer self-reported behaviour.
2. Elander et al. Pelz & Schuman. Åkerstedt and Kecklund (2001). driving occurs (Dewar. for instance. and the problem of taking adequate account of individuals’ exposure to risk is only beginning to be properly addressed (p. indirectly. and the traffic conditions to which they are exposed. 282). Wilde. the more one is going to be exposed to traffic situations in which a crash could occur. 1986. Second. showed that the risk of crash involvement is five to ten times higher during late night
. Duncan & Brown. 1993). but measuring exposure is not always as simple a matter as computing asking for an estimate of distance travelled per unit time (Evans. there may be considerable random or
systematic error in subjective reports about distance travelled (Elander et al. 1984.2 Driving Frequency and Traffic Exposure Many authors have discussed the effect of traffic exposure on crash risk and outcomes (Evans. on crash and injury occurrence. 2001.. it is accepted that the more one travels. 1995. McKenna. Based on research indicating that more experienced drivers tend to have fewer crashes (Lajunen & Summala. 1991).2.effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. All of these will affect the likelihood of crash involvement. Rothengatter.
Generally. technical or legal changes relating to road safety. 1984). First. and type of route where. 1971). 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. the concept is much less well developed. 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.5.
. Yet. and found that approximately one-third of all traffic injuries occurred during the night.
Justification of exposure hypotheses. After correcting for the number of kilometres driven. nor are there valid category weightings that would allow the prediction of risk. Evans (1991) and others. (1993). it was hypothesised that higher levels of driving frequency would result in less risky behaviour in traffic. In keeping with recommendations made by Elander et al.. there is little evidence that drivers are capable of reporting different categories of time or route conditions. the resulting ‘driver records’ in combination with exposure data turn out to be the best predictors of future crashes. 2007).hours than during the forenoon. 2007. Cairns.
Odero et al. Lourens et al. the driving frequency measure was used as a co-variate in analyses of relationships between other distal variable and the proximal variables of the contextual mediated model. Towner and Ward. indirectly. as defined by Elander et al. (1997) reviewed published and
unpublished reports on roadway crashes in developing countries from 1966 to 1994. although much research does not (e. Because of earlier trends reported by Evans (1984) and McKenna 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. Williams & Shabanova. in countries like the USA.. 2007. Ferguson. Mercer (1989) showed that. (1999) have argued that. young male drivers were strongly over-presented in terms of both crash frequency and traffic-related fines. Canada and Germany where a legal penalty point system is in place to track drivers’ violations and involvement in road crashes. This was taken to be representative of traffic exposure. In the present study.g.
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. on crash and injury occurrence. without correcting for annual mileage. 2006. Bina et al. 2003). with the highest incidence being between 6:00 pm and midnight. however.
. Christie. (1986). female drivers came out higher in number of crashes and in some types of traffic violations. Teoh & MCartt.
1. 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. such that it could be possible for an individual to score high on all three (see Figure 2. Originally
conceptualised by Rotter (1966. people who attribute behaviour to an internal locus of control.5.10). one to reflect the influence of fate or chance (C) and the second to reflect the influence of powerful others (P). she separated the externality dimension into two. 1990). and second. 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.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. 1991. according to the strength of their tendencies toward making attributions of internal or external control.3
2.g. view most events as dependent on chance or controlled by powers beyond human reach.2.3. she assumed that the three resulting dimensions were conceptually independent. Holder & Levi. believe that very few events are outside the realm of human influence and that even cataclysmic situations may be altered through human action. 1981) extended this concept in two ways: first. 1999). 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..
. 15). 2006. Hyman.5. people are thought to vary on a continuum between the two extremes of external and internal locus of control. or externals . In contrast. or internals. bipolar continuum along which individuals could be placed.5.
Rotter’s (1966) original I-E conceptualisation of the locus of control construct viewed it as a unidimensional. 1975.1 Locus of Control 2. Levenson constructed a scale has been used widely in studies of locus of control (e. Levenson (1975. Based on this multidimensional conceptualisation. Stanley & Burrows.3.
2 Locus of Control and Driving Behaviour Very early studies examined a link between locus of control and risk taking.1.Chance
Low Externality – Powerful Others
Figure 2. They also tended to bet more on safe outcomes than did the more externally oriented subjects. Sinha & Watson.Luckner.
.10: Contrast between Rotter’s Unidimensional and Levenson’s Multidimensional Conceptualisations of Locus of Control 2.3. 1989. luck. Liverant and Scodel (1960) studied betting preferences using a simple dice-throwing task.
Individuals believe that what happens is determined by fate. these results supported the idea that internals would be more cautious in their control efforts while externals would engage in riskier behaviour. a deity or higher power or other external circumstances
Individuals believe that what happens is the result of their own personal decisions and efforts. They found that subjects with high internal control seemed to prefer
intermediate probability bets or extremely safe bets over so-called long shots.
Low Internality High
Externality . 2007) and has given rise to a number of other instruments measuring multi-dimensional locus of control.5. According to Phares (1976).
Dixey (1999) found relationships between road crashes and fatalist attitudes in Nigeria. believing that fate will achieve its goals no matter what the individual does (p. 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.More recent studies have examined the relationship between an external locus of control and risky behaviour within driving or workplace behaviour. but results have been inconsistent. s/he will be more likely to take precautionary measures such as wearing a seat belt and being vigilant to roadway cues. 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. only partially represented the original locus of control concept. however. According to Brown and Noy (2004). 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. which focused heavily on situational scenarios. French & Chan. 39). Guastello and Guastello (1986) used the Rotter (1966) locus of control scale and their own transitional instrument in a study of American college students. those who see themselves as playing little or no part in the unfolding of evens will act in a less cautious manner. Serious methodological problems may have plagued this study. 1987).
. 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. If an individual views herself or himself as being responsible for both positive and negative outcomes. Iversen and Rundmo (2002) also failed to find an association with risky driving or crash involvement. In a subsequent study. however. 1999).
A great many studies have investigated the effects of locus of control on driving behaviour. On the other hand.
aggressive and ordinary traffic violations and driving errors. it strongly moderated the relationship between hostility and DDB. leading the authors to conclude that “if a relationship exists. an internal locus of control was found to be associated with lower levels of crash involvement and with higher levels of cognitive ability. it may not be of sufficient magnitude to be of value. when Lajunen and Summala (1995) gave Finnish university students a series of questionnaires that assessed driving abilities and personality. In an important study.
On the other hand. hostility was associated with worse DDB to a greater extent among drivers scoring low on internality than among drivers scoring high on internality. In a meta-analysis of information-processing. This study
provided support for the view that the effects of personality traits on driving
. 1260). although scores on externality dimensions did not relate significantly to any of those dependent variables. 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. That is.
personality and demographic/biographical predictors of vehicular involvement.
Arthur et al. driving skills were negatively correlated with externality scores. although internality was unrelated to DDB. offences. They found that. 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. In a similar study
investigating personality attributes and driving behaviour. rather than examining its interaction with other predictors.Although externals reported more risk taking this trend was not significant. Gidron. (1991) argued that these equivocal results were due to overly simple research designs which tended to investigate direct effects of locus of control. (p. cognitive. Gal and Desevilya (2003) investigated the interaction between road-hostility and internal locus of control in predicting the occurrence of self-reported dangerous driving behaviour (DDB). Hoyt (1973) reported that internals reported wearing seat belts more often and experienced highway travel as more interesting and involving. In a much earlier study.
Noy (1997). whereas Americans scored high on internal control and Chinese-Americans were somewhere in-between. Crittendon (1991) found that female university students in Taiwan were more
. moderating and mediating relationships are investigated. with situation-centred Confucian foundations. 122). is based on the notion that … luck.5. Shybut and Lotsof (1969) sampled three groups of high school students (Hong Kong Chinese. This point had also been argued earlier by Arthur et al. chance and fate are taken for granted in life. Germany.
2. India. Israel. which is considered to be full of ambiguity. as hypothesised.
Their results. Richardson and Downe (2000) and others. reinforcement and sociocultural processes created fertile ground for cross-cultural studies using the locus of control construct. complexity and unpredictability. In very early research. Noting that Chinese culture. while externality scores for Indian students were significantly lower than those in France. Japan.3 Locus of Control and Ethnicity Dyal (1984) argued that post-War geopolitical expansion and a growing interest in the role of attributions. indicated that. and the USA. after correction for differences in socioeconomic status.1.3. Italy. Hsieh. Canada and Japan.
More recent research has continued to find differences in locus of control between cultures and between sub-groups within cultures. (1991). Life situations may be viewed as being largely determined by circumstances outside personal control (p. US-born Chinese and Caucasian Americans). Hong Kong Chinese students were more externally controlled on Rotter’s (1969) I-E scale. Parsons and Schneider (1974) administered Rotter’s (1969) I-E scale to 120 male and female students in Canada. France.behaviour can be better understood by adopting a more holistic approach in which interactions. Japanese students had significantly higher external scores than in all other countries.
To the author’s knowledge. At the same time. 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. where no significant differences were found between those of Indian. Using an English version of the Cross-Cultural Chinese Personality Assessment Inventory (CPAI-2). Indian students were more external than Canadians on personal control factors. but all three groups differed from the sample drawn in China.
In very early research. and this was provided as part of a larger study comparing Singaporean ethnic groups to a Chinese normative sample from the People’s Republic of China. Chinese and Indian populations. 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. He attributed this to the belief that dealing with widespread nepotism. although there were no differences in internality nor externality involving powerful others. due largely to high scores on items measuring political ideology and social system control. 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.externally-controlled and more self-effacing than either American females or Taiwanese males. No published accounts of research conducted in Malaysia with regard to locus of control differences among members of Malay. only Cheung. 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.
. Howard and Lim (2006) have offered research evidence related to cross-cultural differences in locus of control within Malay. Chinese and Indian ethnic groups were found. Chinese of Malay extraction. Cheung. This was very true for the locus of control variable. all internal characteristics. skill and ability.
Niméus. while the two dimensions of externality would have positive associations. but there are two conceptual arguments for doing so. 1987.5. 2007. Beresford & Neilly. 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.
2. Fox & Klerman. 1991.9% could be classified as having an intentional suicidal component. First. without objective basis. anticipate a negative outcome to any attempts that may be made to attain the individual’s major objectives or goals (Beck. Träskman-Bendz & Alsén. et al. it was hypothesised that Chinese participants would tend toward higher externality scores while Indian participants would tend toward higher internality. (2003). hopelessness has been consistently shown to be a predictor of suicidal intent (Beck. Weissman. 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. Pentilla and Lonnqvist (1997) studied all fatal car crashes in Finland from 1987 to 1991 and found that 5. Finally. Montag & Comrey.3. Cases usually
. 1995.Justification of hypotheses about locus of control.2 Hopelessness Rothengatter (2002) and Groeger (1997) have both noted the paucity of research on affect and driver behaviour. 2005). 1997. 2007). 1973). Personality traits closely aligned with given mood states might well be expected to have an impact on the performance on driving tasks. 1975. Based on the findings reported by Gidron et al. McMillan. Given the strong research evidence suggesting an association between internal locus of control and less risky driving behaviour (Lajunen & Summala. Özkan & Lajunen. it was hypothesised that locus of control would moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic. Kovacs and Weissman. indirectly. Sinha & Watson. Ohberg. it was hypothesised that internality would have a negative association with unsafe behaviour in traffic. Gilbody. 1975). In the present study. on crash and injury occurrence.
involved head-on collisions between two vehicles with a large weight disparity and victims had often suffered from life-event stress. Prociuk.
Second. 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. including risky driving. indirectly. 1962). hopelessness was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. found that the most commonly reported mental state among Finnish drivers dying in crashes classified as suicidal had been “depression” and “hopeless”. and crash risk (Ohberg et al. in fact. 1962). chance or fate not only expressed greater pessimism about the future but were more likely to report depressive states. on crash and injury occurrence. Firestone & Seiden. 1997. 1976. assertiveness and positive emotion. it was
. usually when impaired by alcohol or drug use. whose crashes had resulted from extreme risks. 1974). Mendel. 1990. Hernetkoski and Keskinen (1998). mental disorders and alcohol misuse. finding that persons who perceived reinforcements to be a function of powerful others. in a more detailed study. in which hopelessness plays a significant part. for instance. investigated the relationship between hopelessness. Based on earlier findings about the relationship between depressive-suicidal states. Chioqueta and Stiles (2005) showed that hopelessness in Norwegian university students was positively predicted by high scores in neuroticism and depression. 1998. They also classified a group of
drivers whose highly negligent actions.. and negatively predicted by extraversion. have proposed that potentially self-destructive behaviours. locus of control and depression with university students in western Canada. 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.
Justification of hopelessness hypotheses. Breen and Lussier (1976). luck. hopelessness has been associated with personality and behavioural factors that have been shown to be good predictors of driver behaviour and crash risk. Selzer & Payne. Very early on. In the present study. Henderson.
Wright & Crundall. O’Connell (2002) has described the use of alcohol. Demakakos. 2000.. 2002. physiological arousal. Bakou. While media reports and some authors (James & Nahl. 2000. & Darviri. Deffenbacher. there is no shortage of evidence to suggest a consistent and reliable association between aggressive driving and motor vehicle crashes (Blanchard. Barton and Malta. learned disinhibitory cues. this concept became the basis for what is now known as the frustration-aggression hypothesis of aggressive driving. which acts to counter the influence of normative moral codes and to increase people’s impulsive responses to stimuli as one such disinhibitory cue. Novaco (1991) proposed that driver aggression is produced when environmental triggers interact with a variety of predisposing factors.5. 1999. 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. 2002). Filetti. Malta & Blanchard. sparked by a number of highly publicised accounts of road rage and improved techniques for measuring anger and aggression in drivers. including subjective feelings of stress.hypothesised that participants scoring high on a measure of hopelessness would be likely to engage in behaviour in traffic that was less cautious. 1999) have argued that there has been a marked increase in the frequency of aggressive incidents and anger-related crashes. Richards. and deindividuation. attention to the issue of aggressive driving has grown exponentially. learned cognitive scripts. 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. Lynch & Oetting. Koumaki. Wells-Parker et al. 2003. It was hypothesised here that hopelessness would moderate the manner in which locus of control affected behaviour in traffic.3.
. In a largely unrelated study.
Although uncertainty persists as to whether road aggression is actually increasing. Tzamalouka. Underwood.3 Aggression Since the 1980s. 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. Chliaoutaks. Chapman. 2006). Mizell.
it may equally be that the people involved would be aggressive in situations beyond driving – with driving being an opportunity for. 1962). but needed to be expanded to account for the influence of personality factors such as Type A personality behaviour (TAPB). Houston. lack of control over events. angry thinking and trait anger influenced aggressive behaviour only under conditions in which the individual was provoked. does indeed have all the ingredients that might give rise to increased levels of anger and hostility. Snyder. Bettencourt. 163). as another. and frustration of goals that comprises the driving task in the modern world. Ellis. (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. the display of aggression (p. Shinar (1998) argued that the frustration-aggression hypothesis provided an appropriate model for aggressive driving. threat to own safety and self-eesteem. However. They reported that trait aggressiveness and trait irritability influenced aggressive behaviour under both provoking and neutral conditions but that other personality variables. Crowson. Talley. such as TAPB. through the use of self-statements. though. Kurylo and Poirier (1997) created the Hostile Automatic Thoughts Scale to reflect the frequency
. cultural driving norms and situational conditions. to better cope with stress and achieve behavioural change. stress induced by time pressure. Benjamin and Valentine (2006) conducted a meta-analysis of studies assessing personality variables and aggressive behaviour.
Schwebel et al. Groeger (2000). raised the point that: It seems to me possible that the peculiar cocktail of personal challenge.
Meichenbaum (1977) pioneered the use of cognitive restructuring. rather than a cause of. More recently.which creates a sense of anonymity and diminished personal responsibility. 1976. 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.
Karlberg. competitiveness. 2000. Petrilli.6 2.
Dewar (2002b) noted that TAPB has been one of the variables most consistently linked to driving performance. indirectly.. Williams & Haney. 1985). Kumashiro & Kume. Oetting and Swaim (2003) used the same approach to examine angry cognitions made by drivers under varying conditions of provocation. Based on the extensive research on the association between aggression and unsafe driving behaviour (Galovski et. 2001). Carbone. consistent with earlier research by Deffenbacher et al.with which individuals make cognitive statements reflecting aggressive sentiments. 1981. McKee.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. al.
aggression was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. on crash and injury occurrence. Magnavita.
. Undén. Sani. Blumenthal. (2003). 2006.6. 1999). 1999. and specific content. 2002. Rice. Lynch. TAPB is characterised by a sense of time urgency. 1998. of hostile automatic thought would moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic. 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. 2006). Elofsson & Krakau.
2. Originally identified by Friedman and Rosenman (1974). insecurity about status. it was hypothesised that aggression would have a negative effect on behaviour in traffic. Bettencourt et al. Narda.
Justification of aggression-related hypotheses. that the total amount. Sato. It was also hypothesised. Thurman. Kamada. hostility and difficulty achieving states of relaxation (Ben-Zur. Frueh & Snyder. They found that perjorative labelling and vengeful or retaliatory thoughts correlated highly with self-reported aggressive driving. Deffenbacher.
In the present study. impatience. aggression. James & Nahl. Miyake. Later still.
In a correlational study of British drivers. Zzanski & Rosenman. (1998). In none of these studies. however. did control for the effects of a range of potential confounding variables – annual mileage. tested drivers on a TABP questionnaire in 1993 and then tracked their driving behaviour to record crash history from 1994 to 2001. traffic exposure or driver gender controlled as variables. Nabi et al. 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. Chiron. gender. studied police officers in Italy. 1989. violations and self-reported driving impatience in a sample of 54 American students. Although there is some
evidence as to the long-term stability of TAPB (Keltikangas-Jarninen. age. 1979) and number of accidents. Consoli. the Jenkins Activity Survey (Jenkins. West.
Other authors have examined which of the behavioural dimensions of TAPB has the strongest impact on driving outcomes.2 times more likely to have an accident than others.000 employees of a French oil and gas company. for instance. Elander and French (1993) found that TAPB had a strong association with excessive driving speed. however.DeLorenzo and Sacco (1997). Karlberg et al. and drivers’ attitudes toward traffic regulations – when examining the association between motor vehicle crashes and Type A scores in a prospective study of 20.
Nabi. was driving frequency. 1990). 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. Perry (1986) fond significant simple correations between scores on a commonly used measure of TAPB. (2003) with respect to data collection time periods. particularly in driving situations that require prudence. Chastang. socio-professional category. driving style. category of vehicle. alcohol consumption. but not with accident risk. They found a robust
association between scores on a measure of TAPB and later serious crashes. similarly. focused on the time urgency component
. Although their research design accounted for the influence of potential confounds. it may have been flawed by methodological deficiencies discussed by af Wählberg (2003) and by Elander et al. Lafont and Lagarde (2005). where Type A drivers were 4. Raikkonen.
ethnicity. emphasising the four individual dimensions of behaviour in traffic rather than the composite BIT total score. as measured by the student version of the SJAS. stressed the relationship between Type A individuals and the tendency to engage in more aggressive acts while driving as the key factor in the relationship between TAPB and crashes.of TAPB that had the most significant influence on driving risks. driving exposure and the place where they had learned to drive all had direct effects on Type A results. only externally-focused frustration was consistently correlated with Type A behaviour.2
A Conceptual Shift from TAPB to Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) as a Variable Synodinos and Papacostas (1985) also attempted to examine the TAPB
dimensions that related to driving behaviour in a sample of Hawaiian university students. Papacostas and Synodinos concluded that:
Type A/B behaviour is consistently related to only one of the four driving factors obtained by the BIT. At the same time. Using an instrument with items at extreme ends of the Type A/B
2. Glass. freeway urgency (excessive speed choice). with higher BIT scores reflecting a stronger Type A orientation. Gender. The BIT scale was positively correlated with the student version of the Jenkins Activity Survey (SJAS. then use of the Type A/B
. Papacostas and Synodinos (1988) reported several further analyses of their original data. all four BIT factors significantly predicted participants’ self-reported driving characteristics. Of the four BIT
In a subsequent study. Miles and Johnson (2003). 1977). specifically measuring the effects of drivers’ usurpation of right-of-way (lane violations and reluctance to yield).6. If all four BIT factors
contribute to accident proneness. 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). namely “externally-focused frustration”. on the other hand. they examined the influence of TAPB on a number of driving outcomes.
would be influenced by drivers’ psycho-social characteristics. and “destination-activity
orientation” which is possibly a cause of inattentive driving (p. “freeway urgency’’ which manifests itself in speeding and frequent lane changing. no further use of BIT scale has been reported in studies of driving safety. locus of control. including gender. participants’ behaviour in traffic was considered a proximal variable that. gender and other demographic factors were shown to affect BIT subscales. driving experience.
In neither of their studies. it will not be sensitive to “usurpation of right-of-way” which is related to aggressive driving. the extent to which other personality factors influence the four components comprising behaviour in traffic was not investigated. though. hopelessness. that are measured by the BIT scale. thought to be critical in the relationship between TAPB and motor vehicle crashes. In the present study. aggression and the amount and content of
. ethnicity. Similarly. 1988) attempt to relate scores on their BIT scale to crash frequency or injury.construct as the basis of further investigation into the question of highway safety will provide only an incomplete picture. To the author’s knowledge.
Justification of BIT-related hypotheses. did Papacostas and Synodinos (1985. although ethnicity. Specifically. all that can be concluded about the BIT concept is that composite scores have been indicative of high Type A scores on the student version of the SJAS and that the SJAS was unable to predict three of the four component scores. 13). on one hand would have an effect on crash and injury occurrence and.
They argued that it would be preferable. At the present time. 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. on the other hand.
. it was hypothesised here that BIT total scores would have a positive effect on both crash and injury occurrence. 2003. West et al. 1985).hostile automatic thought. 2005. since Papacostas and Synodinos (1988) found that all four component factors of BIT were related to driving characteristics.. Nabi et al. it was hypothesised that drivers’ scores on measures of usurpation of right-of-way. 1993) and.
. Many studies have suggested that drivers’ TABP is a factor in motor vehicle crashes (Perry. Miles & Johnson. 1986. externally-focused frustration. Further. freeway urgency and destination-activity orientation would each have positive effects on both crash and injury occurrence. since the composite BIT score has been shown to be an accurate reflection of over-all Type A behaviour (Synodinos & Papacostas.
1B and 1C. with the addition of a fourth psychological variable. 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 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 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. In Study 1C. the research model was developed and tested in studies 1A. each study explored the extent to which demographic.3). each of which sought to replicate and expand the previous one. using automobile drivers as the units of analysis.1). with the addition of a third psychological variable.1
Conceptualisation and the Research Framework Based on the discussion in the previous chapter.CHAPTER 3
METHOD OF INVESTIGATION
3. through their action on proximal variables (behaviour in traffic). aggression (see Figure 3. Study 1A investigated the effects of demographic (driver age. driving and psychological variables were linked to each other and to self-reported driving behaviour. the present research
attempted to support the notion that variables in the distal context (psychological factors) contributed to crashes and injuries. hostile automatic thoughts (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. In Study 1B. Then.2). 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.
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
In the present research. a separate score for internality (I). While Beck (1999) and others have reserved the term anger for the feeling that accompanies such an internal state. and a behavioural process in which the person attempts little or takes inappropriate action (p. Galovski et al (2006) and others have noted that the
definitions of anger. hostility and aggression are often inconsistent.2. According to Farran et al (1995): Hopelessness constitutes an essential experience of the human condition. Weissman. a thought process that expects nothing.5
Aggression Spielberger et al (1995). It has been accepted for a long time that aggression finds its
. externality related to chance (C) and externality related to the influence of powerful others (P) was obtained.
3. overlapping and ambiguous.2. hopelessness was measured as a unidimensional construct. consistent with the way the variable has been described by Beck (1987a) and Beck. anger was defined as a negative internal state of physiological arousal and cognition that involves interactions between physiological. 1988) and tends to manifest itself under antagonistic conditions (Novaco. It functions as a feeling of despair and discouragement. For each of the five studies undertaken. but not chance. a future directed information-processing bias or schema which functions to distort individuals’ subjective experience of external reality (Velting. cognitive. Lester and Trexler (1974). motoric and verbal components (Sharkin.each of these dimensions independently and at the same time.4
Hopelessness Hopelessness has been defined as a cognitive or motivational state characterised
by negative expectancies. affective. such that an individual might simultaneously believe that oneself and powerful others control an outcome. 1999). For the purposes of the present research.
3. 1994). 25). aggression is regarded here as referring to the hostile behaviour that occurs as a result of it.
1957. frustration. social alienation and paranoia. generally to the point where the needs or feelings of others cannot be taken into consideration. The effects of participants’ total aggression.2. Lynch & Morris. and. 2003. hitting or interpersonal violence. emotional lability and temperamental gesturing.6
Hostile Automatic Thoughts While the role of cognitive self-talk in directing behavioural responses has been
accepted since the early work of Beck (1976). the following variables were examined: (a) physical aggression – the tendency to use physical force when expressing anger or aggression. Oetting. the three forms of hostile automatic thoughts were defined as:
. 1996). taken as a sum of measures of each of the foregoing.expression in a range of behavioural manifestations (Buss & Durkee. were also investigated.
3. through fighting. Bergeron & Vallerand. The present
research examined the effects of a set of cognitive statements – described as hostile automatic thoughts (Snyder et al. Ellis (1962) and Meichenbaum (1977). expressed through the presence of irritability. In the present research. Vallières. Specifically. (b) verbal aggression – the tendency to be unduly argumentative and to use quarrelsome and hostile speech in dealing with others in antagonistic situations. but it has only relatively recently been considered in light of driving aggression (Deffenbacher et al. 2005). Deffenbacher. 1997) – on the behaviour in traffic of drivers in Study 1C. (e) indirect aggression – the tendency to express aggressive impulses in actions that avoid direct confrontation. (c) overt anger – the tendency to experience high levels of emotional arousal and a perceived loss of control. (d) hostility – including attitudes of bitterness.
(b) freeway urgency – including an expressed preference for freeway driving. 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. (b) derogation of others – cognitive self-talk that contained content which belittled.
3. being irritated by slow drivers) and of directive behaviours toward
.. degraded or wished to be rid of another individual.2. 1998).. driving consistently in the fast lane and travelling above the speed limit. the BIT score. and an expressed preference for operating powerful vehicles. frequent lane changing. hit or kill another individual. not allowing others to merge or overtake. hostility and time pressure (Karlberg et al. and. was defined as indicative of Type A Behaviour Pattern (TABP). A global measure of selfreported driving tendencies. (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. characterised by excessive impatience.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.(a) physical aggression – cognitive self-talk that contained content indicating an intent or desire to violently attack. motorcyclists and taxicab drivers sampled in the five successive studies undertaken. (c) externally-focused frustration – consisting of emotional reactions to the actions of other drivers on the road (e.g.
In the resulting measure of this variable. the influence of driving experience. within the preceding twelve months and provided details about the nature of the crash.8
Crash Occurrence Participants reported whether or not they had experienced a motor vehicle crash. in Study 1A. a “1” was scored if the participant reported a crash and a “0” was scored if the participant did not report a crash.3 3. to the extent of inattention conditions. 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. 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.them (e. three demographic variables (driver age. (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.9
Injury Occurrence Participants also indicated whether they had been forced to seek medical
treatment for an injury incurred during the reported crash.
3. Then.3. Then. the interrelationships between the demographic variables. to contemporaneous roadway and traffic
3. In the resulting measure of this variable.2. gender and ethnicity) and two psychological variables (locus of control and hopelessness) on BIT was tested.2.1
Research Design of the Study Study 1A Specifically. travel frequency.
3. urging others to move faster or out of the way by sounding the horn).g.
In this study. the extent to which self-reported BIT predicted crash and injury occurrence in automobile drivers was assessed. travel frequency.3
Study 1C In Study 1C. the interrelationships between the demographic variables. the psychological variables and BIT were examined. Finally. the psychological variables and BIT were examined.3. (b) the moderating effect of locus
. the mediating effect of the BIT on the relations between psychological variables and crash occurrence and injury occurrence was tested.3. Figure 3.2 illustrates the research design for Study 1B. the moderating effect of hopelessness on the relationship between locus of control and BIT was tested. gender and ethnicity) and three psychological variables (locus of control. hopelessness. travel frequency. In this study. two moderating effects were tested: (a) the moderating effects of hopelessness on the relationship between locus of control and BIT. the mediating effect of BIT on the relationship between psychological factors and crash occurrence and injury occurrence was tested. hopelessness and aggression) on BIT was tested. Figure 3.1 illustrates the research design for Study 1A. 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.2
Study 1B While again controlling the effects of driving experience and drivers’ self-
reported travel frequency. and (b) the moderating effect of locus of control on the relation between aggression and BIT. 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.psychological variables (locus of control and hopelessness) and BIT were examined. three demographic variables (driver age. the influence of driving characteristics.
3. Finally. the influence of driving characteristics. the interrelationships between the demographic variables. In Study 1B. gender and ethnicity) and four psychological variables (locus of control.
3. Then. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) on BIT was tested. Then. Then.
1 illustrates the research design for Study 2. 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.of control on the relationship between aggression and BIT.
3. First. the influence of
experience. Figure 3. three demographic variables (driver age and ethnicity) and two psychological variables (locus of control and aggression) on BIT was tested. the interrelationships between the demographic variables.3. Figure 3.
. and (b) taxi experience. Two measures of
experience were included: (a) driving experience. Variables and analyses in Study 2 were the same as those carried out in Study 1A.
It should be noted that certain of the variables examined with the automobile drivers in Study 1 and with the motorcycle drivers in Study 2 were not included when taxicab drivers were sampled in Study 3. using a sample that indicated
motorcycles as their primary mode of transportation. and (c) the moderating effect of hostile automatic thoughts on the relationship between aggression and BIT. In Study 3.5
Study 3 The final study used a sample of on-duty taxicab drivers. Finally.4
Study 2 The research design for Study 1A was replicated.4 illustrates the research design for Study 3. Then. the mediating effect of the BIT on the relations between psychological variables and crash occurrence and injury occurrence was tested. Then. the moderating effect of locus of control on the relationship between aggression and BIT was assessed. This was justified for three reasons. Figure 3. In Study 3. or the length of time they had been licensed to operate a taxicab. Finally.3.3 illustrates the research design for Study 1C.
3. or the length of time they had held a valid automobile operator’s licence. 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.
1.2: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.1: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.4: Destination-Activity orientation will have a positive influence on injury occurrence Y Y Y Y Y
Y Y Y Y
Y Y Y Y
Y Y Y Y
Y Y Y Y
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. Second.2.1. potentially raising questions of reliability and validity.2 :Freeway urgency will have a positive influence on crash 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.3: Taxicab experience will have a negative influence on total BIT score
. limitations were imposed on administration time by driver willingness to participate and by research cost considerations.1: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.4 Formulation of Hypotheses Based on the conceptualisation and research framework. 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. instruments employed to measure hopelessness and hostile
automatic thoughts used language and response formats not conducive to verbal administration procedures.1: Driver experience will have a negative influence on total BIT score H2.2: Freeway urgency will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.3:Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1. Gender was not included as a demographic variable in Study 3 because all taxicab drivers in the sample were male.2.1: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.3: Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1. a risk that would have been unethical to impose both on the drivers and on the research assistants who were collecting the data.2: Travel frequency will have a negative influence on total BIT score H2.2.4:Destination-Activity orientation will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.
22.214.171.124. the following fifteen hypotheses and sixty sub-hypotheses were formulated:
Table 3.1: Research Hypotheses
STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 H1: Behaviour in traffic will have a positive influence on motor vehicle crash outcomes
2: Ethnicity will influence Aggression H10.Table 3.3: Age will have a negative influence on Hopelessness H6.3: Externality-Powerful-Others will have a positive influence on total BIT score
H9: Hopelessness will moderate the locus of control-BIT Relationship
H9.3: Hopelessness will moderate the Externality(Powerful-Other)-BIT relationship
H10: Demographic variables will influence aggression
H10.3.2: Gender will influences Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.1: Aggression will have a positive influence on Usurpation of Right-of Way H11.2.1: Gender will influence total BIT score H3.1: Internality will have a negative influence on total BIT score H8.2: Ethnicity will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.4: Hopelessness will have positive influence on Destination-Activity Orientation
H8: Locus of Control will influence behaviour in traffic
H126.96.36.199: Ethnicity will influence Locus of Control: Internality H188.8.131.52: Hopelessness will moderate the Externality(Chance)-BIT relationship H9.3: Ethnicity will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others 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 influence Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others
Y Y Y Y Y Y
H5: Demographic variables will influence hopelessness
H5.2.2: Age will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.2: Externality-Chance will have a positive influence on total BIT score H8.1: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Internality H4.2: Ethnicity will influence Hopelessness H5.3: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H4.2: Externality-Chance will have a positive influence on Hopelessness H6.3: Aggression will have a positive influence on Externally-focused Frustration H11.1: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Usurpation of Right-of Way H7.3: Age will have a negative influence Aggression Y Y Y Y Y Y
H11: Aggression will have a positive influence on behaviour in traffic
H11.2: Ethnicity will influence total BIT score H3.1.4: Aggression will have a positive influence on Destination-Activity Orientation
.1: Hopelessness will moderate the Internality-BIT relationship H9.2: Aggression will have a positive influence on Freeway Urgency H11.3.1: Gender will influence Hopelessness H5.1 (continued)
STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 3
H3: Demographic variables will influence behaviour in traffic
H3.1: Age will influence Locus of Control: Internality H4.3: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Externally-focused Frustration H7.2: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Freeway Urgency H7.1: Internality will have a negative influence on Hopelessness H6.3: Externality-Powerful-Others will have a positive influence on Hopelessness
H7: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on behaviour in traffic
H7.1: Gender will influence Aggression H10.
STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 3
Y Y Y
H12: Locus of control will moderate the aggression-BIT relationship
H12. those from the second round of data collection were included in Study 1B.1: Thoughts of Physical aggression will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation H15.1: Thoughts of Physical Aggression will have a positive influence on total BIT H14.2: Thoughts of Derogation-of-Others will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation H15. within a 14-month period.3: Externality (Powerful-Other) will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
H13: Demographic factors will influence hostile automatic thoughts
H13.3: Thoughts of Revenge will have a positive influence on total BIT score
H15: Hostile automatic thoughts will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship
H15.2: Thoughts of the Derogation of Others will have a positive influence on BIT H14.Table 3.5.3: Thoughts of Revenge will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation
3. Only participants with a valid driving licence who had indicated that a
car was the mode of transportation they used most of the time when they travelled were included.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. with psychological tests and inventories administered to groups of students during lecture sessions.1
Methods of Data Collection and Analysis The Sample Participants in Study 1 were undergraduate students at a private university in
peninsular Malaysia.1: Gender will have a positive influence on hostile automatic thoughts H13.2: Externality(Chance) will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12.1: Internality will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12. using the same procedures as in Study 1.2: Ethnicity will influence hostile automatic thoughts H13. registered in a freshman course offered within the Faculty of Management.5 3. and those from the third round of data collection were included in Study 1C. All participants had a valid driving licence but had indicated that a motorcycle was the mode of transportation most of the
. Data were collected during three consecutive trimesters.
Participants in Study 2 were undergraduate students at the same private university.
Participants in Study 3 received the meter or negotiated fare for the trip. participants had to have a minimum of six months’ experience as a taxicab drivers and no gaps in their taxi operator’s license longer than three months. during a point to point trip. Data collection took place within the taxicab. Participants were recruited during a curb-side introduction of the study by one of a group of four research assistants. For inclusion in the study.. In all cases.5. although results were used to demonstrate teaching points related to the syllabus at a point later in the trimester. This sample was combined from all three rounds of classroom data collection.
3.5. with one of the items in each pair written to measure a TABP response and the other a contradictory statement (e.1 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) Scale This 52-item measures time-urgent behaviour. “ When a traffic light turns green and the car in front of me doesn’t get going immediately.
Participants in Study 3 were taxicab drivers in the Kuala Lumpur area. Participants were provided with an opportunity to receive a debriefing report about the results of the study by e-mail and/or.
Participants in Studies 1 and 2 were not remunerated.2
3. Stokols. Stokals & Campbell. Synodinos and Papacostas (1985) developed 26 pairs of two-alternative items. I try to urge its driver to move
. consistent with of a Type A Behaviour Pattern (TAPB) when driving (see Appendix A). 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. in the case of Study 3 participants.time when they travelled. 1978).
Drawing from the earlier Driving Habits Questionnaire (DHQ. participation was voluntary and confidentiality was assured. by postal mail. Novaco.2.g. while participants were driving. all of whom possessed a valid driving licence and a commercial permit for the operation of a taxicab.
In a later study. Synodinos and Papacostas reported that Form A and Form B
(which correlated .”
II. to school or to an appointment with someone. Destination-activity orientation
. I usually feel like pushing them off the road.2.” “When a motor vehicle cuts in front of me.
Table 3. as indicated in table 3. such that if the TABP alternative of an item pair was placed in Form A. I usually think about what I have to do when I get there. Items were presented in two alternate forms (Form A and Form B).” “I often blow my horn at someone as a way of expressing my frustration. I just wait for a while until it moves”) for a total of 52 item stems.2: Dimensions of the BIT scale Factor
I. Six of the items are answered on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree”. Usurpation of right-ofway
No.” “On a clear highway. of items
“When I am in a traffic jam and the lane next to mine starts to move.80. I usually drive a few kilometres above the speed limit. Items in Form A and Form B are presented in random order. with a coefficient alpha of .” “I often find myself checking the time while driving to work.91) were found to be internally consistent. Papacostas and Synodinos (1988) provided additional psychometric parameters of the BIT scale. I try to move that lane as soon as possible. Their analysis revealed four dimensions. Externally-focused frustration
IV. On each form. then the item of the pair representing the opposite end of the continuum was placed in Form B and vice versa. 20 items are answered on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from “most like me” to “least like me”.” “I usually get upset at drivers who do not signal their driving intentions.on” versus “When a traffic light turns green and the car in front of me doesn’t get going immediately. based on a principal components analysis of earlier-reported data.” “I get extremely irritated when I am travelling behind a slow moving vehicle.” “While travelling to work (or to school).
A sample item is “I have often found that what is going to happen will happen”.
3. passing lane were changed from “left lane” to “right lane” and the word “pass” was replaced with “overtake”. it’s usually because I worked hard for it”. References to the faster. A sample item is “Although I might have good ability. High scores on the externality-powerful-others (P) scale indicate that respondents expect that powerful others exert a high degree of control over their lives.
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. References to “miles per hour” were changed to “kilometres per hour”. It contains three 8-item sub-scales that measure perceptions about the level of control exercised over the events and circumstances in their lives.2 Levenson Locus of Control Scale This widely-used questionnaire is based on Levenson’s (1981) multidimensional view of locus of control. ranging from +3 (“agree strongly”) to –3 (“disagree strongly”).5. I will not be given leadership responsibility without appealing to those in positions of power”.2.
High scores on the internality (I) scale indicate that respondents expect to have a high degree of control over their own lives. References to the “gas pedal” were replaced by “accelerator”.Certain items in the original American version were re-worded to make them relevant to the Malaysian context and driving jargon. Participants scored all 24 items on a 6-point scale. The phrase “cross-junction” was added to items pertaining to behaviour at intersections. High scores on the externality-chance (C) scale indicate that respondents expect expect chance forces or luck to have control over their lives. A sample item is “When I get what I want.
1974). verbal aggression. A total aggression score can be calculated from summed item responses. Of the 20 true-false statements.3: The Five Subscales of the Aggression Questionnaire
Subscale Physical Aggression (PHY) Verbal Aggression (VER) Anger (ANG) Hostility (HOS) Indirect Aggression (IND) Total No. 1993.3 Beck Hopelessness Scale (BHS) This 20-item scale contains true-false statements that assess the extent of negative expectancies about the immediate and long-range future (Beck & Steer.3).2.” “I often find myself disagreeing with people.” “At times I feel like a bomb ready to explode.” “If I’m angry enough.5. and five subscales measure physical aggression. a sample item of which is “I look forward to the future with hope and enthusiasm”. Table 3. Item scores are summed to yield a total score ranging from 0 to 20. Beck et al. 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”.3.” “I sometimes feel that people are laughing at me behind my back.4 Aggression Questionnaire (AQ) This questionnaire is a 34-item scale measuring constructs related to the expression of aggression. anger. Tanaka et al.”
. I may mess up someone’s work. 2005.
3. if endorsed. Participants indicate a response on a five-point Likert-type scale (1 = “not at all like me”.” “At times I feel I have gotten a raw deal out of life. Durham.” “I let my anger show when I do not get what I want.” “When someone really irritates me.2. High internal consistency has been reported across a range of samples (Benzein & Berg. 9 are keyed false to indicate optimism about the future. or 0. I might give him or her the silent treatment. of items 8 5 7 8 6 34 Sample Items: “At times I can’t control the urge to hit someone. if not. hostility and indirect aggression (see Table 3.” “I get into fights more than most people. I may tell them what I think of them. 1982.5.” “When people annoy me. Eleven items are keyed true to indicate pessimism about the future. 5 = “completely like me”) that best represent how well the item describe them. 1996). Each of the 20 statements is scored 1. High scores are taken to indicate a generally pessimistic view of the future and a high degree of hopelessness.
Previous studies have established high levels of concurrent validity (Harris.5. of Items
11 10 9 30
“If I could get away with it.4).
Table 3.” Participants responded on a 5point Likert-type scale (1 = “not at all”.5.94 for the total aggression scores and ranging from . 1997.91 for physical aggression.88 and . I’d kill this person!” “I’d like to knock his/her teeth out” “What an idiot!” “This person is a loser. with coefficient alpha values of . Williams.” “I want to get back at this person. derogation of others and revenge respectively. (1997) reported high internal consistency for all three sub-scales. 2000).High internal consistency has been reported with a coefficient alpha of .2. gender.” “I just want to hurt this person as bad as s/he hurt me. derogation of others and revenge – were identified and are included as subscales (see table 3.
3. 2000) and discriminant validity (Archer & Haigh. Cascardi & Pythress. Three factors – physical aggression. Questions included details about the participant’s licensing and driving background. Shapiro.71 to . 1996). . High scores on a sub-scale indicated that type of hostile thinking had occurred to the participant frequently. ethnicity and history of motor vehicle crashes and injuries.88 for the five subscales (Buss & Warren. age.92. Boyd. 5 = “all the time”).”
3. Each item includes a statement expressing some hostile thought and
respondents are asked to indicate “whether that thought (or one like it) has occurred to you about another driver when you have been driving.5 Hostile Automatic Thoughts (HAT) This 30-item self-report index measures the frequency of recurring hostile thoughts.4: The Three Subscales of the Hostile Automatic Thoughts (HAT) Scale Factor
Physical aggression Derogation of others Revenge Total
No.2. Snyder et al.6 Personal Information Form (PIF) Participants also completed a 4-page questionnaire recording personal information. 1997.
upon request. (c) not discuss answers with others as they were completing the questionnaires. between the two forms of the BIT. with an e-mail summary of results. Study 1C: PIF. AQ and HAT. (e) put down the first response that came into their mind. Study 1B: PIF.
After the briefing period. Instructions advised the participants to (a) answer all questions on each questionnaire. Participants were provided with up to 60 minutes to complete the scales but in no cases did the average administration time exceed 45 minutes. BHS.6. BHS. Participants were assured of confidentiality and were de-briefed.6 3. BHS. BIT scale. (d) read instructions for each questionnaire very carefully and complete them in the order they were distributed. packages of research instruments were distributed as follows: Study 1A: PIF.1
Procedure Studies 1 and 2 Data collection took place within a classroom or lecture hall during a regularly-
scheduled class periods. BIT scale and AQ. Levenson. (b) give honest answers that described themselves rather than putting the “best things to say”. Participants were informed about the study and invited to participate on a voluntary basis.
In studies 1 and 2. and (f) not spend too much time on any one answer. (c) the last instrument in the package was the opposite for of the BIT from the one presented second.3. in random order. the instruments were presented in the following order: (a) the PIF was the first one in the package. (b) the second instrument was either Form A or Form B of the BIT scale. Levenson and BIT scale. A brief written description of the purpose of the research and general instructions (see Appendix B) was distributed. Levenson. (d) the remaining instruments used in that particular study were presented.
3.0. with the remaining instruments administered in random order.
with prior research experience were retained to assist in the study. data collection was confined to times between 8:00 am and 9:00 pm.
analyses of variance (ANOVA). For safety reasons. At initial contact. the research assistant informed the taxicab driver about the study. with the team of research assistants meeting regularly three times each week to calibrate administration procedures. 2004). Data collection took place in taxicabs. as well as at least two additional Malaysian languages.5. Two to four times daily. provided assurance of confidentiality and secured participation. Structural equation models and path analyses were estimated using the same version of LISREL. The PIF was always administered first. rel.5. Taxis were flagged down at roadside. Levenson Locus of Control scale.
. aged 22 to 24 years. research assistants verbally administered the PIF.2
Study 3 For study 3. Confirmatory Factor Analyses (CFA) were performed on the BIT. each research assistant hired a taxicab to drive to some location elsewhere in the Kuala Lumpur area. four female final-year undergraduate students.
Independent-sample t-tests. linear and multiple regression analyses and logistic regression analyses were used to test the hypotheses. BIT. AQ and Levenson scales. 2002). approached at a taxi stand or booked over the telephone. Single-word substitutions in items were made in English or the driver’s first language if comprehension difficulties arose.6.
provides a brief example of each one and details its use in the present research. Over the course of the trip. All four research assistants spoke fluent English and Bahasa Malaysia. as well.
3. 13. Reliability coefficients of all instruments were calculated using SPSS. AQ and HAT to determine validity using LInear Structural RElations software (LISREL. 8. rel.7
Analysis of the Data Data collected were entered and processed using Statistical Package for the
Social Science (SPSS for Windows.
Specific statistical tests have been summarised in Table 3.
Table 3.2: The level of BIT influence the crash injury Logistic Regression Logistic Regression
The Direct Effect of Driving characteristics on BIT
H2.2: Ethnicity background influence the level of Hopelessness H5.2: Hopelessness influence the level of Freeway Urgency H7.2: Ethnicity background influence the level of BIT H3.3: Age influence the Locus of Control
Independent Sample tTest Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance
The Direct Effect of Demographic Factors on Hopelessness
H5.1: Hopelessness influence the level of Usurpation of Right-of Way H7.1: “Length of having driving licence” influence the level of BIT H2.2: Externality (Chance) is positively related to Hopelessness H6.4: Hopelessness influence the level of Destination-activity Orientation Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression
.1: Internality is negatively related to hopelessness H6.1: Gender influence the level of Hopelessness H5.1: Gender influence the Locus of Control H4.2: Ethnicity influence the Locus of Control H4.1: The level of BIT influence the crash occurrence H1.5: Statistical Methods for Hypothesis Testing
Data Analysis Methods
The Direct Effect of BIT on Accident Involvement
H1.3: Externality (Powerful-Other) is positively related to Hopelessness Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression
The Direct Effect of Hopelessness on BIT
H7.3: Hopelessness influence the level of Externally-focused Frustration H7.2: “Frequency of traveling” influence the level of BIT H2.3: Age influence the level of BIT Independent Sample t-Test Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance
The Direct Effect of Demographic Factors on Locus of Control
H4.1: Gender influence the level of BIT H3.3: “Access to a motor vehicle” influence the level of BIT Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance
The Direct Effect of Demographic Factors on BIT
H3.3: 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
the lower the BIT level H8.1: The higher the Internality.1: Hopelessness moderates the Internality-BIT relation Multiple Linear Regression H9.2: Aggression influence the level of Freeway Urgency H11. 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 H9.4: Aggression influence the level of Destination-activity Orientation Additional Analysis:
Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression
The Interaction Effect of Ethnicity and Aggression on BIT
GLM Univariate Analysis of Variance
The Moderating Effect of Locus of Control on AggressionBIT Relation
H12.2: Ethnicity background influences the level of Aggression H10.3: Externality (Powerful-Other) moderates the Aggression-BIT relation
Multiple Linear Regression Multiple Linear Regression Multiple Linear Regression
The Direct Effect of Demographic Factors on HAT
H13.2: Hopelessness moderates the Externality(Chance)-BIT relation H9.2: The higher Externality (Chance).1: Gender influences the level of Aggression H10.1: Aggression influence the level of Usurpation of Right-of Way H11. the higher the BIT level H8.3: Hopelessness moderates the Externality (Powerful-Other)-BIT relation Multiple Linear Regression
The Direct Effect of Demographic Factors on Aggression
H10.2: Ethnicity influences hostile automatic thoughts H13.5 (continued)
Data Analysis Methods
The Direct Effect of Locus of Control on BIT
H8.1: Internality moderates the Aggression-BIT relation H12.3: The higher Externality (Powerful-Other).Table 3.2: Externality(Chance) moderates the Aggression-BIT relation H12.3: Age has a negative influence on hostile automatic thoughts
Independent Sample t-Test Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance
.1: Gender has a positive influence on hostile automatic thoughts H13.3: Age influences the level of Aggression
Independent Sample t-Test Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance
The Direct Effect of Aggression on BIT
H11.3: Aggression influence the level of Externally-focused Frustration H11.
2: Thoughts of Derogation-of-Others have a positive influence on BIT H14. locus of control. 2000). locus of control. In the present
3. post hoc analyses were carried out using the Scheffé method (Klockars & Hancock. ANOVA was used to determine whether participants’ scores on psychological variables (BIT. hopelessness. t-tests are used to compare the means of two groups. hopelessness. t-tests were used to determine whether participants’ scores on psychological variables (BIT. In the present
research.2: Thoughts of Derogation-of-Others will moderate the AggressionBIT relation H1353: Thoughts of Revenge will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation Multiple Linear Regression Multiple Linear Regression Multiple Linear Regression
3. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) differed for drivers with different ethnic backgrounds.1: Thoughts of Physical Aggression will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation H15.
When significant differences were observed.7.3: Thoughts of Revenge have a positive influence on BIT
Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression
The Moderating Effect of HAT on the Aggression-BIT Relation
H15.1: Thoughts of Physical Aggression have a positive influence on BIT H14. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) differed for male and female drivers.Table 3.7.1
Independent-sample t-tests Generally.5 (continued)
Data Analysis Methods
The Direct Effect of HAT on BIT
One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) ANOVA is used to compare means for more than two groups.
For instance. GLM univariate analysis of variance was used to determine whether there was an interaction effect between ethnic background and psychological factors (locus of control. Also. externality-chance (C) and externalitypowerful-others (P) have an effect on hopelessness. multiple regression analysis was used to test whether internality (I). the moderating effects of the variables were tested using hierarchical regression methods.
.7. the direction of the relationship (positive or negative). Application of multiple regression analysis involves more than one single independent variable.7. In the present research. It is useful for analysis of variance models with one or more factor variables or covariates and a single dependent variable. the products of P x hopelessness scores were added into the regression equation. linear regression was applied to examine the relationship between psychological variables (locus of control. to test
whether hopelessness moderated the P-BIT relationship.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.
3. hopelessness. In the present research. second. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) and behaviour in traffic (BIT).7. hopelessness. R-square and coefficient values were then estimated to determine the significance of the moderating effect of hopelessness. if so. In the present research. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) on behaviour in traffic (BIT).4
Linear Regression Analysis This analysis is used to determine if a relationship exists between a dependent
variable and an independent variable and.5
Multiple Regression Analysis This analysis aims to examine if there is a relationship between the dependent
variable and independent variables.3. first P scores were entered into the regression equation.
The result was a measurement model described as a contextual-mediated model.
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. 710). Goodness-of-fit indicates how
. seeks to determine the odds that an event will or will not occur.7 Structural Equation Modelling. each of the two outcome variables (crash occurrence and injury occurrence) was framed as a binary variable. “1” was scored if a crash injury had occurred and “0” if no crash injury had occurred. Path coefficients were calculated to demonstrate correlates of unsafe driving according to their contextual proximity to crash and injury occurrence. 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). logistic regression. to (a) assess the validity of the instruments.7. SEM was carried out. as well as between several latent constructs” (p. In the present research. Linear or multiple regression seek to measure the degree of influence that variables will have on a dependent variable. using LISREL.7. “1” was scored if a crash had occurred and “0” if no crash had occurred. the purpose of which was to distinguish the distal and proximal contextual factors related to crash outcomes. and (b) examine the interrelationships among variables included in the research design. on the other hand.3. In the present research. Since driver experience and travel frequency were expected to have an
influence on the outcome variables. 3.6
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. these variables were controlled as covariates in the logistic regression equation. That is.
Absolute fit measures are a direct measure of how well the model specified by the researcher reproduces the researcher’s data. the adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI) and the expected cross-
. the better the model is said to fit. these can be classified as absolute fit indexes and relative or incremental fit indexes. but a wide array of tests of the overall fit of SEM models – “more. 745). If a
researcher’s theory were perfect. Incremental fit measures
included the comparative fit index (CFI). the model fit compares the theory to reality as represented by the data. the χ2/df ratio the goodness-of-fit index (GFI).
In the present research. Once a researcher’s theory is used to specify a model from which the parameters are estimated.
The fundamental measure of fit is the chi-square (χ2) statistic (Byrne. the estimated covariance matrix is compared mathematically to the actual observed covariance matrix to provide an estimate of model fit. 1998). the absolute fit measures included the χ2 statistic. For Study 1C.. the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) and the root mean square residual (RMR). According to Marsh et al. (1988). The closer the values of these two matrices are to each other. p.well the measurement model reproduces the covariance matrix among indicator items That is. the estimated covariance matrix (∑k) and the actual covariance matrix (S) would be the same. 1998) – presently exists. 2006. Thus. Incremental fit measures assess how well a specified model fits relative to some alternative baseline model. including: (1) two absolute indexes. (Hair et al. in fact. additional measures were used to compare the relative fit of two models under consideration. than anyone would want to report” (Maryuma.
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.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. an insignificant p-value can result in good fit.7.validation index (ECVI). Carmines and McIver (1981) have noted that.
3. fit the population covariance matrix if it were available” (Byrne.. 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.7. However. Hair et al. the normed fit index (NFI).
. the parsimony goodness-of-fit index (PGFI). 112). the ratio indicates a good fit. and a measure of parsimony fit. 2006).7.10 indicate poor fit. 1998.7. Thus. when the ratio of χ2 to df yields a value of less than 3.
3.2 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. the higher the probability associated with χ2. 1998). one incremental index. 2006). For a sample size less than 250 (and with number of observed variables that is less than 12).7. RMSEA values can range from zero to 1. the closer the fit between the hypothesized model (established under the null hypothesis).
3. with unknown but optimally chosen parameter values. pp.7.0.00 in which values greater than . an insignificant p-value is expected. (2006) have highlighted that for sample size greater than 250 (with a number of observed variables less than 12).1 Chi-Square (χ2).
7. and a model with perfect fit would produce an NFI of 1.7.7.
.00.00 with value more than ..00 being indicative of good fit.7. Values range from zero to 1.6 Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index (AGFI) An adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI. The index ranges between zero and 1. Bentler & Bonnet. the normed fit index (NFI.
3. CFI is an improved version of the normed fit index. Tanaka & Huba. it is known as one of the most widely used indices (Hair et al.Root mean square residual (RMR) is another badness-of-fit measure.00 with value closes to 1. The AGFI penalises more complex models and favours those with a minimum number of free paths. 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. with higher values indicating better fit. 1980) represents a ratio of the difference in the χ2 value for the fitted model and a null model divided by the χ2 value for the null model. Thus.90 is usually associated with a model that fits well.10 usually suggests a poor fit of the data for the model. an RMR greater than .7.4 Normed Fit Index (NFI) One of the original incremental measures of fit.00.7. 2006). Since the CFI is insensitive to model complexity.
3. but AGFI values are typically lower than GFI values in proportion to model complexity.5 Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) and Comparative Fit Index (CFI) The GFI can range from zero to 1. The index can range from zero to 1.
it takes into account the actual sample size and the difference that could be expected in another sample. Values range between zero and 1. 1982) uses the parsimony ratio to adjust the GFI in order to compare two models. The ECVI also takes into account the number of estimated parameters for a given model. It should be noted that.
3. in this case.. Mulaik & Brett. the model with the higher ECVI value is generally regarded as presenting a better fit. The parsimony goodness-of-fit index (PGFI.00.. p. designed specifically to provide information about which model among a competing set of models is best.
.7. Like other parsimony fit indices. based on the combination of fit and parsimony represented by the index. A parsimony fit measure is improved by a better fit and/or a simpler model which. 2006. 2006). it is most commonly used when comparing the performance of one model to another. considering its fit relative to its complexity.
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. “a PGFI taken alone is not a useful indicator of a single model’s fit.8 Parsimony Goodness-of-Fit Index (PGFI) A third class of measures is sometimes recognised as the parsimony indices. Although values range from zero to 1.7.00. 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. a PGFI value is meant only to be used in comparing it to another model’s PGFI value” (Hair et al.3. 1994). Browne & Cudeck.7 Expected Cross-Validation Index (ECVI) The expected cross-validation index (ECVI. and the model with the higher PGFI is considered preferable.7.7. 750). James. means a model with fewer estimated parameter paths (Hair et al. In such cases.
“It is conventional to speak of a distribution as leptokurtic if is more peaked than … the normal distribution. the larger frequencies being concentrated toward the high end of the variable and the smaller frequencies toward the low end.
Many parametric statistics assume that variables are distributed approximately normally and SPSS calculates values for skewness and kurtosis to assist in determing
. the distribution of test scores to the normal distribution. 1976).05.8 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 Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to assess whether there was a significant departure from normality in the distribution of variable scores. 1976.
Kurtosis refers to the flatness or peakedness of one distribution in relation to another.
3.9 Skewness and Kurtosis Skewness refers to the symmetry or asymmetry of a frequency distribution. which means that it falls between leptokurtic and platykurtic distributions” (Ferguson. If a distribution is assymetrical and the larger frequencies tend to be concentrated toward the low end of the variable and the smaller frequencies toward the high end. In this case.7. 37). The normal distribution is spoken of as mesokurtic. then it is possible to conclude the the data do not violate the normality assumption (Carver & Nash.7. p. If the opposite holds. it is said to be positively skewed. When p-values for the Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic are greater than our α=. in this case.3. 1956). and platykurtic if it is less peaked. It determines whether the scores in the sample can reasonably thought to have come from a population having the theoretical distribution (Siegel. the distribution is said to be negatively skewed (Ferguson. 2000).
1997). A commonly used guideline is that. Barrett & Morgan. 2005. the variable is at least approximately normal (Leech. Marcoulides & Hershberger.normality of variable distributions.
. if skewness and kurtosis less than ±1.
5% 57.4% 146 14. with a mean age of 20.6% 82 15. Then. Thirteen of the participants did not complete all the questionnaires and two participants completing questionnaires reported that they did not have driving licences.13 years (SD = 1.5% Ethnicity MalaysianChinese 229 51. with results of these tests reported in this chapter.CHAPTER 4
ANALYSIS OF THE DATA
This chapter presents the results of the research.6% 15.1.
Table 4.1 4.5% MalaysianIndian 64 14.1% 121 22. Thus 977 participants were included in the analysis. It begins with a discussion of reliability and validity tests of the instruments.5% 27.3% 8.9% 23.55). Gender and Ethnicity Participants were 992 undergraduate students at an English-language Malaysian
Description of the Samples Age. A contextual mediated model showing interrelationships between variables is introduced.1). The contextual mediated model was tested using (1) regression analysis (SPPS) and (2) structural equation modelling (LISREL). 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.
4.4% 333 62.1% 536 100% 54.6% 12.9% 14.4% 269 27.5% 6.9%
Total 441 100% 45.1% 562 57. descriptive statistics are presented and the results of hypothesis testing are reported.1% 34.1: Gender and Ethnicity of the Sample for Studies 1 and 2
Malay Gender Male Count % within Gender % of Total Count % within Gender % of Total Count % within Gender % of Total 148 33.9% 977 100% 100%
. Ages of participants ranged from 18 to 29 years.
In Study 1A. 302 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode of transportation to be the automobile comprised the sample.53. 301 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode of transportation to be the automobile comprised the sample.89 years (SD = 1. with a mean age of 20.1) showed that most of the drivers were female Malaysian-Chinese.01 years (SD = 1. with a mean age of 20. 122 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode of transportation to be the motorcycle comprised the sample.
In Study 1B.43 years (SD = 1.Female participants (approximately 55 per cent) slightly out-numbered males. followed by Malay (27. range from 18 to 25).35. A crosstabulation between gender and ethnicity (see Table 4.9 per cent).68.
. 252 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode of transportation to be the automobile comprised the sample. Malaysian-Chinese represented the highest number of participants (57. 149 taxicab drivers participated.5 per cent). range from 18 to 29).
In Study 3.
In Study 1C. Thus. range from 18 to 27). with a mean age of 19. but 16 were excluded from the sample due to language and comprehension difficulties or because they chose to withdraw from data collection before all instruments had been administered. with a mean age of 20.
In Study 2.5 per cent) and Malaysian-Indian (14.25 years (SD = 1. range of 18 to 26).
63 11. range from 23 to 73).9 2.2.89 20.3 11.19 S.68 1. Table 4.35 1.D. 2 and 3
Gender STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 3 N 301 302 252 122 133 Mean Age 20. SD = standard deviation
4.1.3% of the sample. Kuala Lumpur.5
.4% of the sample.2: Age.65.3).1 6.5 8.01 20. 1. they hailed from across the country (see table 4.43 19.2 7.
Descriptive data for each sample are provided in Table 4.53 1.2
Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 1 Although participants in Studies 1A.responses from 133 taxicab drivers were included in data analysis.
Table 4. Johor or Perak made up 53. 1B and 1C were all students at a single
Malaysian university. Participants from East Malaysia comprised 5. Gender and Ethnicity of Participants in Studies 1.7 4. The mean age was 43. Participants who had received their driving licenses in Selangor.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 % 12.65
Male Female Malay
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 .19 years (SD = 11.25 43.
5 14.9 0.0 7.7 3.4: 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. Participants from East Malaysia comprised 4. As the sample was
.2 3.5 1.4
Geographic Distribution of the Sample in Study 3 Participants in Study 3 were all professional taxicab operators who had been
licensed to drive their vehicles commercially within Kuala Lumpur.6 100
4.8 9. Participants who had received their driving licenses in Selangor.1 9.9% of the sample.6 2.9 7.8 11.
Geographic Distribution of the Sample in Study 2 Participants in Study 2 were all students at a single Malaysian university.4). Perak or Penang made up 50.1.1% of the sample.4 4.8 5.7 11.6 1.2 17.2 2.1.4 0.Penang Perak Perlis Sabah Sarawak Selangor Terengganu
67 102 6 27 19 147 31 855
7.0 10. but
again they held licenses from various states (see table 4.
This statistic reflects the consistency of respondents’ answers compared to all the items in a measure (Sekaran. reliability was measured using Cronbach’s coefficient alpha.
4. the higher is the internal consistency of the measure. 2000). Neuman (2003) defined reliability is defined as “dependability or consistency” and further explained that reliability suggests that the same event is repeated or recurs under identical or very similar conditions. A Cronbach’s Alpha of .2 4.70 or greater is generally considered acceptable (Nunnally.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.
.intended to be representative of Kuala Lumpur taxicab drivers. Sekaran (2000) offered a similar definition in which the reliability of a measure indicates the stability and consistency with which the instrument measures a concept and helps to assess the “goodness” of the measure.5).
In the present research. 1978).2. 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. no attempt was made to determine the geographic location in which drivers had originally received noncommercial drivers’ licenses.
.718 .715 .810 .881
α .730 .715 .783 .904 .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
.781 .906 . of Item α
Study 2 (N=122) Motorcycle Drivers
Study 3 (N=133) Taxicab Drivers α .726 Not Applicable Not Applicable
α .735 .747 .737 .714 .827 .701 .702 .808 .798 .811 .783 .774 .887 .830 .740 .727 .Table 4.742 .734 .824 .720 .733 .738 .772
α .782 .739 .727 .707 .754 .768
.890 .784 .817 .741 .720 .5: Summary of Internal Reliability Coefficient Results
Study 1A (N=301) Study 1B (N=302) Automobile Drivers
Study 1C (N=252)
No.756 .711 .808 .740 .910 .782 .788 .786 .703 .
4. In Study 3.806 . 1985).903 .811 .808 Study 2 .08 to .807 Study 1B . The results of parallel-form
reliability for the BIT instrument in different studies are shown in Table 4. RMSEA values less than .929 .2
Parallel-Form Reliability In the case of the BIT scale.857 . 1998). 1998).184.108.40.206 indicate a mediocre fit.876 . only Form A was used. we may be fairly certain that the measures are reasonably reliable.10 indicate poor fit (MacCallum et al.6: Parallel-Form Reliability for Form A and Form B (BIT)
Form A & Form B BIT Usurpation of right-of way Freeway Urgency Externally-Focused Frustration Destination-Activity Orientation Study 1A .804 . 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. 2002) was used to establish evidence of construct validity for various measures.
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. values ranging from . Byrne. more than . with minimal error variance caused by wording.
Table 4. with unknown but optimally chosen parameter values.3
Validity Test Results In the present research. The root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) index measures the error of approximation in the population and determines whether the model.953 .916 . confirmatory factor analyses using LISREL (Jöreskog &
Sörbom. ordering or other test construction factors” (p.804 Study 1C . it was also possible to measure reliability as a
coefficient of correlation between Form A and Form B (Synodinos &Papacostas. 205). 1998).05 indicate good fit.804 . depending on which is used (Byrne. fits the population correlation matrix or covariance matrix.801 .80 or above).800 .2.803 .807 .80.958 . Sekaran (2003) notes that “if two comparable forms are highly correlated (.805 . 1998.
00 1.92 1.97 1.000 .3.000 .99
.98 . drivers’ behaviour in traffic was measured by the four component factors of the BIT scale: usurpation of right-of-way.00.98 1.1 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the BIT Scale In the present research.99
Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation.00 1.00 . it is possible to have negative GFI.100. RMSEA values in each case were less than .077 .00 . although the GFI index ranges from zero to 1.90.00 1.00 1.054
.00 1.91 . the higher the goodness-of-fit).99 .024
.96 .7.98 .97 .92 . A third statistic.00 (the closer to 1.99
.91 .061 .7: Validity of BIT scales – Summary of Confirmatory Factor Analyses Study 1A
Behaviour In Traffic (BIT) Usurpation of right-of-way Freeway Urgency Externally-Focused Frustration Destination-Activity Orientation
4.00 1.00 .000 . If the value of CFI exceeds . parameter values for all four of these factors were within acceptable ranges.00 . Table 4.96 .000 .00 1.000 .074 . the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) is estimated to indicate whether complete covariation in the data is achieved.098 . CFI= Comparative Fit Index
.96 1.90.00 1.000 .00
Behaviour In Traffic (BIT) Usurpation of right-of-way Freeway Urgency Externally-Focused Frustration Destination-Activity Orientation
.96 . externally-focused frustration.048 .92 .00 1. indicating good fits. and destination-activity orientation. This reflects that the model fits worse than no model at all. it is generally considered an acceptable fit to the data (Bentler.097
. 1992). As shown in Table 4.097 . freeway urgency. GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index.95 1.Jöreskog and Sörbom (1993) reported that.98 1.97 1.047 .070 . and both GFI and CFI were more than .2.99
4.95 .99 . and both GFI and CFI were more than .058 . CFA revealed that parameter values for I.8: Validity of the Levenson Locus of Control Scale – Summary of Confirmatory Factor Analysis Study 1A
Locus of Control Internality Externality (Chance) Externality (Powerful-Other)
. GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index.030 .98
Locus of Control Internality Externality (Chance) Externality (Powerful-Other)
.90.100. verbal aggression (VER).93 .92 .091
.93 .2.085 .3.96
. Each component of the locus of control was measured separately.96 .97 .91 . anger (ANG).97
.98 .8.98 .92 .3.91 .081 . hostility (HOS) and indirect aggression
.99 . C and P scales were all within acceptable ranges.073
.085 .95 .95
1.3 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the AQ Scale The AQ was used to measure driver aggression in Study 1B and 1C (with automobile drivers sampled from a student population) and in Study 3 (with taxicab drivers).92
. RMSEA values were less than .2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Levenson Locus of Control Scale Locus of control was measured across three dimensions: internality (I).071 .059 .96 .000 .93 . under the assumption that locus of control is a multidimensional phenomenon.98 .052
Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation.93
. Five component factors of aggression were measured: physical aggression (PHY).93 .083 .93 .081 . indicating good fits (See Table 4. CFI= Comparative Fit Index
4. externality-chance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P).
. CFA revealed that parameter values for all five aggression subscales were within acceptable ranges.93
.(IND).92 . CFI= Comparative Fit Index
.97 . Three classes of hostile automatic thoughts were measured: physical aggression.9: Validity of the AQ scales – Summary of Confirmatory Factor Analysis Study 1B
Aggression (AQ) Physical Aggression Verbal Aggression Anger Hostility Indirect Aggression
.081 .070 .9).10: Summary of LISREL Results on Validity for HAT (Study 1C)
RMSEA Hostile Automatic Thought (HAT) Physical Aggression Derogation of Others Revenge GFI CFI
.098 .090 . CFI= Comparative Fit Index
4.94 .100.025 .100.98 .98
.058 .098 .055 . derogation of others and revenge.4 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the HAT Scale The HAT was only used in Study 1C (with automobile drivers sampled from a student population).96
. and both GFI and CFI were more than . RMSEA values were less than .98 .94 .92 .089 . GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index.2.97 .97
Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation. GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index.92 . RMSEA values were less than .98 .3.97 .96
Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation.98 .083
.97 .95 .95 .90.096 .98 .97 .070 .98 .96 .081 .088
.96 .97 .047 .98 .99 .97 .98 .98 . A total aggression score was arrived at by summing the five subscale scores.90. and both GFI and CFI were more than .
Table 4.97 . CFA revealed that parameter values for all three measurement scales were within acceptable ranges.98 . indicating good fit (see Table 4. indicating good fits (See Table 4.
256 (.280) -. 2005.140) .140) -.085) 1.203(.11 indicates that variable distribution fell within these limits.179(.241(.204(.280) -.511(.351 (. 1997).280) -.805(.195 (.278(.353(.022 (.099) 1.140) .099(.140) .140) .140) -. Skewness and kurtosis values of ± 1 are acceptable (Leech et al.280) .239 (.226 (.080(.656(.140) .120) 1.192(.020 (.183) 1.085) 1.297(.280) .379(.280) .140) .332 (.126(.280) .719(. Skewness and Kurtosis Data were studied to determine whether they were normally distributed and
therefore capable of satisfying parametric assumptions.091) 1.186) 1.05).099(.190) 1.126(.280) -.057) 1.280) -.034 (.219 (.107 (.099) 1.356 (.064) 1.146(.280) -.188(.403(.280) .323 (.105 (.064(. values for the Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic were non-significant (p>.453(.280) .875(.140)
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
.280) .331(.428) .
Normality can also be assessed by examining sknewness and kurtosis values (Hair et al.140) -.091(.140) -.091(.3
Normality. In all cases.297(.962 (.140) -.246(.082 (.107) 1. Table 4.192) 1.106) 1.094 (.140) .410(. but with a non-signficant platykurtic tendency for the locus of control data.560(.920(.183) 1.280) -.064(. Kurtosis and Skewness Statistics
KolmogorovSmirnov Z (Significance Level) Skewness Kurtosis Statistic Statistic (Standard (Standard Error) Error)
Internality Externality (Chance) Externality (Powerful Other) Hopelessness BIT Usurpation right-of-way Freeway Urgency Externally Focused Frustration Destination-activity Orientation 1.582(.140) -.140) -. 2006).280) .280) -.037(.280) .085 (.069) 1.102) 1.280) -.140) -. Table 4.280) .260) ..191) 1.4.179(..140) .297 (.154(.140) -. Marcoulides & Hershberger.140) .280) .140) -.408(.560(.11: Normality Tests.409(.278(.010 (.409(.140) -.280) . indicating that the distribution of scores did not depart from normality.085 (.052) 1.
414(.297 (.435) -.435) -.306) -.986 (.435) -.852(.210) .100) .156(.715(.210) .435) -.160 (.001 (.370(.187) 1.366(.153) .110 (.142(.279 (.223 (.186(.101) 1.244(.911 (305) 1.219) .210) -.102) .099) 1.306) .219) .321) 1.210)
Internality Externality (Chance) Externality (Powerful Other) Hopelessness BIT Usurpation right-of-way Freeway Urgency Externally Focused Frustration Destination-activity Orientation
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
.306) .362(.259) .053(.007(.327 (.467(.435) .940(.153) -.417) .210) -.006(.567(.064) 1.104) 1.195 (.214) 1.247) .153) .052) 1.919 (.306) .392(.719(.011 (.417) -.324(.469) 1.106 (.510) 1.153) -.497(.053(.435) -.537(.135) 1.210) -.417) -.276(.153) .210) .270) 1.805 (.153) .847 (.359 (.423(.306) -.915(.267) .973(306) .138(.022 (.210) .978(.128) .979(.417) -.417) -.210) .153) 983(.219) -.338 (.120(.024 (.Table 4.426) .003 (.022 (.219) .306) -.359 (.153) .209(.153) .913(.567(.293 (.219) -.629(.153) .994(.062(.435) -.147(.264) .884(.360) .247) 1.266 (.153) .503(.713(.098) 1.478(.153) .128 (.366) 1.959 (.210) .952(.300(.306) -.052) 1.306) .113 (.360) -.154) -.306) .219) .219) -.219) .098) 1.236(.256(.417) .360) .360) .153) .048(.812(.417) .051) .822 (.962(.799(.317) 1.051) 1.198(.417) -.106(.030(.210) .354 (.271(.640(.451(.138) 1.11 (continued)
KolmogorovSmirnov Z (Significance Level)
Kurtosis Statistic (Standard Error)
Skewness Statistic (Standard Error)
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 1.277(.088 (.972(.463(.962 (.130(.070 (.024 (.417) -.131(.306) -.157) .841(.540(.417) -.807 (.533) .153) .210) .417) -.295(.106(.159(.153) .443(.948(.084) 1.417) .681(.276 (.265) 1.913 (.501(.375) 1.852(.435) -.306) -.147(.057) 1.
Table 4. (2) injuries severe enough to require out-patient treatment at a medical clinic (see Table 4.12: Crash and Injury Occurrence
OUTCOME VARIABLES STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 3 N 301 302 252 122 133 Number of Participants’ Reported Crash 181 255 174 157 22 Vehicle Damage a 84 142 102 45 17 Out-patient Treatment b 68 75 47 58 3 Hospital Admission c 29 38 25 54 2
More than half of the automobile drivers sampled in Studies 1A. with 44. column b).12.
. (3) injuries requiring hospitalisation (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. column c).3 per cent being hospitalised. Male and female automobile drivers reported involvement in one crash with almost the same frequency. 1B and 1C selfreported that they had been involved in at least one motor vehicle crash over the preceding year (see Table 4. 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. column a). For motorcycle drivers. injury occurrence was much higher. However. if so.12.12. whether the accident had resulted in (1) no injuries or injuries insufficiently severe to seek medical attention (see Table 4.4. males were more than twice as likely to report involvement in two or three automobile crashes.
Gender and Ethnicity in Study 1 (N=855)
Automobile Drivers Ethnicity No.
Table 4.13: Crash Occurrence Frequency. involved in one crash Total Ethnicity No. involved in three crashes Total Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Gender Male Female 80 57 119 103 33 44 232 204 24 9 19 7 7 2 50 18 12 5 9 3 1 2 22 10 Total 137 222 77 436 33 26 9 68 17 12 3 32
More than half of the motorcycle drivers sampled in Study 2 reported that they had been involved in at least one motor vehicle crash over the preceding year (see Table 4. 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 two crashes Total Ethnicity No. involved in one crash Total Ethnicity No. involved in two crash Total Ethnicity No.14) Regardless of ethnic background.Table 4. involved in three crashes Total Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Gender Male Female 20 8 25 13 16 1 61 22 17 4 15 4 11 0 43 8 10 1 6 1 3 0 19 2 Total 28 38 17 83 21 19 11 51 11 7 3 21
.14: Crash Occurrence Frequency.
5. externally-focused frustration.
Distal and Proximal Variable Data Results of Study 1 Study 1A. Most of these correlations were significant (p<. All distal and proximal variables were positively correlated except I which was negatively corrected with other variables. and destination-activity orientation. However. it was not correlated with injury occurrence. All distal and proximal variables were positively correlated except internality (I) which was negatively corrected with other variables. Hopelessness (BHS) was the only independent variable that was not
significantly correlated with crash occurrence and injury occurrence. Table 4. crash occurrence and crash injury.
Table 4.16 shows means. BHS was not significantly correlated with verbal
aggression (VER). I was significantly correlated with all variables except with VER and hostility. VER was not correlated with the total score for behaviour in traffic (BIT) nor with any of the BIT subscales: usurpation of right-of-way. All these correlations were significant (p<.
. All distal and proximal variables were positively correlated except I which was negatively corrected with other variables.
Table 4. proximal and outcome variables within the sample of automobile drivers. standard deviations and relationships
between distal. freeway urgency.
Study 1B. Also. proximal and outcome variables within the sample of automobile drivers. proximal and outcome variables within the sample of automobile drivers. in Study 1B.5 4.05). 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.17 shows means. Although VER was significantly correlated with crash occurrence.05). Most of these correlations were significant (p<. standard deviations and relationships
between distal.4. standard deviations and relationships
between distal.15 shows means.05).
04 26.376** . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
9.345** 1 -.381** .01 level (2-tailed)
.58 .662** 1 .247** .96 19.471** .97 43.280** .3455 .201** .476 .64 7.544** -.57 4.513** .942** 1 .147* -.371** .516** 1 -.246** .76 3.562** -.231** .316** .D.15: Means.388** .553** -.2691
6.396** .00 165.818** 1 .482** .376** .405** .239** .211** .340** .901** .202** .44 4.69 24.027 1 .191** .52 34.Table 4.129*
.22 3.749** .434** .218** .05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .23 2.339** .209** 1 .391** -.45 6.152** .186** .804** .716** .278** .331** 1
* Correlation is significant at .625** .566**
-.147* .5 5.036 .442
1 -.155** .88 7.08 2.435** .533** .342** -. 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.78 .416**
1 .306** .
1 -.355** .5695 .55 9 21.847** .462** .213** .41 3.602**
.91 15 27.148* .430** .380** .3079 .240** .338** .236** .355** .65 Proximal Variables1 11 170.334** .407** 1 -.067 -.540** .84 5.584** -.816** .213** .509** .531** .523** .376** .9 13 46.05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .279** .393** .335** .45 5 87.Table 4.254** .82 7 13.97 Outcome Variables2 16 .521** .071 .272** .366** .53 19.444** .028 -.414** .271** .16: Means.66 3.342** .039 .028 .779** 1 -.358** .48 5.25 8 18.762** .555** .06 3 2.310** .162** .50 5.278** 1 -.150** .103 -.516** .341** .586** .434** .60 10 16.294** 1 .9 12 71.401** .268** .489**.200** .331** .669** 1 -.461** .448** .363** .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 .515** .440**.9 28.85 9.816** .491** .343** .697** 1 .520** .69 8.140* .099 .347** 1 -.003 .97 4 4. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1B (n=302)
Mean S.225** .167** .D.964** 1 .587** 1 -.380** .369** .213** .00 14 19.418** .178** .400** .386** .5 6 17.298** .56 2 4.48 3.518** .491** .550** .355** .382** 1 -.481** .195** .378** .172** .408** .051 .84 7.312** 1 -.353** .01 level (2-tailed)
.372** .254** .275** .157** .22 4.147** .921** .403** .013
.324** .343** .172** .176* .411** .542** .496** .505** .463** .331** .43 12.319** .089 -.452** .254** .514** .286* .731** .103 -.173* .443** .86 6.445** .763** .842** 1 .153** .159 -.855** .337** . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Distal Variables1 1 9.688**.14 4.276** .4960 17 .438** 1 .
166** .17 -.221** .306** .31 3.296** .323** .181** .804** .292** .137* .747** .91 -.308** .192**.402** .076 .150* .423** .224**.218** .264** .307**.016 .296** .235** .033 .222** .745** 1 7 13.277** .183** .70 8.349** 1 16 67.377** .292** .038 .545** .368** .259** .448** .615** .304** .502** .259** .549** 1 Proximal Variables1 15 161.095 .320** .378** .235** .38 5.305** .189** .270** .229** .531** 1 10 16.191** 1 3 .250** .191** .340** .263** .385** .265** 1 19 25.109 .241** .428** .261** .310** .366** .294** .343** .270** .412** .183** .241** .313** .49 6. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Distal Variables1 1 10.275** .80 17.838** .230 .00 -.003 .18 -.296** .856** 1 17 43.277** 1 8 19.298** .592** .095 .588** 1 14 20.05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .17: Means.70 3.78 8.501 .516 .456** .227** .364** .202** .224** .109 .86 -.230** .278** .254** .150* .199**.258** .268**.291** .151* .03 5.725** .246** .251** .185** .483** .11 12.158** .383** .446** .252** .120 .67 7.379** .481** .367** .42 3.281** .401** .338** .7 -.370** .345** .895** 1 13 26.373** .219** .D.288** .364**.518** .277**.392** .Table 4.106 .101**.9 -.079 1 Outcome Variables2 20 .202** .306** .98 4.278** .051 .199** .210**.271** .01 level (2-tailed)
.293** .85 19.203** .082 .162**.324** .422 -.451** .413** .302** .119* 1 21 .254** .357** .166** .148** .209** .97 -.526** .422** 1 9 22.057 .69 -.89 5.141* .193**.8 -.216** .230** .402** .228** .735** .228** .354** 1 5 88.069 .862** .131* .081 .534** 1 18 19.424** 1 12 18.52 7.275** .103** .31 -.387** .434** .311** .81 -.314** .183** .245** .454** .348** 1 6 16.530** 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 .130** .189** .9 -.139** .484** .70 1 2 4.174** .7 28.476** .226** .355** .210** .304** .36 -.506** .281** .196** .465** .286** .58 9.151* .110 .37 6.05 -.-181** .395** 1 11 65.343** .508** . Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1C (n=252)
Mean S.64 -.186** .221** .565** .530** .03 -.167** .404** .356** .390** .342** .192** .17 -.212** .81 5.075 .641** 1 4 4.749** .178** .
all BIT subscales.18 shows means.
proximal and outcome variables within the sample of motorcycle drivers in Study 2.
Results of Study 2 Table 4. and destination-activity orientation. The BIT subscale measuring destinationactivity orientation was significantly correlated to crash occurrence but not to injury occurrence. it was not correlated with crash occurrence or with crash injury. All distal and proximal variables were positively correlated except internality (I) which was negatively corrected with the BIT total score. 1B and 1C.BHS was significantly correlated to the total BIT score and to BIT subscales: usurpation of right-of-way.5. BHS was significantly correlated with total BIT score and with all of the BIT subscales. but it was not correlated with crash occurrence or injury occurrence.
. externally-focused frustration. standard deviations and relationships between distal. Of these negative the BIT subscales measuring freeway urgency and externally-focused frustration were significant. crash occurrence and injury occurrence. freeway urgency.
Similar to observed results in study 1A. Hostility (HOS) was significantly correlated with all other variables except with crash occurrence and crash injury.
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.167 .240** .758** 1 .317** .291** .233** .251** .226** .409** .212* .325** .349** .111 -.14 27.795** 1
* Correlation is significant at .290** .D.072 .48 5.367** .30 .750** .Table 4.55 175.562** 1 .614** .200* -.383** .66 1.081 8.06 20.4966
1 .6803 .413** 1 .880 .630** .535**
.259** .428** .18: Means.232** .165
.028 1 .5738
8.376** .371** -.182* -.219** .580** 1 .50 73.043 .876** .500** .66 5.314** .264** .179 7.025 -.01 level (2-tailed)
.192* -.413** .356** .323 23.415** .313** 1 .621 3.374** .941** 1 .035 3.139 .485 11.05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .201* .76 48.4683 .122 7.269** .418** .917 3.334** .150 -.183*
1 . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
However.3 Results of Study 3 Table 4. standard deviations and relationships between distal. Externality-chance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P) scores were significantly and positively correlated with crash occurrence and injury occurrence. AQ subscales were significantly and positively correlated with each other. but remaining I correlations with BIT and AQ subscales did not achieve significance. While physical aggression (PHY) and hostility (HOS) were significantly correlated with crash occurrence and injury occurrence. 1C and 2. correlations between I and distal.
As indicated in Table 4.4. In general. proximal and outcome variables within the sample of taxicab drivers in Study 3. significant negative correlations were observed between the internality (I) variable and with physical aggression (PHY) subscale scores on the AQ and with BIT total scores.5. Differing from Studies 1A. proximal or outcome variables in Study 3 were weaker than those observed in Studies 1 and 2.19. nor a weak negative correlation between I and P achieved significance. 1B. verbal aggression (VER) and anger (ANG) were significantly correlated only with crash occurrence.19 shows means.
. neither an observed weak positive correlation between I and C. BIT total scores had a significant positive correlation with crash occurrence but not with injury occurrence. In this study.
42 66.193* -.12 4.05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .204* .067 .853** .236** .588** 1 .148* .528** 1 .864** 1 .117 .32
7.235** .276** .114 .030 .45 19.19: Means.0301 .816** .01 level (2-tailed)
.561** 1 .070 -.721** .646** .418** .194* .658** .35 11.213** .807** .88
1 .240** .103 .261** .171
1 . Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 3 (n=133)
Mean S.371** .74 15.3 6.275** .147** .10 1.109 -.292** .039 .11 15.020 .07 8.82 11.173* .092** .120 .213** .65 75.99 10.240** .117 .032
1 .121 .4 5.17 20.182* -.15 32.152 .150** .071 .128 .072 -.576** .401** -.872** .018 -.060 .095 .091 .151 -.54 11.149 .443**
1 . 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
12.84 2.749** .167** .166 .06 2.373** .234** .271** .245** .05 3.060 -.023 .218* .225** .82 5.32 3.235** .200* .156 .021
* Correlation is significant at .51 3.072 .149 .121 .604** .054 .028 .061 .117 .643** .091 -.263** .112 -.D.106 .Table 4.025 -.165 .156 .622** .229** .013
.2000 .246** .286*
1 .180** .023 -.08 15.254**
-.13 3.268** .153**
1 .521** .116 .618** 1 .324** .378** 1 .257** .172** .289** 1 .636** .161 -.141 .338** 1 .197* .048 .222* .454** .255** .040 .178** .43 8.
but not destination-activity orientation.01 and Study 3: B=.117. analyses were conducted to test whether BIT scores influenced crash
occurrence. p<.315. p<.6
Hypothesis Testing This section reports the results of analyses to test the hypotheses formulated in
chapter 3 (see Table 3.
When the relationships between the four component factors of the BIT scale and the likelihood of a crash outcome were tested. p<. p<. were significantly related to crash occurrence (see Table 4. p<. p<.1). that behaviour in traffic influences crash occurrence.01 B=.063.01 B=.041.6.238. p<. These results supported H1. Study 2: B=. p<. results from the logistic regression analyses in all studies indicated strong relationships between total BIT scores and the likelihood of a motor vehicle crash occurrence (Study 1A: B=. These results supported H1.01 B=. For the destination-activity factor.080. Table 4.01). p<.034. freeway urgency. While controlling driver experience and driving frequency.01. p<.229.01 Study 3 B=.088 p<. p<.172.01 B=.095.4 was not supported. Study 1C: B=.278.095.090.20).120.135.01 Not Significant Study 2 B=.01.1. results of logistic regression analyses indicated that usurpation of right-of way.01 B=. Study 1B: B=.01 B=.048. H1. p<. p<.063. p<.01 B=. p<.
4.01 B=.01 B=.01 B=.102. p<.01 Study 1C B=.1. p<. p<.1.180.1
Hypothesis 1: Behaviour in Traffic Influences Motor Vehicle Crash Outcomes First.202.146.4. p<.125. p<.01 B=.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=.3 inclusive.04. p<.01 B=. and externally-focused frustration. p<. p<.1 through H1.1.01.01 B=.01
.01 Study 1B B=.01 B=.
Study 1B: B=. p<.
When the relationships between the likelihood of injury occurrence and the four component factors of the BIT scale were tested.158. These results supported H1. 1B and 1C (see Table 4.
.01 B=.01 B=. When driver experience and travel frequency were controlled.01 B=.01).2.01 Study 3 Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant
4.22.074.059.24. p<.05 Study 1B B=.140.054.23 and Table 4.21).091. p<.033 p<.01.01 B=. p<.01 Study 1C B=.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.035.01 B=. p<.035. p<. 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=.075 p<.01.118.087.01 B=.01 B=. logistic regression analyses indicated that usurpation of right-of way. Table 4. p<. externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation were significantly related to traffic crash injury in all studies except Study 3 (See Table 4.01 B=. p<.038. p<. that behaviour in traffic would influence injury occurrence.069.095. p<.01 B=.Behaviour in traffic also influenced injury occurrence in all studies except Study 3. p<.6.21: 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=.01 Not Significant Study 2 B=. p<. Study 1C: B=. p<. p<. p<.01 B=.120. Table 4.064.01 B=. p<.01 and Study 2: B=. freeway urgency.165. p<.019. respectively).
15 161.35 24. N M SD F
221 60 19 2
64 110 41 17 69
173.29 21.41 167.03
25. * p<.184**
.32 147.82 168.30 22.01 N M SD F
186 88 18 9
161.60 185.Table 4.50
28.92 157.22: 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<.074*
110 81 37 45 29
181.77 165.98 33.73 170.64
4.05.56 175.35 33.25
5.88 28.98 171.06 19.43 20.89
21.44 178.82 33.52 25.31 161.48 171.23: 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<.01.35 155.32 28.68 26.600**
3.25 25.64 26.
05) and about once every two weeks (p<.14 15.12 161.73 24. Drivers who travelled about
once or twice a week had significantly higher total BIT when compared to those who almost never travelled (p<.
.25). about once every two weeks (p<.00 14. In Study 1C.01). In Study 1B.05).06
8. 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<. 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<.Table 4.39 19. the effect of travel frequency on total BIT score was significant.61 165.12 154. post hoc analyses indicated that drivers with 3 years or less of licensed driving experience had significantly lower total BIT scores when compared with drivers that had 3 years experience but less than 5 years of licensed driving experience (p<.01).53 17.01).060**
In Study 1A.77 16.345*
67 69 33 45 38
In Study 2.00
3.05). On the other hand.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<.73 157. Drivers who travelled everyday had significantly higher total BIT scores when compared to those who almost never travelled (p<.01). * p<.05.01). and those who almost never travelled (p<.81 167.88 167.01 14. N M SD F
187 46 16 3
159. motorcycle drivers’ experience was not significantly related to total BIT scores (see Table 4.06 160.29
2.920 (N. It was found that the driver experience was statistically related to total BIT score (see Table 4.33 78.528**
In Study 3.437 (N.381 10.05.52 172.80 22.26: 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<.37 9.81 175.05. taxicab driver experience was not statistically related to total BIT score.31 78.
Table 4. * p<.55 73.09 15.01.27 14.316
1. both driver experience and taxicab experience were tested. that drivers’ demographic characteristics would significantly influence total BIT scores was supported in studies of automobile drivers. the difference in means of total BIT scores among the drivers in Study 3 was not statistically significant regardless of their years of experience as taxicab drivers.94 20.74 77.S.753*
38 48 27 20
77.Table 4.81 161. * p<.47
5.58 188. Not significant N M SD F
3 16 23 91
3.89 20.859 11.25: 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<.26 10. In other words.50
24.68 20.50 184.55
52 32 7 17 14
182.01.97 8.82 162.26). N. it is concluded that Hypothesis 2.60 72.65 73. N.S)
Therefore. the direction of the difference was opposite to what had
. However. Not significant N M SD F
77 31 10 4
1B. ANOVA indicated that mean total BIT scores in Studies 1A.
ethnicity and age – were investigated. in that driver experience significantly influenced total BIT score but taxicab experience had no statistically significant effect.
4. though. where male automobile and motorcycle drivers scored significantly higher than female drivers. only H2.27). Contrary to the subhypothesis.6.1 and H2. only H2. In Study 2.
Hypothesis 2 was partially supported in the study of motorcycle drivers. In Study 3.1 was confirmed. the observed effect was opposite to what had been predicted by H2. driver experience and travel frequency actually increased total BIT scores. 1C and 2 differed between different ethnic groups (see Table 4.2. 1B. Contrary to the two sub-hypotheses. In Studies 1A. the lower was the total BIT score. For ethnicity. t-tests indicated that mean total BIT scores differed significantly between male and female participants. Again.been predicted by H2.3
Hypothesis 3: Demographic Variables Influence Behaviour in Traffic The direct effects on total BIT scores of three demographic variables – gender. indicated no significant differences in mean total BIT scores. the longer the taxicab operator had been driving. however. the direction of the effect was consistent with the hypothesised relationship between driver experience and total BIT score. ANOVA results for age.2. travel frequency actually increased total BIT scores.
. In this case.
Hypothesis 2 was partially supported in the study of taxicab drivers.2 was supported in that travel frequency significantly influenced total BIT score but driver experience had no statistically significant effect. 1C and 2.
t(250) = 2.01).01 F=9.6. N. N.01 F=1. H3.05 F=4. results showed that gender had no influence on the three dimensions of locus of control: Internality (I).
Therefore.68.01 F=2.98. and Externality-Powerful-Others (P). it was found that female
automobile drivers scored significantly higher levels on the I dimension when compared to male automobile drivers.S
Not Applicable F=3.S.27: Effects of Demographic Factors on total BIT Scores
Study 1A Gender Ethnicity Age
t=2. In all studies. In Study 1A and Study 2.44. p<. p<.
t=3.05).99.00.01 F=.53. In Study 3. Malaysian-Indian taxicab drivers had significantly lower total BIT scores than either Malaysian-Chinese taxicab drivers (p<.3 was not supported.5220.127.116.11 was confirmed. in that gender and ethnicity significantly influenced total BIT scores.S.9. H3. 1C and Study 2. age had no statistically significant direct effect on total BIT scores. p<. however. Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers scored significantly higher total BIT scores than Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers (p<. p<. post hoc analyses indicated that MalaysianChinese automobile drivers and motorcyclists scored significantly lower total BIT scores than either Malaysian-Indian or Malay drivers (p<. p<. in that ethnicity significantly influenced total BIT scores. In Study 1B.2 were confirmed.
Note: Not significant
In Study 1A. N.Table 4. p<. N. male
. In Study 1B.S. p<. In Study 1C.01 F=1. p<. it is concluded that Hypothesis 3 was partially supported in studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers.01 F=8.74.62. so the null hypothesis could not be rejected and H3.4
Hypothesis 4: Demographic Variables Influence Locus of Control The direct effects of the same three demographic variables on locus of control
were also investigated. p<. p<. For taxicab drivers studied in Study 3. N.56.01 F=19.S. Externality-Chance (C).1 and H3.
490. 249) = 3. 299) = 5. ethnic group differences were significant only with respect to I subscale scores. 1C.527. t(299) = 2.05 and p<.
. 298) = 6. Consistent with findings in Study 1A.05) and Malaysian-Indian drivers scored significantly higher on the P dimension than did drivers in all other ethnic groups (p<.
In Study 2. p<.05 respectively. In Study 1C.01 respectively). Post hoc analysis showed that MalaysianIndian automobile drivers scored significantly higher than did Malaysian-Chinese drivers (p<.
For Studies 1A. ethnic group differences were significant only with respect to P subscale scores.476.01 respectively.01). post hoc analyses showed that Malaysian-Indian drivers scored significantly higher on the C and P dimensions than did Malaysian-Chinese drivers (p<.01). 298) = 3.05.566. F(2. Malaysian-Indian drivers had significantly higher scores on the C dimension than did Malay drivers (p<. p<. F(2. F(2. ethnic group differences were significant only with respect to mean C and P subscale scores. Post hoc analyses indicated that Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers had significantly lower I scores than did either Malaysian-Chinese or Malay drivers (p<.05. p<.370.05). all ethnic groups had significantly different mean I.
In Study 1B.462. 2 and 3 the age variable had no significant direct effects on any of the three dimensions of locus of control.05 respectively. p<. E and P scores. 1B. p<.941. 119) = 5. Post hoc analyses showed that Malaysian-Indian motorcycle drivers scored significantly lower than all other ethnicity groups on the I dimension (p<.automobile and motorcycle drivers scored significantly higher on the P dimension than did female automobile and motorcycle drivers. 298) = 3. F(2.
In Study 1A. p<. 299) = 3. t(120) = 2.041.05 and F(2.05).01. p<. p<.05 and F(2. F(2.503.
3.2 and H4.6.
. that gender and ethnicity influence hopelessness. ethnicity and age on hopelessness were investigated. H4.
Hypothesis 5: Demographic Variables Influence Hopelessness The direct effects of gender.
Independent sample t-tests on data from Studies 1A. 1B and 1C found no significant differences in mean scores of hopelessness (BHS) between male and female automobile drivers.3. H4. Malay motorcycle drivers had a significantly higher BHS score when compared to Malaysian-Chinese motorcycle drivers (p<.3 were not supported. it was observed that age had no significant effect on any of internality.2. so H4. were supported. that age influences hopelessness. in Study 2. Age was found to have no influence on BHS scores with the sample of motorcycle drivers in Study 2.079.3 were supported. Hypothesis 4 was partially supported in studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers. that ethnicity significantly influenced internality.1 and H5.2.3 was supported. H5. In Study 1. Hypothesis 5 was not supported with respect to automobile drivers in Study 1. 1B or 1C.3. externality-chance and externality-powerfulothers. p<.2 and H18.104.22.168.Therefore. it was found that the gender and ethnicity of motorcycle drivers did have a significant direct effect on hopelessness.
Therefore.01). Female motorcycle drivers scored significantly lower than male motorcycle drivers.3. Hypothesis 5 was partially supported in Study 2 with the sample of motorcycle drivers.2. H4. externality-chance and externality-powerful-others. based on the results of t-tests and ANOVA.
4. in that gender was observed to significantly influence the externalitypowerful-others scores. H4. In Studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers. ANOVA results found no significant differences in mean BHS scores between ethnic groups or different age groups among automobile drivers in Studies 1A.05. was not supported in either Study 1 or Study 2. t(120) = 2. In addition.
p<. In Study 2. internality (I) had a significant negative effect on hopelessness
(BHS) (B = -.28). In Study 1B. H6. but C and P had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = . I was found to have a significant negative effect on BHS scores (B = -.6.1. was not supported.01.6. H6. it is concluded that Hypothesis 6 was supported in studies of automobile drivers. H6.254.1.01.2 and H6.
Therefore. respectively). H6. that the three locus of control dimensions
influence hopelessness.290. p<. that internality would influence hopelessness. p<.01 and B = .254. p<. were supported.371. p<.
.01 and B = . were supported. p<. p<.239. p<. respectively). with the sample of motorcycle drivers.2 and H6. In Study 1C.
Hypothesis 6 was partially supported in Study 2.01 respectively).01 and (B = .3.01.4. with higher levels of internality related to lower levels of hopelessness and higher levels of both externality dimensions associated with higher hopelessness.342. respectively).6
Hypothesis 6: Locus of Control Influences Hopelessness In Study 1A.01) but C and P had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = .7
Hypothesis 7: Hopelessness Influences Behaviour in Traffic In studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers. that externality-chance and externality-powerful-others would influence hopelessness. I had a significant negative effect on BHS scores (B = -.186.01) but C and P had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = .01) but externality-chance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P) had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = . p<.312.
4. 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 4.306.3.341. p<.01 and B = . no significant effects were observed between I and BHS scores in the sample of motorcycle drivers.354. p<.
153. p<. H7.01).01).S. that hopelessness would have a significant positive influence on total BIT scores. B=. p<.Table 4. p<. p<.232. the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = .349.317.2. In Study 2.01 Study 1B B=.
Therefore.05).153.247. the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = .3 and H7. p<.05 Study 2 B=. p<. p<. externally-focused frustration (B = . p<.254. the higher the hopelessness scores. p<. freeway urgency (B = . that hopelessness would have a significant positive effect on freeway urgency was not supported in Study 1B.01 B=. p<. p<. H7. p<. it is concluded that Hypothesis 7.157.05). N.01 B=. p<.317.01). p<. p<.151.01 B=.01).191. freeway urgency (B =.01). it was observed that the higher the hopelessness (BHS) scores. p<.422.214.171.1240. 1C and 2. was supported in Studies 1A.232. p<.01 B=.01 B=.1.01 B=.349.288.05 B=.278.01 B=.05) and destination-activity orientation (B = .151. meaning that H7 was only partially supported for that study. p<.05 B=.287.141. p<.05) but not for freeway urgency. p<. In Study 1B. p<. it was observed that the higher the hopelessness scores. p<.01) and destination-activity orientation (B = . p<. externally-focused frustration (B = .275. freeway urgency (B = . the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = .01 B=.099.05
In Study 1A. externally-focused frustration (B = .01 B=.05 Study 1C B=.415. the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = .247. with both automobile and motorcycle drivers. p<. p<. p<. In Study 1C.01) and destination-activity orientation (B = .4. p<.415.151.05).01 B=.191. p<.01 B=. p<.01).01 B=.05) and destinationactivity orientation (B = . that hopelessness would have a significant positive direct effect on usurpation of right-of-way. externallyfocused frustration and destination-activity were supported in both Studies 1 and 2. p<.28: Direct effects of hopelessness on BIT scores
Total BIT score Usurpation of Right-of-way Freeway Urgency Externally-Focused Frustration Destination-Activity Orientation Study 1A B=. p<. the higher the hopelessness scores.287. H7.151.01 B=. p<.275.141. externally-focused frustration (B = . p<.01).280.254. p<.
Table 4. p<.753. H8.3 that externality-powerful-others would influence total BIT scores.339.01 B=.1.1 and H8. With regard to H8.01 B=-.229.2. p<.
Therefore. motorcycle and taxicab drivers).01 B=.6.239.336. that internality would negatively influence total BIT scores was supported.315.625.01 B=.208.
. results indicated that the higher were subscale scores for C. p<.29). with internality observed to exert a positive effect on BIT and the two externality dimensions to exert negative effects. Results of multiple regression analyses (in studies of car. results indicated that the higher were subscale scores for P. p<.01 B=-. p<.S.168. H8. p<. that the higher the subscale score for I. but not of the motorcycle and taxicab drivers in Studies 2 and 3 (See Table 4.3. p<. N. p<.01 B=. but not of the sample of taxicab drivers in Study 3. Hypothesis 8 was partially supported for motorcycle drivers in Study 2. N. p<.006. B=. provided support for hypothesis H8.01 B=-. N.01 B=.2. H8. where only H8.05 B=.S.388. it is concluded that Hypothesis 8 was supported for automobile drivers in Study 1.044.2 and H8. the higher were mean total BIT scores automobile drivers in Study 1.297. B=.1.3. p<.178.4.29: Direct Effects of Locus of Control on Total BIT Scores
Study 1A I C P Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 Study 3
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.01 B=-. that locus of control would influence total BIT scores were supported in Study 1. but not H8. the lower were mean total BIT scores. p<.01 B=. the higher were mean total BIT scores of automobile and motorcycle drivers in Studies 1 and 2.077.01 B=.S. Hypothesis 8 was partially supported for taxicab drivers in Study 3. With regard to H8. that internality and externality-chance would influence total BIT scores were supported. p<.
it was found that Malay automobile drivers with high externalitychance scores had significantly higher BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of way than did Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers with low externality-chance scores. p<. p<.01 (see Figure 4.1). p<.1: Interaction Effects between Ethnicity and Internality on BIT
In Study 1C. 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.272. In Study 1C. Scores for the three locus of control dimensions – internality. Further. F=7. p<. =8.05. p<. F=4.710.2).01 respectively (see Figure 4.
Mean Score on Behaviour in Traffic (BIT)
150 low high
Figure 4. results revealed that Malay automobile drivers with high internal control had significantly lower scores on BIT subscales measuring usurpation of right-of-way. F=4.581.704. freeway urgency and externally-focused frustration than did Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers with high internal control.01 and F=8. 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.01 (see Figure 4.909.Additional analysis: Interaction of ethnicity and locus of control on BIT.
the results of hierarchical regression indicated that the R2 value changed after the internality x hopelessness interaction was added in the regression model (R2=. p<. F=4.00
62. 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 4.282. R2=.3).00 low high
Figure 4.6.327.00 MalaysianIndian
64. Kurtosis=-.537) and the moderator (hopelessness) showed a significant result.Mean Score on Usurpation of Right-of Way
74. multiple regression showed mixed results.
.05. Residuals Normality: Skewness=. First. 1B and 1C.9
Hypothesis 9: Hopelessness Moderates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Behaviour in Traffic
For Studies 1A.033.2: Interaction Effect between Ethnicity and Externality-Chance on Usurpation of Right-of Way
68. Hopelessness moderated the relationship between internality and the total BIT score and between externality-chance and to total BIT score. in Study 2.05. p<.00 Malay MalaysianChinese 72. hopelessness did not moderate the relationship between locus of control and BIT. B = .
4).01.459.371). B = . Residuals Normality: Skewness=.463.167.BIT Level
Effect for drivers with high hopelessness score
Effect for drivers with low hopelessness score
Figure 4. F=18.070. and the moderator (hopelessness) showed a significant result.3: Moderating Effect of BHS on the Internality-BIT Relationship
The R2 value also changed after the externality-chance x hopelessness interaction was added in the regression model (R2=.01.4: Moderating Effect of BHS on the Externality (Chance) -BIT Relationship
. 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. R2=.
Effect for drivers with high hopelessness score
Effect for drivers with low hopelessness score
Externality (Chance) Figure 4.608. p<. Kurtosis=-. p<.
1C and 3. that hopelessness would moderate the relationship between internality and total BIT scores.10 Hypothesis 10: Demographic Factors Influence Aggression Analyses tested whether gender. it is concluded that Hypothesis 9 was not supported in Study 1.30).820. p<. Post hoc analysis showed that Malaysian-Chinese
. Hypothesis 9 was partially supported in Study 2.
4.603.05 t=. were supported.05 Study 1C t=2. p<. When mean subscale scores for the five AQ component factors were tested.01
The relationship between ethnic background and aggression was tested for automobile drivers in Studies 1B.677. In Study 1B and Study 3. In Study 1C.05 respectively. t(300) = 2.S t=2. that hopelessness would moderate the relationship between externalitychance and total BIT scores.01 t=-. N. However.05 t=4. p<.S t=1. Mean total AQ scores differed significantly between male and female participants in Studies 1B and 1C. male automobile drivers had significantly higher total AQ scores than did female automobile drivers.210. p<. ANOVA revealed no significant differences between ethnic groups in mean total AQ scores. and H9. F(2.480.603. p<.6. p<.01. p<. In both studies. p<.298.032.164.780.01 t=2.
Table 4.01 t=2. 249) = 5. With motorcycle drivers. p<.690.S.S t=2. Hopelessness did not moderate the locus of control-BIT relation for automobile drivers. N.2.690. N.01 t=4.30: 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. the H9. N.521.Therefore. results indicated that male automobile drivers scored significantly higher than female drivers on measures of physical aggression. t= . however.467. ethnicity and age exerted direct effects on drivers’ Aggression Questionnaire (AQ) scores. mean total AQ scores differed significantly between ethnic groups. p<. verbal aggression and indirect aggression (see Table 4.1. p<.01 (see table 4.187.31). and t(250) = 2.
01 Study 3 F=1. N.S. N. N. F=. Malaysian-Chinese and Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers were significantly different.S. p<.432. p<. N.077. In Study 1B. the mean verbal aggression (VER) scores of Malay.041.01 F=2. N.01). Similar to the findings in Study 1B.01 F=. The mean indirect aggression (IND) scores of Malay.01.567.S.S. N.05 Study 1C F=5. Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers had significantly lower IND scores than drivers from other ethnic groups (p<.S F=10.021.182. F(2.041. F(2. F=2.632. 249) = 10. p<. 299) = 5.561. N.S.01).automobile drivers in Study 1C had significantly lower total AQ scores than did Malay or Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers (p<. F=1. p<. 299) = 4. p<.S. F=4. mixed results were found. N. ANOVA revealed no significant differences between ethnic groups in mean scores in any of the AQ subscale scores. In Study 1C. Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers had significantly lower IND scores than drivers from other ethnic groups (p<.564.432.57. N. F=2. N. N. F=1.S. F=2.526. Malaysian-Chinese and Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers were significantly different.S.
Table 4.S. p<.05. F(2.31: Direct Effects of Ethnicity on AQ Total and Subscale Factors
Total Aggression score Physical Aggression (PHY) Verbal Aggression (VER) Anger (ANG) Hostility (HOS) Indirect Aggression (IND) Study 1B F=2.01.763.S.
Mean total AQ scores and mean scores on the five AQ subscales did not differ significantly between age groups either for automobile drivers in Studies 1B and 1C or for taxicab drivers in Study 3. p<.904.629.804.
When AQ subscale scores were tested for Study 1B and Study 1C.398. F=1.S. F=1.521. In Study 3. N.01).155. mean IND scores of Malay.422.
.S. N. F=5. F=1. F=2. Malaysian-Chinese and Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers were also significantly different.S.01). N. Malay automobile drivers scored significantly higher VER scores than drivers from other ethnic groups (p<.
2 (that ethnicity would influence aggression level) was supported only in Study 1C and only with respect to total AQ. and destination-activity orientation (see Table 4. However. Therefore.3 and H11.3 and H11. freeway urgency. H11. externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation.1 (that gender would influence aggression) was supported with respect to measures of total aggression and to the same three (PHY. H10.29). VER and IND subscale scores. was supported. the higher were automobile drivers’ total BIT scores and scores on the four components.3 (that age would negatively influence aggression) was not supported.11 Hypothesis 11: Aggression Influences Behaviour in Traffic In Study 1B and Study 1C. freeway urgency. that aggression would have a positive influence on total BIT scores. externally-focused frustration. H11. H10. H11.1. In Studies 1B and 1C.4.
4. that aggression would have a direct positive effect on externally-focused frustration and on destination-activity orientation. respectively. VER and IND) of five component factors among automobile drivers sampled in both Studies 1B and 1C. that aggression would have a direct positive effect on the usurpation of right-of way. The higher the total aggression scores. in studies of both automobile drivers and taxicab drivers. total BIT scores and scores on usurpation of right-of way and freeway urgency subscales were higher. only H11.6. 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. H10. were supported. it is concluded that Hypothesis 11. This means that when taxicab drivers’ aggression scores were higher.
In Study 3.4.2. were all supported. 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. with regard to the taxicab drivers sampled in Study 3.
.32).Therefore. however. it is concluded that Hypothesis 10 was partially supported.
B = . their total BIT scores tend to be higher.01 B=. p<.183.520. Study 1C and Study 3.324.229.505. p<.
Additional analysis: Interaction effects of ethnicity and aggression on BIT. the higher were total BIT scores.428. N. respectively.01 B=. p<. p<.
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.01 B=. N.01.Table 4. but not in Study 3.263. Similarly. the higher the levels of PHY and HOS.545. p<. p<.01. p<.01 B=. p<.01 B=.01 B=.461.263. but not in Study 3. p<. p<.01 Study 1C B=. This implies that when automobile drivers have higher levels of ANG and IND. indirect aggression (IND) was also found to have significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1B and Study 1C. p<.05 B=. Verbal aggression (VER) was found to have no significant influence on total BIT scores. F=3.05 B=.370.204.01. p<.01 B=.01.01. With both automobile and taxicab drivers.01 respectively. respectively. p<.01 and B = . p<. Study 1C and Study 3.32: Effect of Aggression on Total BIT Scores and on BIT Component Factors
Study 1B B=.01.235.048. However. B = . p<. 1B. and B = . Also.S.565.01 respectively.491.540.881.387. but that this does not apply to taxi drivers. 1C.483. p<.S. no interaction effects were found in all studies – Study 1A.01 and B = .121. Linear regression analyses indicated that physical aggression (PHY) had a significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1B. p<. p<. Study 2 and Study 3. B = . hostility (HOS) was found to have a significant positive influence on BIT in Study 1B.380. p<. p<. Malay automobile drivers with high VER scores tended to score
.438.01 B=. p<. and B = .370. B = . it was found that there was an interaction effect between ethnicity and verbal aggression (VER) on freeway urgency. p<.5). p<.05 (see Figure 4.01 B=.
Results of regression analyses also showed that anger (ANG) had a significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1B and Study 1C.216. When the interaction effect of ethnicity and hopelessness was tested on the BIT and its four component factors. B = .01 Study 3 B=. B = .385. p<. B=.
Mean Score on Freeway Urgency
52. R2=.12 Hypothesis 12: Locus of Control Moderates the Relationship between Aggression and Behaviour in Traffic 4.00
46.100. F=100.271.6.297.961. p<.00
42. In other words.362.significantly higher on freeway urgency than did Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers with high VER scores.00 Malay ChineseMalaysian 50.172.12. p<.1 Internality as a Moderator Hierarchical regression analyses revealed that internality (I) moderated the relationship between aggression and total BIT score. B=-. Residuals Normality: Skewness=. The moderating effect of I was significant. B=-.01.003.929.316. R2=. p<. respectively) This means that the relationship between aggression and BIT would be stronger among drivers with low scores on the I subscale than it would be among drivers with high scores on the I subscale. aggressive drivers with low internal locus of control would
.516.01. and B=-. Study 1C and Study 3. for Study 1B. and R2 values changed after the I x AQ interaction was added in the regression models (R2=.00 Low High
Figure 4. p<. Kurtosis=-.6.131.01. F=81. R2=. p<. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-.645.076.5: Interaction of Ethnicity and Verbal Aggression on Freeway Urgency
have higher BIT scores compared to drivers with high internal locus of control (see figure 4. F=94.387. Residuals Normality: Skewness= -.12.
Effect for aggressive drivers with low internality score
Effect for aggressive drivers with high internality score
Aggression Level Figure 4. R2=.507. 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=. R2=.069. In Study 1B. respectively). p<.01 and B = .360. the hierarchical regression revealed that externalitychance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P) moderated the relationship between aggression and total BIT score.271. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-463.088.6: Moderating Effect of Internality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship
4. R2=.694. Kurtosis=-. respectively).897. F=91. and the moderating effects of C and P were
.794. p<.369.01. p<. p<.015.6.01 respectively.117. F=71. Consistent with the findings from Study 1B.6). R2=. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-.757.01. and the moderating effects of C and P were significant. R2 values changed after both the C x AQ and P x AQ interactions were added in the respective regression models (R2=. p<.01. p<.2 Externality-chance and Externality-powerful-others as Moderators In Study 1B and Study 1C.704.431. R2=. B = .297. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-.297. Kurtosis=.109. Kurtosis=-.606.01.015. R2=. Kurtosis=. F=78. This applied to both automobile drivers and taxicab drivers.271.
This means that aggressive taxicab drivers with high scores on either the C or P locus of control dimensions did not differ greatly in total BIT scores from taxicab drivers with low scores on the C or P dimensions. H12.332. it is concluded that the Hypothesis 12 was supported in Studies 1B and 1C.7). externality-chance and externality-powerful-others
Therefore. and the moderation effect was not significant. R2 values did not change after either the C x AQ or P x AQ interactions were added in the regression models. This means that aggressive 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 4.7: Moderating Effects of Externality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship
Effect for aggressive drivers with high externality scores
Effect for aggressive drivers with low externality scores
Aggression Level Figure 4. p<. B = . p<. with the samples of automobile drivers study for student car drivers.3.302. and H12. hierarchical regression results showed that neither C nor P moderated the relationship between aggression and total BIT scores for taxicab drivers in Study 3.01 respectively.1.2. that the internality.significant.01 and B = .
01.13 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. p<. p<. On the subscale measuring statements about revenge. 249) = 5. p<.01.01 and revenge: t(249) = 3. 249) = 4.885.01 but not on about the derogation of others. Post hoc analysis indicated that Chinese-Malaysian automobile drivers had significantly lower total HAT scores than either Malay or Indian-Malaysian automobile drivers (p<.
. F(2. Only H12.343.05.263. t(249)=2. p<. 248) = 3. There were also significant differences between ethnic groups on subscale scores measuring statements about physical aggression F(2.314.
Chinese-Malaysian automobile drivers had significantly lower scores than IndianMalaysian automobile drivers (p<.dimensions of locus of control moderate the relationship between aggression and total BIT scores were supported. that externality-chance and externality-powerful-others moderates the relationship between aggression and BIT scores were not supported.05. Hypothesis 12 was only partially supported in Study 3. t(250) = 3.05). No significant differences were observed between age groups with respect to total HAT scores or to scores on any of the three HAT subscales. p<. p<.
ANOVA results showed that ethnic groups differed significantly with respect to mean total HAT scores. and about revenge F(2. with the sample of taxicab drivers.01).05).3.
4. There were no significant differences between ethnic groups with respect to hostile statements about the derogation of others.05) or Indian-Malaysian automobile drivers (p<. H122 and H12.737. 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<. male automobile drivers scored significantly higher on HAT subscales measuring statements about physical aggression. However.6. Also.1.279. that internality moderates the relationship between aggression and total BIT scores was supported.
307.277.2 and H14.3. (that thoughts about physical aggression.379.01 and destination-activity orientation. that hostile automatic thoughts would influence behaviour in traffic. H13. Linear regression analyses indicated that subscales measuring thoughts about physical aggression.2. H14.01. was not supported. were supported. derogation of others and revenge) positively influence total BIT scores. was partially supported. on total BIT score were also tested. it is concluded that the Hypothesis 13. the higher were automobile drivers’ total BIT scores and scores on the four components.6. that demographic variables would influence hostile automatic thoughts.1. p<. that age would influence hostile automatic thoughts. it is concluded that the Hypothesis 14. the higher were total BIT scores.01. H14. p<. freeway urgency.364.01. B = .413.3.Therefore. B = . This means that. that gender and ethnicity respectively would have significant direct effects on hostile automatic thoughts. linear regression analyses indicated that total HAT scores predicted total BIT scores. with the sample of automobile drivers studied.14 Hypothesis 14: Hostile Automatic Thoughts Influence Behaviour in Traffic In Study 1C.01 and B = .
The effects of HAT subscales measuring the three classes of hostile automatic thoughts.01. B = .01. p<. was supported.
.224. the higher the total HAT scores. and also scores measuring the four BIT component factors: usurpation of right-of-way. p<. were supported. respectively. p<. B = .01. This means that. externally-focused frustration. p<. p<.
Therefore.394. derogation of others and revenge had a significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1C B =.1 and H13. H13. B = . the higher the scores on the three classes of hostile automatic thought.192. B = .
p<.15 Hypothesis 15: Hostile Automatic Thoughts Moderate the Aggression-BIT Relationship Hierarchical regression analysis indicated that HAT scores moderated the relationship between aggression and BIT.565.809. R2=. aggressive drivers who frequently entertained hostile automatic thoughts about others would have higher total BIT scores compared to drivers who seldom entertained hostile automatic thoughts about others (see Figure 4. and the moderating effect of HAT-Physical
. 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. also moderated the relationship between aggression and BIT. p<. Physical Aggression and Revenge.01. B = . Kurtosis=.8).013.6. R2=.4.8: Moderating Effect of Externality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship
It was observed that two of the HAT subscales.085). F=55.188. The R2 value changed after the HAT-Physical Aggression x AQ interaction was added in the regression model (R2=.-554.297.01.072). In other words.002.911. R2 values changed after the HAT x AQ interaction was added in the regression model (R2=. and the moderating effect of HAT was significant. p<.05.
Effect for aggressive drivers with high HAT score
Effect for aggressive drivers with low HAT score
Aggression Level Figure 4. Normality Residuals: Skewness=. Kurtosis=. F=57.297. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-.
246. that hostile statements about the derogation of others moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic. and the moderating effect of HAT-Revenge was significant. R2=.16 Summary of Hypothesis Testing The following table provides summarised results for the hypotheses and subhypotheses in this study (see Table 4. was not supported.207. it is concluded that Hypothesis 15. H15.
.092).475. p<. However.01. p<. that total HAT score would moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic.294.1 and H15.01.6. were supported.
4. The R2 value also changed after the HATRevenge x AQ interaction was added in the regression model (R2=. was supported. B = . Kurtosis=. The HAT subscale measuring thoughts about the derogation of others did not moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic. F=59.Aggression was significant.3. p<.2. that hostile statements about physical aggression and revenge respectively moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic.33). B = .
Therefore. Normality Residuals: Skewness=.01. H15.297.026.
S N.S 1B S S S S S S S S S S S S S S P.S S S N.S S N.S N. S N.4:Destination-activity orientation will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.2: Ethnicity will influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.S N.1.S N.S N.S N.1.1: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.S.1.S S S N.S
N.1: Age will influence the Locus of Control: Internality S S S S S S S S S S S S S S P.S P.Table 4.S S S N.S N.3:Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.S P.3.1: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.1.2: Taxicab experience will have a negative influence on total BIT score H3: Demographic variables will influence behaviour in traffic H3.2.S P.S S P.S S S S S N.S N.2.S N.S
.1.S N.1: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Internality H4.S S N.S N.S N.2: Traveling frequency will have a negative influence on total BIT score H2.S S N.3: Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.1.2: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.S P.2.1.2: Ethnicity will influence total BIT score H3.1: Driver experience will have a negative influence on total BIT score H2.S P.S N.S S S S S N.S S S N.S N.S N.S N.3: Ethnicity influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H4.2.S P.S N.3: Age will have a negative influence on total BIT score H4: Demographic variables will influence the Locus of Control H4.1: Gender will influence total BIT score H3.S S S S P.2.33: Summarised Results of the Hypotheses and Sub-hypotheses
STUDY 1A H1: BIT will have a positive influence on motor vehicle crash outcomes H1.S S N.S S S N.1: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.4: Destination-activity orientation will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H2: Driver characteristics will influence behaviour in traffic H2.1: Ethnicity will influence the Locus of Control: Internality H4.2: Freeway urgency will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.S S S N.S S S S S N.2.2.S N.S 3 P.S 1C P.S S S S S S N.2 :Freeway urgency will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.2: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.S 2 S S S S S S S S S S S P.S N.S N.3: Gender will influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H4.
S N.3: Age will have a negative influence on Aggression S=Supported. P.S N.S S S S S S S N.S N.S N.S S S S S P.S S S N.2: Age will influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.3.S P.S 1B N.2: Ethnic background will influence Aggression H10.S N.S S S N. N.S S S S S S S S S S S S S S N.S N.2: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Freeway urgency H7.4: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Destination-activity Orientation H8: Locus of Control will influence behaviour in traffic H8.Table 4.S S S N.S N.S N.S S S S S S S S S S S S S S N.S
.S 3 N. blank=Not Applicable N.S
STUDY 1C N.S N.2: Externality-Chance will have a positive influence on Hopelessness H6.S S S N.S N.S N.3: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Externally-focused frustration H7.3: Externality-Powerful-Others will have a positive influence on total BIT score H9: Hopelessness will moderate the Locus of Control-BIT relationship H9.2: Ethnic background will influence of Hopelessness H5.3.1: Gender will influence Hopelessness H5.1: Internality will have a negative influence on total BIT score H8.1: Internality will have a negative influence on Hopelessness H6.S N.S
P.3: Age will influence Hopelessness H6: Locus of Control will influence Hopelessness H6.S N.1: Gender will influence Aggression H10.S 2 N.S P.S N.1: Hopelessness will moderate the Internality-BIT relation H9.S N.33 (Continued) 1A H4.S N.S P.S N.S P.S S N.3: Age will influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H5: Demographic variables will influence Hopelessness H5.S N.S S N.S S N.S= Not Supported.S N.S= Partially Supported.S N.S N.S S S S S S S S P.S N.3: Externality-Powerful-Others will have a positive influence on Hopelessness H7: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on behaviour in traffic H7.1: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Usurpation of right-of way H7.S N.2: Externality-Chance will have a positive influence on total BIT H8.S N.S P.S N.3: Hopelessness will moderate the Externality-Powerful-Others--BIT relationship H10: Demographic variables will influence aggression H10.S N.S N.S N.S N.S N.2: Hopelessness will moderate the Externality-Chance--BIT relationship H9.S N.S N.
Table 4.33 (Continued) 1A H11: Aggression will have a positive influence on behaviour in traffic H11.1: Internality will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12.S S N.2: Aggression will have a positive influence on Freeway urgency H11.2: Thoughts about the Derogation-of-Others will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H15.3: Age will have a negative influence on hostile automatic thoughts H14: Hostile Automatic Thoughts will have a positive influence on behaviour in traffic H14.S S S S S P.S N.2: Thoughts about the Derogation of Others will have a positive influence on total BIT score H14.3: Externality-Powerful-Others will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H13: Demographic variables will influence Hostile Automatic Thought s H13.1: Thoughts about Physical Aggression will have a positive influence on total BIT score H14.1: Aggression will have a positive influence on usurpation of right-of way H11.S
.S S N.S P.S S S N.S S S N.1: Thoughts about Physical Aggression will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H15.S= Partially Supported.4: Aggression will have a positive influence on Destination-activity orientation H12: Locus of Control will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12. N. blank=Not Applicable 1B S S S S S S S S S
STUDY 1C S S S S S S S S S P.2: Ethnic background will influence hostile automatic thoughts H13.2: Externality-Chance will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12.S= Not Supported.S S 2 3 P.S N.3: Aggression will have a positive influence on Externally-focused frustration H11.3: Thoughts about Revenge will have a positive influence on total BIT score H15: Hostile Automatic Thoughts will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H15. P.1: Gender will have a positive influence on hostile automatic thoughts H13.3: Thoughts about Revenge will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship S=Supported.
and (3) crash occurrence and injury occurrence as outcome. Study 2: motorcycle driver.7.96 . F4 χ2 49. hopelessness or subtracting the latent variables in order to obtain the optimal goodness-of-fit index. AQ and Hostile Automatic Thought (HAT). C.93 . P I.90 110. externality (Chance) and externality (Powerful-Other) as distal context factors. AQ. P. This contextual mediated model was tested six times and the goodness-of-fit indices for these models are indicated in Table 4.00000 . All proposed models measured: (1) internality. C. F3 F1. Externality Chance (C). 2002).00126 . Hopelessness. AQ.05522 .02 d. F4 F1.
Table 4.97 63. externally-focused frustration (F3) and destination-activity orientation (F4)
Of the six models tested. Aggression (AQ). BHS. P.045 . externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation as proximal context factors. C. e. These models were re-specified by adding different proximal context factors. P. F2. Hostile Automatic Thought (HAT). (2) usurpation of right-of-way. C. Hopelessness (BHS).093 . Externality Powerful-Other (P).00000 . F3.
. F4 F1.52 (Jöreskog and Sörbom.00111 . 23 28 33 38 24 33 p-value GFI . P.4.93 .1
Study 1C The contextual mediated model in this study was tested with four distal
factors – Locus of Control.g.58 35. F2.38 100. HAT Proximal Factors F1. freeway urgency.f.34: SEM Comparison (Study 1C)
Distal Factors 1C1 1C2 1C3 1C4 1C5 1C6 I. F2.068 . F2. F3. AQ. F4 F1. freeway urgency (F2). F3. C.102 . F2. Usurpation of right-of-way (F1).93 .
4. BHS I. Model 1C5 had better fit but necessitated dropping one of the component factors. F3. F3. two were worthy of further examination. HAT I. P. AQ I. 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.00000 . HAT I. C.060
Note: Internality (I). Three studies (Study 1C: automobile driver.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 8.80 104. BHS.34. F4 F1.96 RMSEA .97 . F2.087 .
values were: NFI=. of the BIT score. For Model C6. To aid this discussion.92) on accident involvement.02. . and PGFI=.97.10).10). but not as good as for C5. Externality (Powerful-Other). values for these additional indices were: NFI=. CFI=. ECVI=. 126.96.36.199. RMR=.91.
.26. d. . . AGFI=.060. The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that all possible paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant: Internality.96.28 and . GFI=. RMR=.
retained all four of the BIT component factors and fit indices were acceptable.22 respectively (see Figure 4. goodness-of-fit was characterised as very good (χ2=63.f.f. with path coefficients = -.043. Externality (Chance).3. For Model C5.destination-activity orientation (F4). RMSEA=.97. The five distal variables accounted for 70% of the variance in BIT scores. For Model C5.
An alternate model.043. C6.32. with path coefficients = -.
Making a decision to select one of these models over the other raised a number of interesting points.14.99) and constituted the best fit of all six of the tested models. The five distal variables accounted for 67% of the variance in BIT scores.045.
AGFI=.98).42. ECVI=. RMSEA=. subsequent additional analysis was carried out to calculate a range of comparative fit indices.23 respectively (see Figure 4.42.94. Externality (Powerful-Other). .=24.96.92) on accident involvement. goodness-of-fit was characterised as excellent (χ2=35.35. GFI=. Externality (Chance). Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thought had effects on BIT. The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that all possible paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant: Internality. d. For Model C6.
Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thought had effects on BIT. which are detailed in sect.29 and .51 and PGFI=.26. The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=. . The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=. CFI=. .=33.13.
57* Injury Occurrence
.9: Contextual Mediated Model 1C5 (Three BIT Factors)
Behaviour in Traffic (BIT)
.043 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.51*
.22* Hostile Automatic Thought
χ2=35. BITF4=Destination-Activity Orientation
BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way.29* Aggression (AQ)
.13* Externality (Powerful Other)
. BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration.99 P-value = .92*
Accident Involvement .045 RMR=.005522 N=252 RMSEA=. *p<.97 d.63*
.f =24 CFI=.Distal Context
Internality -.32* Externality (Chance) . BITF2=Freeway Urgency.
BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way.043 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.29* Aggression (AQ)
Behaviour in Traffic (BIT)
. BITF4=Destination-Activity Orientation
Figure 4. BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration.02 GFI=.10: Contextual Mediated Model 1C6 (Four BIT Factors)
.98 P-value = .92*
Accident Involvement .39*
. BITF2=Freeway Urgency.060 RMR=.22* Hostile Automatic Thought
χ2=63.13* Externality (Powerful Other)
.96 d.31* Externality (Chance) .f =33 CFI=.56*
Internality -.00126 N=252 RMSEA=.58* Injury Occurrence
F2.93 . Hostile Automatic Thought was found to have a direct effect on the AQ (path coefficient=.91 . externally-focused frustration (F3) and destination-activity orientation (F4)
As depicted in Figure 4. VER. IND.00000 . ANG.081 . IND. Indirect aggression (IND).00000 GFI RMSEA . using automobile drivers sampled in Study 1C. Verbal aggression (VER). F2. ANG. Hostile Automatic Thought-Physical aggression (HAT-P). F3 F1.=61. GFI=.92 . HAT-R PHY.In addition. HAT-D. The results for the goodness-offit indexes are shown as follows:
Table 4. IND. HAT-D. the contextual mediated model was tested using Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thoughts and their latent variables (component factors) as distal context factors.66 153.f.10. ANG.65 and .95). 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). HAT-D. HOS. IND PHY. RMSEA=.35: Different Contextual Models (Study 1C)
Distal Factors PHY. IND. HAT-P.91 . F3.084 . F2. F4 F1.41 d. d. HAT-P. HOS. Hostile Automatic Thought-Derogation of others (HAT-D).078. F3. F4 χ2 108. 42 61 50 61 61 p-value . F3 F1.91. Aggression (AQ). F2. The proposed contextual mediated model was tested five times (see Table 4. Hostility (HOS).00111 .73 169. HOS. freeway urgency (F2). The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=.80) on the accident involvement. ANG. HAT-P. HOS. F4 F1.00000 . HOS.078
Note: Physical aggression (PHY). HAT-R PHY.35). the final model has provided a reasonable fit to the data (χ2=153. Hostile Automatic Thought-Revenge(HAT-R).084 . F3. HAT-D. Usurpation of right-of-way (F1). Angry (ANG).
.41. VER. HAT-P.13 respectively.f.91 . CFI=.66 131.66). HAT-R PHY. F2.080 . ANG. VER.94 169. path coefficients = . HAT-R Proximal Factors F1.00000 .
95 P-value = .58*
.058 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.05
.69* Anger .62*
. BIT3=Externally-Focused Frustration.65*
Behaviour in Traffic (BIT)
.91 d. BIT2=Freeway Urgency.Distal Context
Physical Aggression .68* Aggression (AQ)
Physical Aggression .61*
BIT1=Usurpation of Right-of way.66* .29*
.11: Contextual Mediated Model Study 1C (Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thoughts)
. BIT4=Destination-Activity Orientation
Figure 4.f =61 CFI=.90* Derogation of Other Hostile Automatic Thought
.000 N=252 RMSEA=. *p<.65* .63* Indirect Aggression .72* .41 GFI=.
F2. The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=.06722
. F3. The goodness-of-fit indexes for these models are shown as follow:
Table 4. freeway urgency (F2).94.=28. P. P. F2.062
Note: Internality (I). The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that three paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant.f.12).33 33. p-value GFI RMSEA
I. GFI=. path coefficients = -.36). The contextual mediated
model was tested using locus of control and hopelessness as distal context factors. F4 F1. CFI=. Hopelessness (BHS).98).047.36: Different Contextual Models (Study 2)
Distal Factors Proximal Factors χ2 29.f. C. The proposed contextual mediated model was tested three times (see Table 4.95 . F2. Usurpation of right-of-way (F1).047 . F3 F1. the participants were motorcycle drivers. F4
39. d. RMSEA=.94 . BHS
F1.80 respectively (see Figure 4. Externality Powerful-Other (P).058 . BHS I.12.4. C. P I. C.2
Study 2 In Study 2.94
. the final model for the student motorcycle drivers did not include hopelessness. Externality Chance (C). F3.7. Compared to the Study 1 for student car drivers. Internality and Externality (Chance) the Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) but not Externality (PowerfulOther).07580 .12 d.
.17631 . The four distal variables accounted for 49% of the variance in BIT. 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=29.66) on the accident involvement.65 and .86
23 28 23
BIT3=Externally-Focused Frustration. *p<.65* Externality (Chance)
.12: Contextual Mediated Model Study 2
.12 GFI=.95 d.05
BIT1=Usurpation of Right-of way.66*
Externality (Powerful Other)
.99 P-value = .70*
BIT4 .047 RMR=.89*
Internality -. BIT2=Freeway Urgency.83*
χ2=29.f =23 CFI=.88*
Crash Occurrence .17631 N=122 RMSEA=.78*
. BIT4=Destination-Activity Orientation
Behaviour in Traffic (BIT)
BIT2 .046 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.
=21. the participants were taxi drivers.061. C. The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that two out of four possible paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant. I.00524 .37: Different Contextual Models (Study 3)
Distal Factors I. Hopelessness (H).f. F3.7. p-value GFI RMSEA
Crash Occurrence.39. Externality Powerful-Other (ExPo). 37. have effects on the Behaviour in Traffic (BIT).35265 .40) on the accident involvement.93 . externally-focused frustration (F3) and destination-activity orientation (F4)
Model included locus of control.068 Injury Occurrence Crash Occurrence.95). Internality and AQ. F4 Outcomes χ2 d. path coefficients = -. C. The contextual mediated model
was tested using locus of control and hopelessness as distal context factors.97 . P. C.95 .13). but not Externality.079 Injury Occurrence I. Usurpation of right-of-way (F1). F3. AQ F1.06743 . F2. The four distal variables accounted for 12% of the variance in BIT. GFI=.37). The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=.
. freeway urgency (F2). Externality Chance (ExC). F4 Crash Occurrence 31. This contextual mediated model was tested four times (see Table 4. The goodness-of-fit indexes for these models are shown as follow:
Table 4.4.59 17 .82 28 . F3.39 21 . AQ F1. F2. F3. d.027 I.94 . AQ F1. F2.f. AQ and only crash occurrence as outcome has provided the best goodness-of-fit to the data (χ2=31.20 respectively (see Figure 4. F4 Crash Occurrence 18. F2.95. F4 50.3
Study 3 In Study 3.22 23 . CFI=. RMSEA=. C.03084 .20 and . P.061 Note: Internality (I). P Proximal Factors F1.
BIT3 .20* Externality (Chance)
. BIT3=Externally-Focused Frustration.f =21 CFI=. BIT2=Freeway Urgency.03
Behaviour in Traffic (BIT)
BIT4 . BIT4=Destination-Activity Orientation
Figure 4.061 RMR=.20*
Externality (Powerful Other)
.95 d.053 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.39 GFI=.13: Contextual Mediated Model Study 3
BIT1=Usurpation of Right-of way.95 P-value = . *p<.06743 N=133 RMSEA=.39*
the mediating effect of BIT on hopelessness and crash outcomes relationship could not be estimated. Step 3=mediator has a significant effect on the dependent variable.38). consistent with path analysis results. (2) the relationship between locus of control and accident involvement.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. BIT was a complete mediator for the relationship between AQ total score and crash occurrence. Therefore.4. Not applicable = mediating effect could only be tested when conditions in Step1. 2 and 3 are satisfied.
BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hopelessness and Crash Outcomes In all studies. Step2=independent variable has a significant effect on the dependent variable. (3) the relationship between aggression and accident involvement.8.8. (4) the relationship between hostile automatic thoughts and accident involvement were tested using the four-step procedure proposed by Baron and Kenny (1986).
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. Step4=Significance level of the relationship between independent variable and dependent variable is reduced indicating a partial mediating effect – or – independent variable does have a significant effect on the dependent variable indicating a complete mediating effect.
4. hopelessness did not
significantly influence the crash outcomes (see Table 4.
Testing Mediational Relationships Using SPSS The mediating effects of BIT on: (1) the relationship between hopelessness and
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. in Studies 1A.4
BIT Mediates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Crash Outcomes For automobile drivers. 1B and 1C.40).3
BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hostile Automatic Thought and Crash Outcome
The regression results showed that the BIT partially mediated the relationship between hostile automatic thought and crash outcomes (see Table 4. behaviour in traffic (BIT) had
complete or partial mediating effects on the relationship between the three locus of control dimensions – Internality (I).8. where the
.BIT was a partial mediator for the relationship between aggression and injury occurrence.39: BIT Mediates the Relationship between Aggression and Crash Outcomes
BIT mediates Aggression-Crash Occurrence Relation Study 1B Study 1C BIT mediates AggressionInjury Occurrence Relation Study 1B Study 1C Step 1 Significant Significant Step 1 Significant Significant Step 2 Significant Significant Step 2 Significant Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Step 4 Complete Mediator Complete Mediator Step 4 Partial Mediator Complete Mediator
4. Externality-Chance (C) and Externality-PowerfulOthers – and crash outcomes (See Table 4. Exceptions to this were found only with respect to the relationship between P and both crash outcomes in Study 1A.
With respect to the relationship
between I and the crash outcomes and the relationship between P and the crash outcomes.
Table 4. no mediating effect of BIT could be estimated since requisite conditions in the second step of the analysis were not satisfied. BIT had no mediating effects on the relationship between I. BIT had a complete mediating effect on the relationship between C and both crash outcomes. For taxicab drivers in Study 3.mediating effect of BIT total scores could not be estimated because requisite conditions in the second step of the analysis were not satisfied. C or P and the two crash outcomes.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
For motorcycle drivers in Study 2.
Study 2: t(421)= -3. Study 2: t(421)= -4. Study 2: t(422)= 8. It was found that there were significant differences in scores for hopelessness. p <. Study 1C vs. Study 2: t(421)= 7.162. 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 2.426.05. automobile drivers scored higher than motorcycle drivers on I.837.665. Study 1A vs. There was no significant difference in scores on the P dimension between automobile drivers and motorcycle drivers.9
Comparison of Automobile Drivers.01. scores for distal variables (locus of control and
hopelessness). Automobile drivers in Studies 1A.01.01.01. p <. p <.01. Study 1A vs. Study 1B vs. Study 1A vs. Motorcycle Drivers and Taxicab Drivers
4. Study 2: t(372)= -3.442.
With respect to the three dimensions of locus of control.9. Study 2: t(372)= 8.
.993.01. Study 2: t(422)= -2. Study 1B vs. p <. 1B and 1C scored significantly lower on hopelessness than did motorcycle drivers. p <. Automobile drivers also scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers on C. Study 1C vs.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. p <.Table 4. p <.1
Differences between Automobile Drivers and Motorcycle Drivers In a subsequent analysis.663.
p <.9. p <.
Automobile drivers scored higher that taxicab drivers on total BIT scores. t(986)= 5. Study 2: t(421)= -8.577. p <. p <.211.200. Study 1A vs. Automobile drivers scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers in injury occurrence.
4. p <. Motorcycle drivers scored higher than taxicab drivers on C. Study 2: t(422)= -4.01. and to injury occurrence. t(986)= 3.2
Differences between Automobile Drivers and Taxicab Drivers With respect to locus of control.01. Study 2: t(421)= -7. Study 2: t(422)= -6.01. Study 1B vs. p <.402.775. p <.01.9. p <.01.01. p <. Study 2: t(372)= -6.01. p <.433. Study 1C vs. p <. respectively. There were no significant differences scores on either C or P between the automobile drivers and taxicab drivers.861. p <.704.837.747. t(253)= 8. “externally-focused frustration” and “destination-activity
orientation”.01. automobile drivers scored higher than taxicab drivers with respect to crash occurrence. taxicab drivers scored higher than automobile
drivers on the I dimension.
Automobile drivers scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers in crash occurrence. There were no differences between motorcycle drivers and taxicab drivers on the P dimension. and on all four BIT subscales: “usurpation of right-of way”. Study 1C vs.
.926. Study 1B vs.484. Study 1C vs.01. t(986)= 6. Study 1A vs. p <. Study 2: t(421)= -3.01. p <.01.801. t(986)= 30.687. “freeway urgency”.977. Study 2: t(372)= -7.3
Differences between Motorcycle Drivers and Taxicab Drivers Taxicab drivers scored higher than motorcycle drivers on the I locus of control
dimension.01. t(986)= 37. t(986)= 34.614. p <. p <.261.01. Also.01. Study 2: t(372)= -5.01. p <.01. Study 1A vs.186. p <.01.01. t(986)= 7.
4.Automobile drivers scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers with respect to the total BIT score. and t(986)= 35. t(253) = 2.
t(253)= 11. and t(253)= 37. drivers scored higher with respect to crash occurrence. t(253)= 35. respectively. Also.01. p <. p <.737. p <.01.Motorcycle drivers had higher total BIT scores than taxicab drivers.01and to injury occurrence. p <.01. “freeway urgency”. p <.977. and all four BIT subscales: “usurpation of right-of way”. p <. t(253)= 8.01. t(253)= 39. p <.01. “externally-focused frustration” and “destination-activity orientation”.
.01.567.982.016. t(253)= 8.881.946. t(253)= 31.
A Contextual Mediated Model for Understanding Factors Influencing Unsafe Driving Traffic psychologists. age and personality may be the most important factors in crash causation (Bridger. in which the roles played by variables in mediating and moderating effects of personality factors are more closely examined than in the past. Evans. 2. 1991). Composite BIT scores were comprised of measures of usurpation of right-ofway.CHAPTER 5
5. 1993. not directly on driving behaviour and crash outcomes but rather on some intervening variable located more proximally to the event (see sect. Parker (2004) and others have stressed the importance of examining crash causation from a broader. Papacostas and Synodinos (1988) investigated four dimensions of driving behaviour conceptually related to the Type A behaviour pattern (TABP). in which a set of personality and demographic factors are thought to exert effects. road engineers and ergonomists interested in motor vehicle
safety have tried for a long time to understand the role played by human factors in determining traffic safety outcomes.4. multi-factorial perspective. exerting weaker influence or more equivocal results than anticipated (Dewar. 2002b). externally-focused frustration and destination-activity
orientation.2. Often. freeway urgency. al.1). human factors that conceptually might be expected to have a strong influence over driving behaviour and crash occurrence end up. ethnic and driver experience differences with respect to
. While it has been generally assumed and
frequently stated that driver characteristics.. 1995. (1993). Elander et al.
Elander et. They found gender. The present research applied Sümer’s concept of a contextual mediated model. researchers have been frequently frustrated when attempting to quantify the effects of psycho-social variables on either driving behaviour or crash outcomes. upon examination.
In an earlier study. including gender.
In other words. This was true with respect to both the composite BIT score and individual scores of each of the four component factors. The matrix proposed by Haddon (1972) is one example.
. though. which somewhat complicates our attempt to stay true to our title: “Cause and Prevention of Roadway Crashes”.
In the present research. except with taxicab drivers. for automobile drivers and motorcyclists. the proximal variable. if different. BIT composite scores are also expected to mediate the effects of locus of control.
But findings were more complex than that. but did not examine the effects of BIT scores on crash outcomes. Further. Since high BIT scores indicated driving behaviour consistent with TABP. Every aspect of the traffic system is in some way connected to every other aspect. BIT scores are considered proximal to the crash event. 1991). hopelessness. Type A individuals were significantly more likely to have found themselves involved in traffic crashes and. BIT. alter the outcome or probability of occurrence of crashes and these have been classified into broad categories using different schemes (Evans. All too often. in the deterministic sense in which it is used in the physical sciences or engineering. it predicted self-reported injury occurrence in all cases. In the contextual mediated model. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts on crash and injury occurrence.
Results reported here suggest an elaborate relationship. significantly predicted selfreported crash occurrence in all replications and with all classes of drivers studied. were significantly more likely to have been injured while driving. is that factors interact with each other. the term “cause” conveys the notion of a single causative element. As a result. particularly between psychological variables and crash outcomes. A rich variety of individual factors exists which. One recurrent complexity that arises when trying to understand traffic safety.total BIT score and component scores. 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. 188.8.131.52). 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
hierarchy. It appears that belief in chance or fate outcomes may be a more important factor in shaping the driving behaviour of novice or inexperienced drivers than it is for more experienced ones. and 36. Further research is needed to examine the influence of driving experience.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. They were also more experienced (266. although driving frequency was not measured for taxicab drivers. By virtue of their age and occupation.01years.25 years.16. SD=. 20.1. the continued operation of their vehicle is fundamental to their livelihood so motivational factors may take precedence over attributions of external control. SD=22. This would be an error more likely to be made by younger novice or less experienced drivers.1 months.5. it might be assumed that taxicab drivers could well have a broader social network. the extent to which an individual is connected to others through interpersonal networks.
In the present study. Because of occupational demands. traffic exposure and other variables on the effects that internality and externality exert on driving behaviour. respectively).53. SD=1.
For taxicab drivers.3. Of course.2 years. there are other possible influences.63. internals reported that they engaged in safer behaviour in traffic.66) than the automobile drivers and motorcyclists (20.6 months as licensed drivers. as well.10) than the automobile drivers and motorcyclists (28. it might also be assumed that their traffic exposure was greater than that of the students. Hijar and Tovar (2005) have noted that social capital. For taxicab drivers.
5. Malaysian-Indian automobile
. social trust and norms that promote coordination and cooperation. Inclán.7 months. respectively). SD=11. as it did with the less experienced university students in the other groups. but the externality-chance dimension had no significant effect. SD=131. SD=1. taxicab drivers were considerably older (43. affected driving behaviour and decisions about the use of public roads.
In an environment where career choice. in terms of political ideology and interaction with the social system. to cultural values of intra-family dependency and parental influence that have persisted within the Tamil and other Indian communities in Malaysia (Abdullah & Peterson. corrupt practices. findings with regard to locus of control differed from Carment’s (1974) earlier results. spousal selection. He attributed this to the socio-political environment of the time. that the Indian students were strongly external with respect to matters in their personal life. in which members look to each other and especially to maternal figures within the home. which would have led young Indians to perceive that skills in overcoming systemic barriers. it is easy to see how expectancies for the external control of life outcomes can develop. financial matters and social affiliations are made. perhaps due as argued earlier. when compared to Canadian students.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). influence peddling and status-related privileges. 2005). The finding that Indian-
With the Indian-Malaysian sample studied in the present research. 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. or at least strongly influenced by outside forces. however. There were no significant differences between Malay and Malaysian-Chinese participants on any of the three locus of control dimensions. 2003. for support in effecting the life outcomes that are important to them. along with selfpromotion skills.
Carment (1974) also found.
Research completed some thirty years earlier by Carment (1974) found that university students in India were strongly internally-controlled. Devashayam. Participants scored high in terms of attributions about the controlling nature of fate and powerful others. were necessary to succeed. individuals would be more likely to develop attributions of internal control. rife with bureaucracy.
1999. by extension. Sendut. Salih &Young. Armstrong (1987) argued that urbanisation has affected
. the proportion of the population residing in urban areas increased from 51% in 1991 to 55. 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. (2006) found greater commonalities in personality traits. 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. 1999). Nandy. 1981). Indeed. The size of the urban population in Malaysia increased by 4. 1999.5 million in 1991 to 11. This is consistent with recent findings among Malay and Chinese ethnic groups in Singapore. but two possible influences stand out. and. 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. Willford (2003) concluded that Indian-Malaysians. an internal locus of control. as a group. as a result.Malaysian participants scored lower in internality was contrary to Carment’s earlier conclusions with individuals from India. although they were consistent with more recent research by Sinha & Watson (2007). Closer proximity of cultural groups can be assumed to increase contact and transmission of knowledge and awareness of value systems (Hofstede. Gomez. including locus of control.7 in 1996. where Cheung et al. than between Singaporean-Chinese and Chinese participants from China.8 million in 1996.3
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. 1998.
5. 2002. 1999) where one’s skills at manipulating the system may have fostered a need for greater internal control. 1966. In reference to Carment’s explanation of the earlier results. have been largely limited from participation in social and political processes that would necessitate that sort of social skill development and.
Again.3. the reasons for this commonality in outlook are probably multi-factorial.5% annually from 9.
2002. aggression had a strong influence on behaviour in traffic. 2003. participants scoring higher on a measure of total trait aggression reported driving patterns that involved right-ofway violations. Dukes.
5. bringing them closer together in outlook. Huff. more recently. Miles & Johnson. Nonetheless.4
Aggression Haight (2004) has suggested that the concept of the accident-prone driver may
have been replaced in the 1990s by that of the alcohol-impaired driver and. in which members of ethnic groups are encouraged to adopt a ‘Malaysian outlook’ on life. Miller & Rodgers. Lawton & Nutter. Consistently. King & Parker. 2002). Lynch. Government initiatives have aimed at re-positioning Malaysia as a highly networked information economy and society. 2001. Brown (2007) has examined educational practices in
Malaysia within the context of ethnicity and nation-building. 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. Oetting & Salvatore. 2000. by the enraged driver. driving in a more urgent fashion and concentrating more on destination activities than on road and traffic
. Parkinson. Clayton. including perhaps attributions about the control of events. there is a large body of evidence that
aggression plays a significant role in unsafe driving behaviour and in crash outcomes (Deffenbacher. 2001)
In the present research.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. feeling more frustrated at external sources. 318). Jenkins. among automobile drivers and motorcyclists.
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. 2008.
the more dangerously they behaved in traffic.
Angry and aggressive driving episodes have been related to hostile cognitive statements that drivers make. With taxicab drivers.
While there are plenty of studies establishing the link between aggression and driving behaviour. Petrilli et al. 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. 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. on a journey by journey basis. Oetting et al. but that there was no evidence that the drivers who generally experienced higher level of congestion also experienced more anger. found that drivers were more likely to report anger when congestion was present. Deffenbacher. higher aggression levels related to a strong tendency to commit right-of-way violations and to drive more urgently.
Underwood et al. either verbally or as unspoken thoughts (“self-talk”). (2003) found that drivers engaging in hostile automatic thoughts tended to report more aggressive and riskier driving. but had no significant effect on externally-focused frustration or destination oriented activity. physical aggression. there are only a few that have attempted to explore the mechanism through which external or cognitive contexts trigger the effect. Parker. during such incidents. Male drivers tended to score higher than female drivers with respect to total aggression. Underwood et al. (1999) found that near accidents provoked feelings of anger. Further. a little less strongly when they thought about taking revenge (“I want to get back at this person”) and least
. 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”).conditions. verbal aggression and indirect aggression. particularly where drivers felt that they were not at fault in the incident. (1996) and Deffenbacher. Finland and the Netherlands. but there were no gender differences with respect to anger or hostility.
a cognitive distortion which stimulates a cognitive response related to physical aggression or revenge. perceiving another person’s slow driving as purposeful may lead to the emotional experience of anger. the world and others). however. That is. but they were found to moderate the effects of aggression on behaviour in traffic. one’s interpretations of the environment lead one to react emotionally toward features within the environment (Galovski et al. Each class of hostile automatic thought can be thought to represent a reaction to these three factors (Snyder et al.. 1997).
Beck (1987b) hypothesised that three cognitive factors play an integral role in the way emotion affects behaviour: (a) the native triad (a negative view of self. 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
. These moderating effects were significant when the content of the cognitions involved physical aggression or revenge motives. 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. (b) schemas (underlying general assumptions about life). In essence. Such responses. and (c) cognitive distortions (ways in which people misinterpret their environment).strongly. although still significantly. 2006).
The effects of aggression on behaviour. were also modified by the drivers’ locus of control. would be most likely to involve the usurpation of right-of-way or more urgent speeding behaviour. when entertaining cognitive statements that made derogatory comments (“What an idiot!”) about other drivers. as well. but not when they involved the derogation of others.
Not only did drivers’ angry cognitions have a direct effect on their behaviour in traffic.. and that cognitive event in turn triggers an aggressive or punitive type of traffic behaviour. in the samples studied here.
like any other mental task. so I’ll overtake him/her at high speed on the inside and feel great – i. Novaco.
The relationship between aggression and driving behaviour is both important and complex. Hochschild. and also by attributions regarding locus of control. Meichenbaum. Certainly. 1979. were unlikely to believe that outcomes are determined by one’s own actions) were significantly more likely to report riskier driving patterns in traffic than were aggressive drivers with high internality scores. 1990.e. 1977). This last finding replicated and extended earlier research by Gidron et al. 401). 1995. this process may be instrumental in the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic (“I’d like to knock his/her teeth out. Downe & Loke. It is moderated by cognitive processes.. Finally. 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. language comprehension can be regarded as a mental task which. Language loaded with emotional content.. evoked specific behavioural responses that then became subject to contingent reinforcement (Kanfer & Goldstein. p.
. in the form of hostile automatic
thoughts. 1987. 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. 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. (2003). “in ergonomics. has a workload associated with it” (Bridger.e. true to operant learning principles. and particularly with negative emotion. the original cognitive behaviourists tended to regard cognitive statements as internal mental stimuli that. 2004. but there may be more to it than that.
A driver’s mental workload is increased by the number of task demands with which one must contend in performing a function and. 1994.are determined by chance or fate. has been shown to be difficult to process (Dodge & Coie. or self-talk.
aggressive emotionality. 2002. 2004. and at the same time processing feelings of responsibility arising from one’s internal locus of control requires the investment of mental effort. In fact. Making sense of. 1999.
(e. Hinojosa. Mercado & Tapia.5. Tavris (1989) referred to anger as the “misunderstood emotion”. 1997). 2000. This can happen both in conditions of very high task demand and in conditions where the driver’s state is affected (p.1
Advantages of Using SEM Harlow (2005. Watson & Wan. 162).. Additional studies are needed to investigate whether this relationship is best explained through an internal stimulus-response process. Martin. Carretie.Robbins. 1979) and disruptive to attentional processing of external stimuli (Adolphs. As drivers contend with heightened feelings of aggression and increased internal chatter.1) defined multivariate thinking as “a body of thought processes
that illuminate interrelatedness between and within sets of variables” and proposed that
The present research has demonstrated linkages between hostile automatic thoughts. and attempting to exercise control over. internal locus of control and tendencies toward more dangerous behaviour in traffic. hostile automatic thoughts.5
Testing the Contextual Mediated Model Using Structural Equation Modelling (SEM)
5. 2002. as well as other task demands of driving in traffic. Stein. p. Lambie & Marcel. As the costs of achieving or maintaining a certain target level of performance increase.g. so too does the mental effort required (de Waard & Brookhuis. lane control in driving) will drop if effort investment is insufficient or ceases. As de Waard (2002) has argued: There are limits to the investment of effort. an overburdening of cognitive workload capacity or both. 1996. subject to ambiguous interpretation (Chan. Taylor & Fragopanagos. 2000. Dien. they may well reach a “red line” at which more mental effort is required than is available. MartinLoeches. 2005). 1993). Trabasso & Liwag. Tomkins.
According to Williams.. using SEM to examine relationships among factors allows the relationships to be free from measurement errors “because the error has been estimated and removed. similar to the variables representing factors in a factor analysis. The earliest use of SEM has been attributed to Swedish Statistician. In addition. Having the characteristics of multiple regression analysis.. the SEM depicts all of the relationships among constructs. allows the simultaneous estimation of multiple equations (Hair et al. or dependent. and perhaps most important. explain criterion. When composing a model. factors represented by multiple variables. SEM is deemed to be a unique combination of factor analysis and multiple regression analysis (Hair et al. the reliability of measurement can thus be accounted for explicitly within the analysis. advanced the idea of combining features of econometrics and psychometrics into a single model (Klem. Structural equation modelling (SEM). p. Second. 2000). 2006). Hair et al. or latent. researchers are attracted to the benefits that SEM can offer. First. variables but also determine which specific predictors are most important in predicting dependent variable outcomes (Maruyama. including dependent and independent variables. The constructs may be comprised of unobservable. 2006). leaving only common variance” (Hardy and Bryman. the growth in application of SEM techniques has paralleled researchers’ access to computer based data analysis software programs such as LISREL. By estimating and removing measurement error.434). a multivariate technique. EQS and AMOS. Gavin and Hartman (2004). 2004. 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.multivariate methods provide a richer and more comprehensive examination on the variables. involved in the analysis. or independent variables. 2004. Karl Jöreskog. 1998). who in 1970. SEM can not only tell how well the predictors. Finally. 2006).
the goodness of fit index (GFI). (2004) has been critical of most studies. (2004) commented on inconsistencies in the way SEM results have been reported in the literature. there is a lack of consensus on how best to evaluate the extent to which a proposed model fits the data.e. RMSEA or SMRM) One incremental fit index (i. despite the prominence of SEM as a statistical tool.5.e. GFI. Shook et al. Hair et al added that the assessment of a model’s goodness-of-fit should include the following:
The χ2 value and the associated df One absolute fit index (i.5. CFI. In the present research. the comparative fit index (CFI). and the root mean square residual were included. Although many researchers have used SEM to examine a theoretically proposed model. but that very few studies have used multiple fit indices. Williams et al. several alternative models were tested against different propositions in order to arrive at a model with the best possible fit.2
Goodness of Fit SEM is considered a confirmatory analysis for testing and potentially confirming
theory. It is therefore not practical to apply a single set of cutoff rules to the measurement models. as suggested by Hair et al. SRMR. Sümer (2003) added that. (2006) have argued that no single ‘magic value’ for the fit indices has been found to differentiate good from poor models. etc) One badness-of-fit index (RMSEA. Ketchen.
Hair et al. fit indices such as chi-square statistics. etc)
. when assessing the fits of measurement models. 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 or TLI) One goodness-of-fit index (GFI. TLI. model re-specification by citing theoretical support for the changes made is desired. Therefore.
Shook. (2006). Hult & Kacmar (2004) and Williams et al. (2004) noted that.
2001. Hair et al. so that stronger evidence supporting the correct specification of a model can be adduced (Thompson. 2000). This has become such a widely accepted principle that decisions over model selection have become almost automatic (Klem. 2006. CFI. provided competing models both present a pre-determined standard for goodness-of-fit. 2003) and other disciplines (Elangovan. Sümer (2003) reported that some researchers have used critical χ2 /degrees of freedom ratios from 2 to 5 to indicate an acceptable fit. 2001. be a process that balances utility with statistical
. the model with the best goodness-of-fit indices is selected over alternate models. 2009) that have tended to select the model that has the best fit indices. It is widely agreed that selection of the model should be a very good or an excellent fit. RMSEA and the χ2 /degrees of freedom ratio.
At the same time. both dealing with traffic psychology (Sümer. 1998). Md-Sidin. CFI and CFI) greater than . As a general rule. RMSEA lower than . 2006).In the present research. Structural equation modelling should.. 2000) and there are many examples of research studies.
5.90. Although chi-square is the most fundamental absolute fit index. the fit indices for assessing the model included χ2 value and the associated df.5. 1998.
It is argued here that. we would argue. but there is little guidance in the literature as to what course of action should be taken when two models each meet standards for goodness-of-fit. 2006) such that for analyses of sample sizes more than 250. Maruyama. it should not be used as the sole indicator of SEM fit because it is affected by sample size (Hair et al.3 Best Fit or Best Model It is important to test multiple plausible rival models. Sambasivan & Ismail. significant p-values can be expected.08 and a χ2 /degrees of freedom ratio less than 3.g.00 have been recommended to indicate good model fit (Hair et al. it has been stressed repeatedly by several authors no definitive set of rules has been established for model selection (Byrne. Fit index values (e. it may be advisable to select one that offers the most useful information even if indices are slightly lower than its alternative.. GFI..
3).10) excluded the fourth factor. Sobel and Bohrnstedt (1985) pointed out that exclusive reliance on goodness-of-fit indices is unacceptable. this judgment rests squarely on the shoulders of the research. as suggested by Byrne (2001). when taking into consideration “practical considerations”. stating that. destination-activity orientation. 88). the choice between the two would be Model 1C6 given its superior index coefficients. provided the chosen one meets pre-determined standards for goodness-of-fit. 4.1.
In the case at hand. statistical. assessment of model adequacy must be based on multiple criteria that take into account theoretical. In some cases. it makes sense to choose a model with a slightly poorer fit but more useful information over the best-fitting model. More importantly. Both models were judged to have an excellent or very good fit.
There is some support for this position in the literature. Index coefficients from the original and subsequent analysis are shown in Table 5. Byrne (2001) argued that: Fit indexes yield information bearing only on the model’s lack of fit.7. it is concluded that the selection of Model 1C5 would be preferable
. Model 1C5 (see Figure 4. while Model 1C6 (see Figure 4. Thus.9) included all four components of the BIT scale. 1C5 and 1C6. “Scientific progress could be impeded if fit coefficients (even appropriate ones) are used as the primary criterion for judging the adequacy of the model” (p.
If selection criteria were to be based solely on goodness-of-fit parameters. of intervariable relationships for high-risk undergraduate automobile drivers were compared using an initial set of goodness-of-fit indices (see sect. However. a finding that was further supported by additional subsequent analyses using a further series of goodness-of-fit indices. two structural equation models. they can in no way reflect the extent to which the model is plausible. 158). and practical considerations (p.soundness.
499 0.39 Best
because it includes important information about destination-activity orientation behaviour that would be lost if Model 1C6 were chosen. C.
. F3 BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way.
Fit Statistics (Threshold values)
Outcomes: Crash Occurrence. BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration.97 0. BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration. HAT Proximal Context: BITF1.02 0.909 0. C.97 0.94 0.97 1. AQ.034 97.96 0.97 0. HAT Proximal Context: BITF1.Table 5. F2. Injury Occurrence 35.045 0.97 0.99 0.51 Very Good Model 1C6 Distal Context: I. it is apparent that this factor may be important to consider in future research and crash prevention programmes and should not be excluded from models on which they are based. P.96 1.42 11.98 0. F2.02 0.060 0. BITF2=Freeway Urgency. Given that multivariate
analysis revealed a significant association between this BIT component and crash outcomes. AQ. P. BITF2=Freeway Urgency.1: Goodness of Fit Statistics for Model 1C5 and 1C6 (Initial and Subsequent Analyses)
Model 1C5 Distal Context: I.043 129.02 0. BITF4=DestinationActivity Orientation Outcomes: Crash Occurrence. Injury Occurrence Degrees of Freedom RMSEA GFI Chi-sq/Df RMR AIC NFI CFI AGFI PGFI NCP ECVI Overall model fit 63.48 30. F3 & F4 BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way.91 0.
When dealing with systems that are safetycritical. while for Model 1C6. For practical reasons.
Based on the practical advantages of including the destination-activity orientation variable within the contextual mediated model and findings of the subsequent comparative results of PGFI coefficients. Storey. 1995.42. Further discussion in this section refers only to Model 1C5. provide the key to reducing injuries and saving lives (Reason. (2006) have noted that models with a higher PGFI are preferable over competing models because they have a better fit relative to their complexity. 1996). et al..1). the standard should be to include as much relevant information as possible. when variables do not improve the AGFI and PGFI. Schwebel. Sambasivan (2008) stated that. when drivers do let their attention wander from current road and traffic conditions they are at increased risk of experiencing a crash outome (Moller.
. Reason. 1990. 2006. but still acceptable. goodness-of-fit. Kayumov. they should be dropped. it is 0.48. Hair et al.It can be argued here that safety research demands a somewhat different standard in terms of model construction and selection. However. farther along. By selecting Model 1C5. a central psychological feature of the TABP in driving is not overlooked and the BIT framework is kept intact. the decision was made to select Model 1C5 over Model 1C6.
Some justification for the selection of Model 1C5 over 1C6 is also found in the analysis of the parsimony fit (PGFI) statistic (see Table 5. Results of this and other research have demonstrated that. Nahn & Shapiro. one that favours the maximum use of information in the cause of saving lives. Manstead & Stradling. in this analysis. 2006). the PGFI coefficient for Model 1C5 is 0. this is an important component to retain in a contextual mediated model of behaviour in traffic even if it does render a lower. in particular. Parker. based on the notion that each variable included may.
crash occurrence (r = -.5. Sümer. In Study 1C. This suggested that automobile drivers with high levels of
.6.34) and injury occurrence (r = .5. indicating the importance of this factor in crash outcomes.29). aggression. indicating that driving behaviour is closely related to involvement in motor vehicle crashes. 2001. externalitychance.18) and injury occurrence (r = -.
Examination of the predictive relationship between distal and proximal variables yielded support for the contextual model and were consistent with previous findings (e. with five distal factors (internality. As observed from the investigation of structural paths. . and hostile automatic thoughts). 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).5.1). via BIT. Distal factors (locus of control: internality. externality-powerful other.66).4. 1991. freeway urgency. .21).23 respectively) and the BIT displayed a significant effect on crash outcomes (path coefficient = . externality-powerful other. Rothengatter. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) had significant effects on BIT scores (path coefficients = . Evans. for automobile drivers sampled. They appeared to be the strongest predictors among the five distal factors (path coefficients = -. externally-focused frustration. the base model (with only locus of control variables) was compared against five alternative models (see section 4. Findings in this study underscored the strong role of BIT in predicting accidents. on crash outcomes.g. . The results suggested that the alternative model. Total scores of BIT were significantly correlated with crash occurrence (r = .28 and .35 and .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.35.14. internality and aggression had direct effects on BIT and indirect effects.28 respectively).26.45).4
Testing the Contextual Mediated Models Using SEM
5. externality-chance. Internality was significantly but negatively correlated with BIT (r = -.
65 and . and destination-activity orientation) comprising the proximal factor and two latent constructs (crash and injury occurrence) comprising the crash outcome variable. Results indicated that the first alternative model.66) directly predicted crash outcomes. The second alternative model also had four distal factors but only three latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way. with hopelessness removed as a distal factor but four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way.24). The first alternative model had four distal factors (locus of control: internality. was significantly and positively correlated with BIT (r = . Aggressive automobile drivers tended to have high level of BIT scores. internality and externality-chance (path coefficients = -.
.5.41). and high probabilities of crash and injury occurrence. externally-focused frustration.20) and injury occurrence (r = . crash occurrence (r = . externality-powerful other and hopelessness).
5. and four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way. had a better fit than other alternative models.internality were more likely to have low total BIT scores. externality-chance. externally-focused frustration. One of the most compelling findings in Study 2 was that externalitychance scores had the highest correlations with BIT (r = . freeway urgency.23) and injury occurrence (r = . as well as low probability of crash and injury occurrence. the base model (with only the locus of control variable) was compared against two alternative models. 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. Investigation of the path parameters revealed that only two of the distal factors. on the other hand.25).2 Study 2: Motorcyclists In Study 2. and destination-activity orientation) as proximal factors. freeway urgency and externally-focused frustration) for the proximal factor. Aggression.4.55). freeway urgency.80) indirectly and the proximal factor-BIT (path coefficient = . which sampled motorcyclists.
via BIT. externally-focused frustration. The first alternative included four distal factors (internality.5.4. as a result. freeway urgency.5. Both dimensions of external locus of control had insignificant results. Finally. All models included four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way. externality-chance. their crash occurrence. in turn and indirectly. for crash outcomes.5. Investigation of the path parameters revealed that there were only two of the four distal factors.5
What Can be Learned from Testing Contextual Models with SEM? The use of SEM provided support for the contextual mediated model. internality and aggression (path coefficients = -. had no significant effect on BIT scores. such as internality. Distal
5. externally-focused frustration. externality-powerful other.24 respectively) that had direct effects on the proximal factor and a simultaneous indirect effect on crash occurrence. This suggested that internality and aggression play important roles in affecting the behaviour in traffic of taxicab drivers and. the result was slightly different as a belief in chance as an outcome determinant had a significant effect on BIT scores. hopelessness. 4. externality-chance. aggression).20 and . and destination-activity
orientation) comprising the proximal factor and one latent construct (crash occurrence) comprising the outcome variable. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts. externality-powerful other and aggression). and destination-activity orientation) as proximal factors. the base model (with only the locus of control variable) was compared against three alternative models (see sect.
. However. had a better fit than alternative models.6. had significant direct effects on the four latent constructs that comprised the proximal variable (BIT) and. with the sample of taxicab drivers. crash occurrence. crash occurrence. the bestfitting model used only a single latent construct. for the sample of taxicab drivers. freeway urgency. on the two latent variables comprising crash outcomes.3 Study 3: Taxicab Drivers In Study 3. Results indicated that the third alternative model. The second and third alternative models only had one latent construct. with four distal factors (internality. to measure outcome.3). four latent constructs (usurpation of right-ofway. For motorcyclists. the results of measurement model analysis showed that one of the distal factors.
To a large extent. four of which were comprised of students from a single university. 278279). 2005. “but sometimes it may be the only viable alternative when quick and timely information is needed” (pp. the fact remains that participants constituting the four student samples
were. Some authors have commented on the lack of generalisability of findings in traffic psychology research (Dunbar. an argument used by Montag & Comrey (1978) and others who have studied young drivers. both and particularly the student samples constituted a convenience sample that may have curtailed the generalisability of findings.
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. With very few studies having been completed on Malaysian drivers to date. Further.5.
In the present research.1
Limitations of the Study and Methodological Considerations Generalisabilty of Findings A key feature of all research is the capacity for results obtained from a sample to
be applied to a larger population with proportionately the same degree of diversity (Langdridge.
. the present research was intended as an initial attempt to examine the influence of psycho-social variables on driving behaviour and crash outcomes among a given high risk sample. however.6. by virtue of their age and driving experience within the highest risk group. a total of five samples were taken. Huguenin.
Sekaran (2003) points out. The fifth sample was comprised of professional taxicab drivers. 2004). that convenience sampling is indeed the least reliable of all sampling designs in terms of generalisability.6 5. 2005). chosen at random from taxi stands.
The proportion of the total sample for Studies 1 and 2 falling within the 16. Based alone on the number of residents living in each state.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. Study 1C: 99.to 25-year old high-risk group was 99. while Malacca and Negeri Sembilan were overrepresented. it is helpful to examine the distribution by state in which research participants obtained their driving licenses.2% and Study 2: 99.13 years (SD = 1.2%). Ages of participants in this research ranged from 18 to 29 years. Selangor. with a mean age of 20.In Malaysia.6% (Study 1A: 99. The Spearman rank correlation coefficient for these two sets of scores is rs=. Sarawak and Kelantan were under-represented in the sample.
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. Approximately one-third of all automobile crashes. The most populous state. during the interval from 2000 to 2003.31. Since. involved drivers aged 16 to 25 years. making it the single highest risk age group (see Table 2. as elsewhere. Sabah. Study 1B: 100%.
. in Malaysia. 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.2).55). young drivers are among the most likely to experience a motor vehicle crash.
Table 5. contributed the largest proportion of the sample. the sample does not appear to be very repreresentative of the Malaysian population.6%.
.6 0.2 3. attempting to determine sample representativeness based on only state population would be flawed.004.674 1. For that reason.807 733.000 3.000 1.7 (2) 2.0 4. Table 5.000 2.1 (7) 8.2 (11) 12.818.396.387.000 215.9 (3) 2.000 1.9 (9) 7.6 2.2 (5) 0.3 (12) 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) 7.5 (4) 4.2 (1) 3.500 1. a better assessment of sample representativeness by state would be to compare the proporation of participants with numbers of registered private vehicles and with the numbers of crashes in each state of origin.286 1.000 Per cent of national population 26.8 (6) 6. the state of origin is defined as the state in which the participants’ driving licenses were issued.2 7. and there are different crash frequencies in each one. Not all states have the same number of drivers. In both cases.0 8.6 (10) 7.0 12.500.6 6.4 5.200.7 (14)
But.576 2.3 compares the state of origin of participants in Study 1 with the more relevant measures of vehicle registrations and crash occurrence.300.880 3.9 9. in this case. It is important to remember that the purpose of this research was to study the population of young.19 Per cent (rank) of participants sampled 17.4 provides
similar comparisons for the state of origin of the sample of motorcyclists.887.8 6.260.5 (8) 3.2 11.6 5.2 (13) 11.Table 5.100.
Table 5.000 2.503. high-risk drivers in Malaysia.188 1.
064 9.19 3.63
.16 2.600 135.27 14.34 3.89 3.92 25.98 0.24 0.88 3.05 2.774 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
12.920 181.85 1.96 3.19 7.4 4.34 11.45 9.70 3.026 10.50 29.93 9.76 3.22 17.029 273.36 8.725 70.785 393.19 4.170 13.212 39.144 12.230 266.561 1.735 165.003 10.37 3.768 6.496 Private Automobile Registrations (until 2003) 703.84 11.97 12.46 8.3: State of Origin Compared with Crash Frequency and Vehicle Registrations (Study 1) Average Motor Vehicle Crash Frequency (2000-2003) 34.428.617 10.24 2.490 525.88 2.28 3.588.041 92.198 156.Table 5.137 698.20
12.91 2.093 5.467 25.104 6.251 324.75 4.68 7.55 7.43 2.13 6.635 1.163 10.496 187.35 4.93 0.606 24.90 5.70
98 0.283 770.64 1.59 1.66 11.615.727 161.63
.88 2.93 9.617 10.79 13.75 5.02 7.679 90.064 9.467 25.49 0.33 4.45 2.20
Private Vehicle Registrations (until 2003) 933.03 4.10 9.22 3.170 13.305 276.003 10.992 776.4 4.029 273.104 6.46 5.64 2.43 2.46 14.49 12.995 233.725 70.989 6.606 24.82 9.38 0.93 7.76 3.768 6.212 39.88 3.15 5.92 25.35 4.63 11.656 821.112 347.722 255.36 8.27 14.144 12.48 1.561 1.38 4.026 10.288 444.4: State of Origin Compared with Crash Frequency and Vehicle Registrations (Study 2) Average Motor Vehicle Crash Frequency (2000-2003) 34.02 10.856 310.37 3.958
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
12.221 36.28 3.14 7.59 12.
4. Future studies of Malaysian driving behaviour will need to expand the range participant
.903** . at least.824** . was representative of a high risk driver population. it is possible to say that sampling.814**
1 . This sample was comprised of individuals within the age group that has the most motor vehicle crashes. participants came from – or.Table 5.796**
Were the participants studied in this research representative of high-risk Malaysian drivers? In terms of their age and their regional origin.
Table 5. were licensed as drivers in – the states with the most registered vehicles and the highest numbers of crashes.
Of course.908** 1 3 Participants’ state of origin . At least on these dimensions. it can be argued that they were. both for the studies of automobile drivers and for the study of motorcyclists. 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.5 shows the The Spearman rank correlation coefficient (rs) for the variables in Tables 5. 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.3 and 5. Even though data collection was carried out at a single university location.5: Spearman rank correlations for States of Origin for Participants in Study 1 and Study 2 1 2 3 Study 1: Automobile Drivers 1 Automobile crash frequency (by state) 1 2 Vehicle registrations (by state) .701** 1 Study 2: Motorcyclists Motorcycle crash frequency (by state) Vehicle registrations (by state) Participants’ state of origin
1 2 3
296). Self-report data are prone to inaccuracy due to participant memory lapses. Rothengatter. 1979). is that this kind of data is usually aggregated … From aggregated data we cannot study the connections between accidents and age and exposure. in studying driving behaviour. social desirability response sets and fakeability (Aiken. the data has to be disaggregated. 1998. demographic factors. accident distributions by age. We can also get rough data of exposure by age. the use of questionnaire data provides the only practical possibility for gathering data at a low cost. None of these
variables can be substituted by group means. violations and accidents should be linked together. Additional studies should be carried out in order to validate findings within the broader population. however. 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.g. e. However. Elander et al. unless the variation within the group is very small. Exposure.
accidents.6. The problem. Katila and Laapotti (1997) have argued that. as in other psychological research. 2001). Much important data is available in official statistics. the easiest way to get data on several factors from the same subjects is by simply asking the subjects (p. Keskinen. Hatakka.. attitudinal factors. Again. (1993) have similarly argued that other methods for studying the
.characteristics used as a basis for sample-to-population comparisons.
The issue becomes even harder to resolve when dealing with cognitive variables that cannot be observed directly (Groeger & Rothengatter. 1998.2
Use of self-report methods The use of self-report methods in traffic psychology has been strongly criticised
by af Wählberg (2002).
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. for instance. Yet. muscle tension. steering wheel reversals and speed change frequencies)” (p. In future studies. Miles and Johnson (2003) have noted that.
5. 13). subjective accounts of crash or injury history should be validated against objective measures. as well. perhaps drawing from drivers’ insurance records or. heart-rate acceleration and electrodermal activity) and to overt driving behaviours (e. inadequate data are collected when the research is conducted over short periods of time. though. 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. questionnaires were administered to measure all variables and. therefore.
. 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. errors of recall or contamination by post-event information (Belli & Loftus. self-reported crash and injury histories and self-reported driving patterns measured by the Behaviour in Traffic scale could be prone to inaccuracy.
In the present research. subjects would tend to under-report dangerous or illegal activities and that this tendency might usually be expected to be consistent across compared groups. Visser and Denis (2004). all data may be subject to the shortcomings of self-report methods. combined interview and observational methods.effects of personality on driving have drawbacks that cannot be overlooked. The assumption.3
Timeframe for Data Collection Elander et al. 1996). blood pressure. in studies of driving behaviour.. Particularly. (1993) and af Wählberg (2003) have commented on the problem of
data collection timeframes in studies of motor vehicle crashes.. as in a study reported by Chalmé. the longer the time period for data collection.g.6.g. the more information is lost through memory lapses. Since generally motor vehicle crashes are fairly rare events.
In the present research.
Unfortunately. 1971). First. Traits included in the contextual mediated model as distal variables have been found to be relatively consistent and resistant to change over this interval. as well.
5. in that the measure tells us little about the circumstances under which participants drove other than their perceived use against some unstated.4
Measurement of Driving Frequency One of the self-report measures used in this research requires particular
discussion. a timeframe that is consistent with reasonably accurate recall (Haber & Haber. Second. The driving frequency measure was alaso used a co-variate in analyses of relationships between other distal variables and proximal variables. Some authors have asked participants to estimate the distrance travelled during a particular period (Lajunen & Summala. other measures of driving frequency present as many or more problems. 1997.
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. individual standard. This method has been used in previous studies by other authors (Pelz & Schuman.6. Participants indicated on a 6-point Likert type scale how often they travelled as a driver and as a passenger both in automobiles and on motorcycles. and that one participant’s perception of frequent automobile or motorcycle use may seem infrequent to another’s. 1999).2) that higher levels would result in less risky behaviour in traffic was supported. participants were asked to recall if a crash or resulting injury had occurred within the past twelve months. Results were used as a measure of driving frequency for Studies 1 and 2. The problem
with this approach is that it is every bit as subjective as the categorical judgements of
. 2002). there is a certain imprecision to the measure. and the hypothesis (H2. it has to be acknowledged that the measure is subjective. Mercer.
. 181). Levy (1997) argues that: Unfortuantely. as opposed to reporting perceptions in categorical form (Tversky & Kahneman. 1973. 2008). on how available it is in our memories (Kahneman. 1982). This is why individuals tend to irrationally overestimate the number of murders per year (Jaffe. eventful or recent. p. Often.
In much the same way. 1974). in which the perceived probability of an event corresponds to the ease with thich the event comes to mind or. 1993. There is some evidence that the availability heuristic exerts a greater impact when specific quantitative amounts or percentages have to be estimated. 2003). 121). but not always. 2003. and the likelihood of encountering a traffic jam (Wood. and that people are consistently poor at making these sorts of estimates accurately (Saad. in other words. this
strategy leads us to overestimate their actual occurrence. 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. 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. because they are highly emotional and so forth” (Plous.
.frequency that were used in this research. “Some events are more available than others not
because they tend to occur frewquently or with high probability. Slovic & Tversky. because they have taken place recently. frequency or distribution in the world (p.
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. 1993). their chances of winning a lottery (Griffiths. although this has not been firmly established. but because they are inherently easier to think about. it is argued here that such inaccuracy is also likely due to a cognitive phenomenon known as the availability heuristic. 2002). experiences that are more common than others tend to be the ones that are most available. Specifically. Kahneman. 2004). Wood & Boyd.
Given that sample sizes for this research had to be large enough to apply structural equation modelling procedures. it might be expected that participants’ driving estimates would be particularly prone to influence by the availability heuristic.
Deffenbacher et al. in the form of more vividly remembered trips to family reunions during festive seasons. the use of distance travelled doesn’t really solve the main problem in travel frequency measurement.
Of course. it was felt that the collection of logbook data would have overextended time and financial resources at hand for the five
A logbook approach was considered during the design of the present research. Sansone. 1991).
Finally. in their studies of roadway aggression. where driving histories generally include lengthy. which is the lack of information about the circumstances under which road use occurred (Odero et al. traffic volume and so on in logbooks as a means of controlling for differing driving circumstances. 2000). Morf and Panter (2004) argue that psycho-social research generally involves a balancing act between idealised research questions. many of the inaccuracies involved with the use of self-reported frequency data could have been solved by taking direct odometer readings. road conditions. emotionally-laden seasonal and holiday travel (Richardson & Downe. asked participants to record the time of day. Similarly.In the Malaysian environment. on one hand. (2003). poorer pavement and more surrounding vehicles (Åkerstedt & Kecklund. 2001) . and the availability of the resources necessary to operationalise them. for example. 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. during periods of low traffic volume. Driving 30 kilometres daily on quiet city thoroughfares. but training participants in standardised record-keeping. 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..
are testable and contain no contradictions. categorical perceptions of driving frequency. Michon. Summala. 2004). Ranney. 1994). creating new difficulties in their quantification (King. over-arching theory (Rothengatter. 1997). have high information content. selfreported measure used here.studies undertaken. 2005). 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. 2005). In the present research.7. 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. 1991). 2004). Good theories are simple. 1985.
Implications and Areas for Further Study Theory vs. using other procedures for measuring driving frequency – particularly in the form of estimated distance travelled and verified logbook recordings of trip distances and conditions – in order to validate the categorical. that associated methodological disadvantages were fewer than those of the competing approaches.
In addition. Models in Traffic Psychology It has been noted earlier that the emerging field of traffic psychology has yet to
arrive at a unified.
Further research is required. the decision was made to use participants’ subjective. Rothengatter (2001) has argued that better measures of risk exposure are needed in traffic psychology. While some authors have considered the terms “theory” and “model” as synonymous (e. but that considerable effort has gone into the development of descriptive models. but this was done with an awareness of the shortcomings of this measure. are of nomological character and can be applied irrespective of time and space (Langdridge.. during the study design process. It was felt.7 5.g. the difference is that models are generally seen as “more modest affairs that aim to illustrate
. drawn from empirical studies and demonstrating inter-variable relationships (Chaloupka-Risser.
To summarise. collected logbook data would have been largely
qualitative in nature.
the fact remains that we have enough guidance already from mainstream psychology. The second question is whether we need traffic psychology models.
Throughout the development of traffic psychology. on the other hand. 32). or represent processes. in particular to structure data. stating that. The answer is probably not.patterns of relationships. 94). check facts. Huguenin (1997) has similarly argued that theories are necessary to treat a subject scientifically. debate as to whether the greater need exists for more theory or for more data. and while any data collection procedure must have some element of theory if it is to have real purpose. Grayson (1997) agreed. 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. often in graphical form (Grayson. 1997.
Hauer (1987). Although one might agree with the statement (ascribed at different times to Helmholtz and to Lewin) that “there is nothing so practical as a good theory”. create links to other fields of knowledge or to explain or predict circumstances. 294). there has beeen an ongoing discussion and. Attempts to develop ‘traffic-
specific’ theories have proved far less fruitful than has the importation of established theories from other areas of psychology. if they aim to illuminate and encourage research on specific topics rather than the
. if they are modest in ambition. The answer to this question is possibly yes. The first question is whether we need traffic psychology theories. p. Wilde (1982) has expressed concern that the study of traffic safety “is characterised by a sparsity of comprehensive and articulate conceptions” (p. at times.
In this case. The debate often seems to revolve around the comparative merits of result-centred versus theory-centred methods in research. 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. 95-96).
This latter point was also stressed by Evans (1991).3). the contextual mediated model developed here may also go some distance toward breaking out of the narrow monist frame of reference eschewed by Evans. The problem arises from an intrinsic dilemma. 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.
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. This dichotomy of perspectives is not unique to traffic studies and driving behaviour but seems to permeate all areas of applied psychology. For a model to be elegant and have derivable quantitative values of parameters it must be simple … The quest for simplicity leads to monist models which focus on one aspect of driving. Yet. In the present research. Greenwald and Pratkanis (1988). aggression and hostile automatic thoughts. 1985) – that could hinder scientific progress. who argued that. 2. while ignoring other factors which are much too important to be ignored (p. 304). In
.entire spectrum of traffic behaviour. but the framework constructed here can easily accommodate a potentially endless range of both distal and proximal variables. for instance. those variables included a diverse set of human traits including locus of control. and if they are resultscentred (pp. hopelessness.
Future research should attempt to expand the contextual mediated approach beyond studies of crash histories. it has been
conducted without the benefit of a process model of driving. the process through which drivers make adjustments based on their perceptions of risk.7. much current research. According to Ranney (1994). While the present research
5. not on everyday driving. … has used performance-based measures to predict individual accident histories. it may be even more fruitful to focus the model on the interaction of variables that contribute to safe. for instance. 2005) were included as distal variables. competence or hierarchical level of information processing (see sect. together with methodological difficulties associated with the use of accident measures.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).4). 2003). psychoticism. sensation seeking (Sümer. as defined by Grayson (1997). The general lack of success in identifying
predictors of safe driving. provides breadth of focus and a more holistic perspective than many other attempts at modelling driving behaviour. while still very much a model and not a theory. crash-free driving. Kerlinger (2000) and others. has focused primarily on accident-causing behaviour. and has relied heavily on post-hoc explanations. The contextual mediated framework. 2. conscientiousness. agreeableness and neuroticism (Sümer et al. With several exceptions. Rather than describing and predicting the interaction of factors involved in causing crashes. anxiety. lead to the conclusion that we should abandon the differential accident paradigm and define alternative measures of safe driving. depression.other studies.
is a concept that should be incorporated as an element in theories seeking to explain BA and its role in driving. It is possible that drivers with an internal locus of control will rely more on their own skills and abilities while they are driving and. or at least to react more slowly. Conversely. should the device fail to perform the task for which it was designed.
Within their proposed conceptual framework. some of the variables considered are conceptually tied to them. those who see themselves playing little or no part in the unfolding of events will act in a less cautious manner. On the other hand. Such
individuals would be more likely than internals to over-rely on a device to keep them oriented and alert. 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. They argued that locus of control. those with an external locus of control may be more likely to give up control to an external device. relying on it to competently perform the task it was designed for. while intuitively appealing and providing some useful insight.did not test any of those theories specifically.
. As a result.
Brown and Noy (2004) stressed that theories of BA and driving behaviour in general. fail by not considering individual driver characteristics or the range of motivations that determine driving behaviour. BA to in-vehicle safety measures may also be under the influence of drivers’ locus of control. believing that fate will achieve its predetermined goals no matter what the individual does. along with trust in automation and sensation seeking. no matter how reliable a safety device. they will become less involved with the driving task and be less likely to react.
Following this reasoning. will always maintain more direct involvement with the driving task than those scoring high on externality dimensions.
Drivers may need to undergo cognitive restructuring about their beliefs about their own responsibility over road safety in order to increase levels of internality. though. (2003) to moderate the effects of aggression on driving outcomes. an area of increasing importance in fleet management (Barjonet & Tortosa. 2004). consistent with the earlier findings of Gidron et al. Typically. Coupled with simulated or actual driving experience and methods to modify patterns of hostile selftalk. external locus of control and hostile attributions. Further research should focus on the role played by locus of control in influencing patterns of BA. could be screened out.3
Driver Selection. these approaches require special therapeutic training and large efforts on behalf of drivers. task capability (Fuller. Training and Rehabilitation The results of the present research have important implications for the
improvement of driving behaviour. 1997. which may mitigate the negative effects of roadway hostility. locus of control was found to exert effects on Type A driving patterns and. 2005.
. 1982). Findings from the present research can guide planners of remedial courses and counsellors to teach methods for increasing internal attributions. once identified. whether that adaptation is the result of perceived risk (Wilde. Gidron & Davidson. Summala. 1996). can be focused specifically on combinations of risk factors at both the distal and proximal levels. Drivers with combinations of TABP and aggression.
The treatment or rehabilitation of dangerous drivers has relied heavily on cognitive behaviour modification applications (Deffenbacher et. Specifically. Christ et al.7. al.. Further
research is required to investigate implications for improving driving performance.
5.In the present research. 2002. 2006) or cognitive processing (Keskinen.
Programmes with content focused on building internal attributions and a sense of personal responsibility would enhance training outcomes. changes in driver behaviour might be better targeted. 1996). Luckner (1989) and others have successfully developed training curricula that encourage internality. scarce resources for screening drivers.
recognised that the cardinal bases of accident prevention fall into three categories: engineering. 1).4). Cooke and Durso (2008) have noted that: Most industrial tasks require human operators to interact with various technologies.4.5. for the last fifty years. education. the technologies sophisticated and the interactions among humans.4
Preventive Measures: “The Three E’s”
5.7. World Health Organisation.
Slinn.1 Generating and classifying crash prevention interventions Ergonomists and safety scientists have. 1970) provides another system for classifying highway events for the purposes of research or accident prevention (see Figure 2. and machines are highly intricate (p. 1957). and the effective enforcement of regulatory legislation (Wheatley.
At the same time. Matthews and Guest (1999) have argued that traffic engineering has also undergone a transition in emphasis over the last decade. or legal intervention. Specific measures aimed at reducing accident occurrence or injury can be classed according to whether they are predominantly based on engineering principles. the Haddon Matrix (Haddon. Unlike 100 years ago. 1961. 1957. teams of humans. the tasks we ask operators to perform today are highly cognitie. 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.7.7. educational programming (including public awareness and driver training). From this has emerged the growing
.4. These have been euphemistically termed the “three E’s”.2 Engineering Interventions Engineering applications in transportation have become increasingly cogniscent of human thinking processes.
5. This framework can be integrated with the “Three E’s” to identify specific crash prevention measures arising from the findings of the present research.
Other authors have cautioned against engineering so many devices and signals that driver attention becomes diverted from vehicle control tasks. operator workload and performance (Inagaki. Suda & Ono. These have been applied to in-car. Bishop (2005) has noted that there is still a lack of knowledge about the threshold levels at which to set in-vehicle modifications. Murazami.application of computer and information technology to transportation infrastructure and vehicles. as well as other in-vehicle technologies now being tested for future implementation in automobiles and other vehicles (see Table 5. Stough.
The findings of the present research that usurpation of right-of-way.6). depending on environmental factors.
there may be limits to the number and level of sophistication of devices installed in motor vehicles. 2001). or the adaptive automation concept. Lane-keeping Assist Systems (LKA). Sadano. Such systems are based on a shared control paradigm.
. Holzmann (2008) argues that there is considerable potential for crash reduction in this sort of technology. with the resulting transport systems generally referred to as Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS. Maggio & Jin. 2003). reduce risks of extreme lane deviations by using a motor to increase steering torque in a manner that creates a “driving in a bathtub” sensation for the driver who nears a lane edge.6). so the systems are easily overridden by even the weakest drivers when needed (Kawazoe. in which in which the control of functions shifts between machines and human beings dynamically. The aim should be to assist drivers by making routine actions simpler. 2005). not to overwhelm them with complicated or difficult override processes. The amount of toque needed to adjust vehicle direction at highway speeds is quite small. In the case of LKA. 2001).
Several intelligent in-car systems have been developed to assist lane manoeuvring and to control lateral deviation in the forward motion track. for instance. roadway and environmental settings (see Table 5. (Bishop. is strongly associated with crash outcomes would support the importance of further development of LKA systems. At the same time. there is an adaptive and cooperative relationship between the driver and the vehicle in ensuring that lane deviation and roadway departure are controlled.
Parsons. Herzog. was associated crash outcomes.6). Richardson & Downe. in the form of driving above the speed limit and driving consistently in the fast lane. Brown & Noy.with a resulting increase in crash risk (Noy. and management of parking and loading arrangements that influence the speed of traffic. such as Automated Speed Enforcement (ASE). 1999. This finding would lend support to the myriad of speed control devices now under development. 2003. 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. Traffic management may also be carried out for easons other than safety. changes in traffic speed.
The present research also found that freeway urgency. but also encourages at a more basic level the concept of traffic management as a policy prescription: Traffic management refers to the adaptation of the use of the existing road network. 2000). 1993. A number of studies have reported that roadside vegetation and predominantly natural environments elicit lower levels of driver frustration and stress (Cackowsky & Nasar. initiatives aimed at improving environmental aesthetics may have a positive impact on roadway safety.
Engineering solutions have also been suggested with respect to the design of roadways and the general driving environment. Recovery from lapses in attention has been faster in
“restorative environments” enhanced with horticultural and aesthetic features (Heerwagen & Oriens. Intelligent Speed Adaptation (ISA) and Adaptive Cruise Control (ACC) systems (see Table 5. 1998). Fountaine and Knotts. in particular to pursue environmental. Black. Ulrich. Hebl & Grossman-Alexander. Tassinary. Safety benefits from traffic
management can result from changes in the patterns of trffic flow. 1997). traffic
This view embraces a philosophy and a set of goals that go far beyone mere physical control and management of traffic. 1991). and now encompass the principle of “traffic calming” (Brindle. engineering solutions have the least to offer in terms of behaviour in traffic that involves risky levels of destination activity orientation.
Probably. 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. however. Lippold and Mayser (2003) have noted that new driver assistance systems offer some promise for safety improvements by providing additional information to drivers. inexperienced drivers. Maakip (2003) has also added that there is little understanding of exactly what specific pieces of information drivers require or prefer to have. This refers to driving while thinking about things unrelated to the driving task. ostensibly satisfying wandering attentional needs and allowing vehicle operators to concentrate on tasks at hand.
. journey purpose or other human factors. Dietze. p. Proctor. Gregersen and Falkmer (2003). 309). however. 1996. 1992). 1996. and substantial lifestyle changes aimed at achieving an environmentally sustainable future (Ogden.efficiency (capacity) or access objectives (Ogden. questions of alternative urban structure. but extends into city-wide suppression of traffic. 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. and whether this information varies according to the situation.
Current discussions of speed management go even beyond traditional traffic management approaches.
.6: Engineering Applications for Crash Prevention Finding
Drivers who usurp the right-ofway and commit lane violations are more likely to experience crash outcomes.1. the systems vision sensing technology to transmit information to combine lane and road drivers about traffic flow. generally comprehensive lateral control controlled from a central assistance (LCA) – a point. 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. keeping. Integrated with combination of radar and roadside sensors. and likelihood of.
H 1. thermoplastic management systems – Many ability to detect lane and epoxy materials to metropolitan areas have departures and to alert drivers designate lane configurations. variable speed warning systems advise lane conspicuity and message signs (VMS). transitions for. management centers (TMCs) integrated lane marker with closed-circuit television road departure warning applications – these combine (CCTV) camersas. – 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. traffic and systems (RDWS) – curve different materials to increase weather sesors.1
lane departure warning lane marker improvements – integrated traffic systems (LDWS) – have the using plastic. 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. to allow easier lanes and synchronised actuated increase in steering overtaking and lane signals decreases the need as the vehicle nears a lane. reversible corrections through a motorlanes. infrastructure. unsafe blind spot monitoring systems lane deviation. etc. created intelligent traffic of impending hazards. traffic drivers when their speed is definition. blind spot sensing and lange change assist. departure warning. lane road conditions. “rumble strips” in expressways.Table 5.
Integrated with vehicles in the lane ahead of roadside sensors.2
lane deviation feedback systems – systems calculate the number of lane changes as a function of speed and cue the driver with performance data. to in-vehicle display terminals. deriver-selectable interwhich surrounding vehicles provide speed modification at vehicle gap. systems (CVHS) – wireless adaptive cruise control road network modifications. ACC systems provide modifications. 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. Radar. point.(continued)
H 1. 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.
H 1. vehicle’s speed to comply travelling at speeds higher cooperative vehicle highway with the speed limit.1.and millimetre-wave (MMW)-based inter-vehicle communications – systems that send data about the proximity of approaching or following vehicles. than the safety standard.. the host vehicle.1.
. the systems intersection modification. including those in adjoining lanes. including controlled from a central cruise control but also track street and link closures. are travelling. 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
Drivers scoring high on a measure of freeway urgency are more likely to experience crash outcomes. traffic lights) safe. communication systems (ACC) – acting as a Driving speed can be reduced embedded in the roadway “longitudinal control cothrough infrastructure infrastructure.
1. at which the whole road space at an intersection is raised. Such devices include chicanes. The use of properly designed humps are effective in causing vehicles to reduce speed in their vicinity. horizontal displacement – these design features cause the driver to change direction quite sharply and change the visual cues presented by the roadway.(continued)
Externally-frustrated drivers are more likely to experience crash outcomes.
. humorous content to evoke a contradictory affective response to frustration.
H 1. traffic flow management training to better frustration and effect a moderation and other cope with frustration caused calming influence on drivers. measures that can reduce by driver interactions with congestion and other contrary messages – roadroad. has an advantage over intersection redesign by saving space. 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. “Speed tables”. pinchpoints and gateways or arches. environment and other frustrating stimuli. automated speed enforcement – the use of high-volume speed cameras to regulate the speed of motor vehicles on roadways.3
vertical displacement. signs with calming or vehicles. coupled with stress vegetation to reduce traffic signals.
This information allows drivers to avoid or. notification of construction ahead.1.(continued)
electronic variable message signs (VMSs) – roadside signboards which change messages to provide updated information about traffic congestion. safety messages. driver assistance systems – capable of providing information about destination conditions or journey progress.4 in-vehicle biofeedback devices – systems that measure driver arousal and eye focal points and cue the driver when measures do not calibrate with attention to road conditions. to reduce wandering thoughts and focus attention on driving tasks at hand. weather-related road conditions. at least. prepare for stress-provoking conditions and external frustration. H 1.
Destination-activity orientation is associated with a higher risk of crash outcomes. dedicated broadcast of safety messages – radio or broadband messages with reminder to focus attention on driving tasks at hand.
. notice of future road construction and notice of public events.
The present research suggests that.5. 2001). Training skills for anger management and frustration tolerance. it is also important for them to devote some time to the affective and cognitive components of the driving task.4. it may be effective to conduct such awareness bulding within cultural centres. imparting a sense of personal responsibility consistent with a higher internal locus of control and reducing freeway urgency through effective time management skills and greater risk awareness would be important cognitive components to the training syllabus. to some extent. and must include broader awareness about the dangers of roads and traffic.
. In a study of traffic awareness in developing countries.3 Education According to Jacobs and Baguley (2004).7.
The present research provides some useful additions to the knowledge base to be imparted to professional driving instructors in Malaysia. 73). in addition to teaching the practical manoeuvres and driving techniques associated with managing a vehicle. Professional driving instruction tends to be inadequate because (a) driving instructors are not properly tested or monitored.
Effective road safety education goes beyond driver training programmes. teachers or the police. given ethnic differences observed with respect to drivers’ behaviour in traffic. This is consistent with previous calls in Malaysia for safety awareness education. It suggests that. They concluded that there is clarealy a need to improve road safety education. the probems of poor driver behaviour and knowledge in developing and emerging countries “are likely to be due. Downing and Sager (1982) reported that children were significantly less likely to recive advice than in the United Kingdom from members of thir family. and (c) driving test standards and requirements are inadequate” (p. like community centres or places of worship. publicity campaigns and incentive schemes to be offered as part of the activities within mosques (Che Ali Bin Che Hitam. (b) there are no driving or instruction manuals. however. to inadequacies in driver training and testing.
Yergil (2005) has discussed a number of cognitive biases that tend to enhance a false sense of safety among drivers. This twinning of psychological and legal perspectives derives two implications. from the findings of the present research. The results of the present research would suggest that messages about the link between personal responsibility for one’s action. 1030). The Belief in a Just World bias is the tendency “to belive that they live in a world where people generally get what they deserve” (Lerner and Miller. evoke the least expectation and are least often evaluated in terms of their effect on accidents” (p.4. 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. or the
tendency to attribute one’s own attitudes and behaviour to others.
First.7. The bias of false consensus.
Second. Jacobs and Baguley (2004) have stressed that changes in road laws and police operations need to be well advertised in order to be effective. and driving within safe legal limits could be included within future public information campaigns. road safety campaigns and media coverage” (Cheah. 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. one practical and the other touching on the development of theory.
Siegrist and Roskova (2001) have called for an integration of social science views arising from traffic psychology with legislation and enforcement pertaining to traffic. p. 265). 2007. or an internal locus of control. such as visibility of enforcement. and penalties for infringement to ensure that the rules are obeyed.5. was studied in a
. and (3) legal measures providing rules governing the interaction of pedestrians and traffic. They also stated. (2) exhortatory and educational measures to encourage the development of appropriate skills and attitudes. however. N6). legal measures change least often. p.
Reason & Baxter.
The theory of planned behaviour (TPB. Stradling. 498). 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. Another possible way to minimise the same contradiction is to diminish the significance of the violation by labelling it as an action that. 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. Yergil (2005) notes that: In order to maintain the self-concept of a law-abiding citizen.
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
. 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). Azjen & Fishbein. is allowed to occur in a Just World. on one hand attributing outcomes to a fatalistic notion of Just World and. 1991. after all. drivers need to resolve the contradiction between cognitions: “traffic laws are laws” and “I violate traffic laws. Parker.” 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).sample of drivers by Manstead. 1992). By doing so. Ajzen. opinions about what significant others would think of the behaviour (subjective norms) and perceived behaviour control (PCB). 2001. 2001) provides an interesting theoretical framework for considering the influences of these cognitions and their interplay with regulatory controls. on the other.
Both biases seem rooted in an external locus of control.
drivers’ decisions to adhere. By examining drivers’ response to traffic laws in the context of the theory of planned behaviour. an orientation toward an external locus of control may influence PCB factors underlying the decision to comply with legal requirements or not. to traffic regulations.
. or not adhere. Similarly. it may be possible to come closer to the integration of legal and psychological perspectives advocated by Siegrist and Roskova (2001).
when risky. it was concluded that driver experience. 2005. was used to frame the relationship between these human factors. aggression and tendency to entertain hostile automatic thoughts all act upon driving behaviour patterns which.. 2003. contribute to the occurrence of crashes and injuries. as proximal to the crash outcomes. with demographic and personality variables posited as distal and patterns of behaviour in traffic consistent with the Type A behaviour pattern. age. Results have indicated that. Wállen Warner & Åberg.
The present research was an attempt to investigate interaction effects of experiential. In the present research. as expected.g. ethnicity. 2002. demographic and psychological characteristics of drivers on the occurrence of self-reported motor vehicle crashes and crash-related injuries. 2006) and it is anticipated that there will be many more. Sümer et al.
A contextual mediated model. locus of control.
In doing so. Iverson & Rundmo. such human factors are important contributors to crash outcomes. Sümer. derived from the earlier work of Sümer (2003). Studies using structural equation modelling to interpret complex inter-variable relationships have become increasingly prevalent within the traffic psychology literature (e. gender. structural equation modelling (SEM) was found to be a valuable technique for articulating interactive relationships in a holistic manner. hopelessness.. It is concluded here that the contextual mediated model is useful in conceptualising and testing driving behaviour and its outcomes and that further research incorporating other variables at both the distal and proximal level should be carried out.
In most cases. while internal locus of control has been frequently associated with safer work and lifestyle practices (Guastello & Guastello.
It is further concluded that aggression also plays a significant role in behaviour leading to crash outcomes. it is argued here. and accident risk (e. 1987). 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. Harrell. one conclusion is that the locus of control construct plays an important role in safety behaviour. task capability (Fuller. like Brown and Noy (2004). that when faced with competing models in safety studies.. However. the selection of one SEM over competing models has been generally based on which has the better goodness-of-fit. the locus of control variable has been long recognised as a moderator variable in a range of psychological processes involving stress (Lefcourt.In the current literature. as well as statistical grounds. consistent with the position taken by Byrne (2001) and other authors.. Further. Hoyt. 1983) and was earlier found to moderate the effects of aggression on driving behaviour (Gidron et al. The present research replicated earlier findings about the important influences of internal and external locus of control over behaviour leading to safety problems and. 1982). 1974). This is
Of the variables studied. it has been argued here that it may be an important factor in behavioural adaptation processes underlying risk homeostasis (Wilde. In the present research. although it is widely acknowledged that this is not a hard and fast rule. 2003). traffic psychologists and other researchers are advised to make the choice based on theoretical and practical. measures of aggression had direct effects on all components of self-reported behaviour in traffic.g. Montag & Comrey. Some inter-ethnic differences in
. 1986. 1995. 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. 1973). the best fit usually implies the best model. Some previous studies have shown a link between ‘fatalism’. 2000) and hierarchical motivation theories (Näätänen and Summala. or external locus of control.
road engineering and ergonomics. Groeger & Rothengatter. as well. 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. As Rothe (2002) has pointed out: Traffic-safety systems are composed of complex behaviours that imply complex causes and entangled factors. 1998. Several authors (e. it became apparent that motor vehicle crashes are indeed multi-factorial phenomena and that prior assumptions of causality should always be subject to review. It is argued that this is a
In interpreting these effects. However. cultural anthropology. For example. Rothengatter. Huguenin. Each system has its own experts whose lenses are focused almost exclusively on their own subject matter. 2005. 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. a multi-disciplinary approach was used. promising approach to future studies of crasch occurrence. and a psychologist who studies cognition and driving while turning away from laws and government. a civil engineer who uses laboratories to measure asphalt wearing under different conditions. all are professionals who know their area of expertise has collegially or self-imposed limitations..aggression were observed. an economist who researches economic factors of transportation without much concern for geography.g. including psychology (especially cognitive and information processing). bird’s eye view of the factors contributing a given outcome. One of the benefits of using structural equation modelling in such research is that it allows for a holistic.
In examining inter-relationships among and between these variables. they
. in combination.
form a complex traffic-safety reality in which systems form a web of interdependent fields (p. Indeed. a multi-disciplinary approach leads not only to the greater level of understanding described by Rothe (2002). Through a multi-disciplinary approach. 313). findings with regard to four
components of behaviour in traffic gave rise to a number of interventions in the engineering. management. injuries and death. 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.
It is to be hoped that future preventive measures and research will continue along the multi-disciplinary path that has characterised both traffic psychology and road engineering as emerging areas of specialisation. Additional studies should aim toward a conceptual common ground and further examination of models and theories from which broader understanding can be derived. Continued sharing between professional associations and between design. regulatory and social science specialists should be encouraged.
. significant impacts can be made in reducing motor vehicle crashes. educational and enforcement spheres. In the present research. but it also opens the door for a wider range of preventive measures.
A. Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies.REFERENCES
Åberg. Some methodological deficiencies in studies on traffic accident predictors.
Aiken. (2002). Musa. N.H.
Abdullah.H. (Research Report 1/99) Kuala Lumpur: Malaysia Road Safety Council. R.. P. 5. Subramaniam. A.
af Wählberg. S. Journal of Safety Research. 10(2). individual crash level approach. Car occupants accidents and injuries among adolescents in a state in Malaysia.A. Mohd Zulkifli. 289-296. MY: Pearson. E140 Proceedings of the Safety on Roads International Conference (SORIC). Accident Analysis and Prevention. Review of global menace of road accidents with special reference to Malaysia – a social perspective. Current Opinion in Neurobiology. (2003).. (2005). Bahrain. and Anurag. 38(5).
Ahmad Hariza.E.. (2002). H.S. attitudes and social norms of Swedish male drivers. M. (1993). P. 473-486. 31-39. 581-587. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Neural systems for recognizing emotion. 35. Petaling Jaya.
Abdul Kareem. (2003).. Accident Analysis and Prevention. The effectiveness of motorcycle safety campaigns on motorcyclists. 169-177. 25. Mohd Nasir. Psychological Testing and Assessment. On the validity of self-reported traffic accident data. (2007).
Abdul Rahman.. R. Crash data analysis: collective vs. Puzzles & Irritations. and Law. Third edition. 12. T. K.B.
af Wählberg. H. and Kulanthayan.E. Malaysian Journal of Medical Sciences. and Pederson. L.
Adolphs. (1979). (2003).T. (1999). 1867-1874. A. M.
. L.R. Drinking and driving: intention. Understanding Multicultural Malaysia: Delights. A. Radin Umar.
Arbous. I.A. and Kecklund (2001). M. S. I.
Ajzen. B. (1997). 303-313. (2005). and Fishbein. Nature and operation of attitudes. Convergence of self-report and archival crash involvement data: a two-year longitudinal followup. Tubré.
Åkerstedt. M. (2003).105-110.. (2004). E.
Archer. C. 22(3). Edwards.T.J. A. In Stroebe. and Haigh. Heidleberg: Springer-Verlag. 23.D. 187-195.
. and Tubré. J. T. Aggressive Behavior. 404-415. 33(3). 340-342. 27-58. 7. I. and Christian.
Ajzen.J. I. 50(2).
Armitage. M. 52. Current Psychology: Developmental. Beliefs about aggression among male and female prisoners. Social. (1952). Learning. Biometrics. Women’s Studies International Forum. Human Factors. and Hewston. 291-307. (2001). In Kuhl.
Amin. T. J. From attitudes to behaviour: basic and applied research on the theory of planned behaviour. Day. gender and early morning accidents.
Armstrong. (1987).E. (1985).
Arthur.. Accident statistics and the concept of accident proneness. J. A.) Action-Control: From Cognition to Behavior.
Ajzen. From intentions to actions: a theory of planned behavior. J.H. J. (Eds. Women’s friendships under urbanization: A Malaysian study. London: John Wiley & Sons. A. (Eds. W. 10. 47. 10(6). Age. Journal of Sleep Research.. S. and Beckmann. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. Attitudes and the attitude behavior relation: reasoned and automatic processes.) European Review of Social Psychology. (2001).
Ajzen. and Kerrich. 623-633. 179-211. Annual Review of Psychology. Personality.C. The theory of planned behaviour. (1991). Ethnic differences and married women’s employment in Malaysia: do government policies matter? Journal of Socio-Economics.
) Challenges to Accident Preventions: The Issue of Risk Compensation Behaviour. J.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. In Rothengatter. Transport psychology in Europe: a historical approach.M. (Eds. Prediction of vehicular accident involvement: a meta-analysis.D.V. K. 34. P. Barrett. (2001).31-42. Manila: Philippines. R. W. Improved safety through improved technical measures? Empirical studies regarding risk compensation in relation to antilock braking systems. P. 2(4). 34. 89-105. R. S.L. (1994). and Tortosa. M. P-E. Boston: Kluwer. R. 21-30). Amsterdam: Elsevier.A. M.S. and Dischinger. B. 4(2). 279-284. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual. Transport psychology and transport in Europe: a general overview. Accident Analysis and Prevention.com/archives/continuing-carnage-on-our-carriageways.
Barjonet. and Kenny. GJ. G. and Alexander. In Trimpop. (1991). Retrieved April 4. When hope becomes hopelessness.
Ballesteros. Asian Development Bank – Association of Southeast Asian Nations regional road safety program (accident costing report AC5: Malaysia).
Asian Development Bank (2005). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. D. 14-29). P. R.
. Accident Analysis and Prevention. NL: Styx. and Biehl. and Carson.M.
Bakri Musa. 51(6). October 18). (2005.F.-E.
Barjonet. F.bakrimusa. (Ed.. European Journal of Oncology Nursing. An alternative accident prediction model for highway-rail interfaces. Human Performance.M. (1998).. T. 231-234. (1986). and Carbonell Vaya E. (1997). 1173-1182.
Austin.C. Wilde. 2007 from http://www.
Aschenbrenner. Groningen.-E. Continuing carnage on our carriageways.. (2002). and Tortosa. (Eds.
Arthur. strategic and statistical considerations. F. (2002). Characteristics of traffic crashes in Maryland (1996-1998): differences among the youngest drivers.) Traffic Psychology Today (pp. In Barjonet.A.
M.C. San Antonio TX: Psychological Corporation. A. D. J. L.T. P. New York: Teachers College Press. New York: Perennial Harper Collins. R. E. 19. (1996). (1975). (1987a). A. A. A. Health Education and Behavior. Lester. (1980). R. A.
Benzein.T. Prisoners of Hate: The Cognitive Basis of Anger.S. (1993). hopelessness and fatigue in patients and family members in palliative care. 88.. Cognitive Therapy and the Emotional Disorders. Kovacs.
Beck. and Weissman. A.
Beck. and Trexler. (1976). A. Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures.
Bentler. Cognitive models of depression.
Belli.G. and Simons-Morton (2002). E. Hopelessness and suicidal behavior.T. The pliability of autobiographical memory: Misinformation and the false memory problem. D. and Loftus.. The measurement of pessimism: the Hopelessness scale.T. (2005). (Ed. A. In (Flinders.
Beck. and Berg.) Theory and Concepts in Qualitative Research: Perspectives from the Field. H. New York: Meridian. (Ed. New York: Brunner/Mazel.T.J.) The Evolution of Psychotherapy (pp.E. (1993).T.K. 73-84. 1146-1149. J. 234-240. 234(11).H. Palliative Medicine. Journal of the American Medical Association. 29(1).C.. 157-179).F.. D. D. Weissman. 1(1). A. and Bonnett. (pp. In Rubin.T.
Beck.F. 5-37. Teen driving risk: the promise of parental influence and public policy.
Beck. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. (1974). and Steer. 149-178). (Eds. New York: Cambridge University Press. 588-606. Hostility and Violence. Cognitive therapy. and Mills. 218-229). In Zeig. 42
Becker. G. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy: An International Quarterly. Hartos. Manual for Beck Hopelessness Scale.
Beck.A. (1987b).) Remembering Our Past: Studies in Autobiographical Memory (pp. The level of and relation between hope. K. Psychological Bulletin. M.G. Theory: the necessary evil.. (1999).
Blasco. (1995). 37-40. and Shimmin. R. 34(1).. H. B. T. S. Applying Psychology in Organizations. Graziano.A. 37. 45(1). Personality and aggressive behavior under provoking and neutral conditions: a meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin. (2006). Applied Psychology: An International Review. (2006) Risky driving and lifestyles in adolescence. M. J. and Haney. (2006. Stress and Coping. 751-777. Journal of Personality Assessment. 95-104. Nordic Journal of Psychiatry. K.
Ben-Zur. 391-399. Managing the high costs of road deaths.S. (1984). 472-481
Binzer. Psychology and road safety. (1981). Williams. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis.. 313-322. (2006).E. Anxiety.S. Retrieved March 30.
Blacker. (1994). A. Malaysian National News Agency.
Boyce. 43. 53.. F. Introduction to Ergonomics.. 39-55. (2001).
Bettencourt.php?id=185148. T. and Bonino. McKee. 15(1). New York: McGraw Hill. Associations of Type A behavior with the emotional traits of anger and curiosity. 44-51. R. Assessment of conceptual tempo in the Type A (coronary prone) behavior pattern. R.my/bernama/v3/printable.com. E.
Bina. Benjamin. M.bernama. Accident analysis and Prevention. (2002).
Bridger. D. Talley. and Geller. Hopelessness and locus of control in patients with motor conversion disorder.A. New York: Routledge.
Boff. March 12).J. J.C. 2007 from http://www.
Bernama. S. A. 38(3).
Blumenthal. and Valentine. Applied Ergonomics.B.
. 132(5). Revolutions and shifting paradigms in human factors & ergonomics. A technology to measure multiple driving behaviors without self-report or participant reactivity. F..D.
20-23... Political Geography.S. 267-278.
Brown. 32(1). Exposure and experience are a confounded nuisance in research on driver behaviour. Multivariate Behavioral Research. and Noy. R. I. P.C. and Huguenin. (2007). Amsterdam: Pergamon. (1989). (Eds. Goldzweig. R. Accident Analysis and Prevention.
Briggs. 105-124.E. (2000).C. R. Risk taking in male taxi drivers: relationships among personality. (1997).
Bunnell.W. Single sample cross-validation indices for covariance structures.K.
Browne. 219-241. Local street management in Australia: is it ‘traffic calming’.. (2004). 27(3). Accident Analysis and Prevention.
Brown. 641-649. T.P. Levine. Amsterdam: Elsevier. G. 14. and Ghiselli. E. R. 21.D. C. and Carbonell Vaya.D.E. 24. How traffic and transport systems can benefit from psychology (pp.
Brown. Accident proneness among street car motormen and motor coach operators. W. T. G. 345-352. C. (Eds. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. 29-38
Brodsky. E. 445-455.
Burns. Ergonomics. observational data and driver records.. I.
. I.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application. Journal of Applied Psychology. In Rothengatter.W.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application.S.G. International Journal of Educational Development.C. R. 318-330. D. W. 9-19). (1948). (1982).M. The effects of music tempo on simulated driving performance and vehicular control. 4(4). Behavioural adaptation to in-vehicle safety measures: past ideas and future directions. (Re) positioning Malaysia: high-tech networks and the multicultural rescripting of national identity. Making ethnic citizens: the politics and practice of education in Malaysia. Personality and Individual Differences.
Brown. and Wilde. The Fatality Analysis Reporting System as a tool for investigating racial and ethnic determinants of motor vehicle crash fatalities.D. T. N. 18(2). (1995). and Cudeck. 24(1). (2002). M. 37(4). Schlundt. I. Haliburton. and Warren. In Rothengatter. (1992).
Gonzalez. 21. (1957).H. J. and Warren. Applications and Programming. 63-65. In Fuller.L. Seatbelt use and belief in destiny among Hispanic and non-Hispanic drivers. J.
Byrne.H.. Oxford: Elsevier Science. L.
Carmines. Internal versus external control in India and Canada. Hinojosa.W. and Kline. W. (1974). M.. A. and Tapia. and Durkee. M. (2000). Analyzing models with unobserved variables: analysis of covariance structures. Mercado. J. The restorative effects of roadside vegetation. Journal of Consulting Psychology. and McIver. M. O. (Eds. 22. R. Los Angeles CA: Western Psychological Services. J.J. Human Brain Mapping. (2001). Human Factors for Highway Engineers.P. Environment and Behaviour.
Carsten. Automatic attention to emotional stimuli: neural correlates. J.. F. and Cortes.) Social Measurement: Current Issues (pp.
Carretie. 290-299. (1999).. 35(6). PRELIS and SIMPLIS: Basic Conccepts.A.L. and Nasar. B. L..
Byrne. Multiple perspectives. Cohn. B.. and Borgatta. 65-115). Structural Equation Modeling with LISREL. Martin-Loeches. (2002). M.
Buss. (2004). Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.W.M.
Caird. E. International Journal of Psychology.
.G. (1981). 736-751. Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Conccepts. E.
Carment. Parada.K. 45-50. 343-349. Applications and Programming.D. G. The relationship between organizational and individual variables to on-the-job driver accidents and accident-free kilometers.. Accident Analysis and Prevention.A. (2003). D. (1998). A. An inventory for assessing different kinds of hostility.
Cackowski. E. 15981613. (2004). Ergonomics. T. (Eds). 9. A. Beverly Hislls CA: Sage. In Bohrnstedt.
Buss. Manual for Aggression Questionnaire. T. 31. & Santos. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.F. 47(15). J.
Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and State Farm Insurance (2007).ghipr. (2006). Cognitive effects of environmental knowledge on urban route planning strategies. N6.M. Visser. R..
Cheung. Self-consciousness in Chinese college students in Hong Kong. March 20-22. 557-562. (2007).F. 109-122. what can we know – traffic psychological analysis of Driver Behaviour. M. Y. S. November 12). Personality across the ethnic divide in Singapore: are “Chinese traits” uniquely Chinese? Personality and Individual Differences. J.P. Paper presented at the Traffic Engineering and Management in Malaysia workshop.-H.-L. 2007 from http:www. H. Doing data analysis with SPSS 10.D. In Rothengatter. Proceedings of the International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT) Extra Workshop.
Chang.. Howard. R. W. Matto Grosso do Sul. D. 10(2). (1985). and Denis. Retrieved October 15.H.. T. Campo Grande. Motorists more careful because of Ops Sitak. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour.
Chaloupka-Risser (2005). Personality and Individual Difference. (2007. (1996). New York: Dell. Traffic management and road safety along federal roads in Malaysia.ictct.pdf
.0. and Yeh. F. P. gender and risky behaviors in Taipei. Motorcyclist accident involvement by age. The Star.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp.org/workshops/05CampoGrande
Chan. T. 2008 from http://www. (Eds. and Nash.
Chaplin. (2000). and Lim. Retrieved March 31. and Huguenin.
Carver. Amsterdam: Elsevier. R. Dictionary of Psychology.
Cheah. Cheung. Pacific Grove CA: Duxbury. R. 467-477. J. S.-H.G.W. What are we allowed to ask. Taiwan. 61-71). 41. (2004). 21(4). Malaysia. Monash University. Sunway Campus. November). Driving: through the eyes of teens. Kuala Lumpur.com/statefarm/chop/youngdriversurvey/PDF/NYD_Survey_FIN.
Che Ali bin Che Hitam (2001.
M. (1996). Patient-related barriers to cancer pain management in a palliative care setting in Hong Kong. 13(2).
Chung.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp.D.
Commission for Global Road Safety (2006. C. )2007).. Personality traits and the development of depression. June).D. C. MacGregor. S. A.
Chliaoutaks.org/documents/make_roads_safe_low_res. Ward. Bakou.. 196-203..
Chipman. G. H. and Stiles. and Bukasa. B. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 22(3). and Costello. 24(2). 1283-1289.P. P.M. N.C. 431-443. R. 38(6). Koumaki.. London: Wiley-Blackwell. Y. R. T. 974-981. M.E. Safety at work. Journal of Safety Research. N.. Smiley. Tzamalouka.) An Introduction to Work and Organizational Psychology: A European Perspective (pp. Lamsudin. C. (1992). 679-684. 193-200. and Lee-Gosselin. Kasniyah.pdf
Conrad. E.T. Demakakos. (1999). (Eds. French. (2004). V. Accident Analysis and Prevention.K. (2005). Make Roads Safe: A New Priority for Sustainable Development. and Chan..
Christ.L.G. P. Aggressive behavior while driving as predictor of self-reported car crashes. R.’ Injury Prevention.. 125-129. The role fo motorcyclist and other driver behaviour in two types of serious accident in the UK. Helmets. 39. How exposure information can enhance our understanding of child traffic ‘death leagues. Cairns. injuries and cultural definitions: motorcycle injury in urban Indonesia. C.
. T. Personality and Individual Differences. and Ward. M. (2007).. W. Bradshaw. J. Retrieved December 7. Towner. S. 33.S. Time vs... (2000). and Darviri. hopelessness and suicide ideation.. P. 2007 from http://www. and Huguenin.
Christie. D. Panosch. 255-274). N. (Ed. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Cancer Nursing.. and Truman.makeroadssafe.
Chioqueta. E. Driver selection and improvement in Austria. distance as measures of exposure in driving surveys. 28(2).
Chmiel. 377-390).. (2002). In Chmiel. P. In Rothengatter. Bartle. A. N.. Accident Analysis & Prevention..
Engineering psychology and the highway transportation system.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application. and McRae. and Durso.A. N48
de Raedt. The Star. Wagenaar.com. 10. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Domains and facets: hierarchical personality assessment using the Revised NEO Personality Inventory. 98-117.J. Accident proneness. Boca Raton Fl: CRC / Taylor & Francis. February 8).. Stories of Modern Technology Failures and Cognitive Engineering Successes. 2007 from http://blog. 152-171.T. (1995). Editorial: Get out of my @%^$! way: there are a few things we should remember about this whole rudeness-on-the-road thing.
Davin Arul (2005. 5(1). and Froggatt. Human Factors for Engineers (pp.
Crittendon. and Patel. position on the road and culpability in a road accident scenario.M. Applied Cognitive Psychology.W. Crashing memories and the problem of ‘source monitoring’.my/permalink. p. (2002). October 18). R.
Cowardly Malaysian drivers.L. R. (2006.S. R.A.M.asp?id-7003. and van Koppen. N. P. Amsterdam: Elsevier. (1961). P. 16(5). Retrieved April 5.thestar.F. 263. 10. (2005).
Costa. W. [Letter to the Editor] The Star Online.
Cresswell. W. T. G.D. (1996). R. F. J. or variable accident tendency? Journal of the Statistical and Social Inquiry Society of Ireland.
Cooke. and Huguenin. and Ponjaert-Kristofferson (2004). 45-62. 64. D. D. Asian self-effacement or feminine modesty? Gender and Society. 21-50. Journal of Personality Assessment. 161-175). American Psychologist. In Rothengatter. Mental workload. P.J.
de Waard.R. L. Cognitive/neuropsychological functioning and compensation related to car driving performance in older adults. (1991). Legal and Criminological Psychology. K. and Santos. The influence of car and driver stereotypes on attributions of vehicle speed.
Davies. 95-104. 20(5). (Eds. (1962). In Fuller.
) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. Control motivation and young drivers’ decision making.
Deffenbacher. E. J. M. (2003).L.R. Amsterdam: Pergamon. P. and Morris.. and Salvatore.F. L..L.
de Waard. Journal of Physicians and Surgeons Pakistan. J.
Deffenbacher. In Dewar. T. Filetti. Individual differences. R. Cognitive Therapy and Research. (Eds..W. Lynch. Differential lateralization of trait anxiety and trait fearfulness: evoked potential correlates. The expression of anger and its consequences.. 27(4). Power and pleasure around the stove: the construction of gendered identity in middle-class south Indian Hindu households in urban Malaysia.
. and Meyer. and Ameratunga. S. and Olson. R. (Eds.
Dewar. and Oetting.
Dien. (1999). R. (2003). In Dewar. and Swaim. N.E. Behaviour Research and Therapy. R. J. Tucson. 47. 123132.S.N. 5-17. 1-20. Characteristics and treatment of high anger drivers. 373-393. J. 34. Petrilli.. (2002b).. and Olson. 209-233). (2002a).R. Personality and Individual Differences. Lynch.S. T.E.
Devashayam.B. C. D.
Dharmaratne. (2004). Journal of Counseling Psychology. T. 28. E. R. 575-590. (Eds.
Dewar.R. (1997). R. Huff.C.R. Characteristics of two groups of angry drivers. E. 41. R.
Deffenbacher.L. In Rothengatter.S.A. Lynch. J.L.) Human Factors in Traffic Safety (pp..L.L. Oetting.T. R.D. E. and Carbonell Vaya. Journal of Counseling Psychology. (1998). R. E.S. 14(12). E. 26(1). Richards. E. 111-142). 383-402.E.
Deffenbacher. P. 729-730. Age differences – drivers old and young.D. and Brookhuis. AZ: Lawyers & Judges. Road traffic injuries in Sri Lanka: a call to action. Women’s Studies International Forum. P. (2005). Ergonomics. R. (2000). 333-356. Oetting. 161-171). 50(2). (1996). Oetting.L. Lynch. T.) Human Factors in Traffic Safety (pp... K. On the measurement of driver mental workload. AZ: Lawyers & Judges.
Delhomme. S. Tucson. The Driver’s Angry Thoughts Questionnaire: a measure of angry cognitions when driving.
 Dietze. 223-231). M. (Eds. ‘Fatalism’. Traffic safety and the new research paradigm in human sciences.. Sungai Petani. J. and Carbonell Vaya.. S. E. Bahar. Lippold.. (1999).L.
Draskóczy.. J. Kuala Lumpur MY: IEA Press. Clayton. and Che Doi. C. Asian Institute of Medicine. (2003).E.T.S. locus of control and worker safety in three Malaysian plantations: moving toward a contextual-mediate research model. Brown. socio-demographic characteristics and accidents. Health Education Research. S. A. K. H. 263282. Development and evaluation of a measure of dangerous aggressive. T. Amsterdam: Pergamon. L..) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp.R.. (2001). 33.
Dobson. M. J.E. S. Ball.L. C. The safety potential of the new
driver assistance system (CSA). L.Y. accident causation and prevention: issues for health promotion from an exploratory study in a Yoruba town. R. T. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 53. (2003). Accident Analysis and Prevention. (Eds.
Dukes. D. R. November). Effects of aggressive driving and river characteristics on road rage. A. (2004.P.) Driver Behaviour and Training (pp. In Khalid. T.
Dixey. and Mayser. 31. Miller.
Downe. Knowledge transfer.M. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. Aggression and ethnicity in Malaysia: a preliminary investigation.G.. and Ballard. Kedah. December).
Dula. A.G. R. (1987). and Coie. and Loke. Social Science Journal 38. Ebersbach. Aldershot UK: Ashgate. C. M.. Powers. Social information-processing factors in reactive and proactive aggression in children’s playgroups. and Rodgers.
Dodge. (1997). 85-92). Lim.
Downe.A. Women drivers’ behaviour. Paper presented at the First International Conference-Seminar on Culture. (1999). 14(2). In Dorn. 1146-1158. N. W.) Proceedings of Agriculture Ergonomics Development Conference (pp. 278-285). M. Jenkins. (Ed..D. and McFadden...A. Science & Technology.L. 525-535. 323-331. Malaysia. Nigeria.a. 197208. M. (2007. Mohd Yusuff. In Rothengatter. negative emotional and risky driving.
C. 838-844. 22(4). 209-306). 50(13). Ménard-Buteau. satisfaction and commitment. G.) Traffic and Transport Psychology (pp.
Elander. 279-294. Lalovic. G. Boyer.
Dumais.. G.B. and intention to quit: a structural equations analysis. New York: Academic. N..
Engel. R.org/workshops/02-Brno/Elvik. Sudden and rapid death during psychological stress. Psychological Bulletin. J. Cross cultural research with the locus of control construct. Volume 3: Extensions and Limitations (pp.(Ed. (1962). March 20-22.M. 17-26). J.D. Leadership and Organizational Development. 69. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry.. (1993). (2005). (1984). 74. Lesage. (1971). A. In Lefcourt. G. 771-782.
Elvik. Amsterdam: Elsevier
Dyal.. and Turecki. R. Annals of Internal Medicine. and French D.pdf
Engel. C. 2007 from www. 159165. J. Brno. Czech Republic. A..
Ellis. (2001). 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. (2002). Kim. West. H. A.
Dunbar. Annals of Internal Medicine. (1968).R. (2005). Causal ordering of stress. Psychiatric risk factors for motor vehicle fatalities in young men. 201-22. 113. A life setting conducive to illness: the giving up complex. Chawky.L. 293-300. A. Reason and Emotion in Psychotherapy.
Edwards. A. Retrieved December 25..) Research with the Locus of Control Construct.ictct. G.
Elangovan. New York: Lyle Stuart Press. In Underwood.A. R.. Weather-related road accidents in England and Wales: a spatial analysis. Journal of Transport Geography. 4(3).L. Behavioral correlates of individual differences in road-traffic crash risk: an examination of methods and findings. Using epidemiological data to address psychological questions about pedestrian behavior. (1996).
. The Star. Hadley. Patterson. L.
Evans. Racial differences in adolescents’ perceived vulnerability to disease and injury. (1976).A.G.
Farmer. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. N22. Worse than a war zone: our roads claim 6. B. London: Medical Research Council.G. New York: McGraw Hill.. Klesges.
Farmer. L.M. L... S.A.
Ey. (1926). Comment: the dominant role of driver behavior in traffic safety. E. and Alpert. and Chambers.
Farik Zolkepli (2007. 55).. Journal of Behavioural Medicine.J.6bil losses yearly.G.
Evans. Hope and Hopelessness: Critical Clinical Constructs. 19-36. London: Medical Research Council. E. J. (Industrial Fatigue Research Board Report No. A psychological study of individual differences in accident rates. London: Medical Research Council. (1984). Statistical Analysis in Psychology and Education. p. E. E. E. (1995). E. Traffic Safety and the Driver.
Evans. and Chambers. American Journal of Public Health. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage. 421-435. Risk Analysis. 6(1). G. S. (1986). (1939).M. Risk Homeostasis Theory and traffic accident data. A study of accident proneness among motor drivers. 38). 81-94. Driver fatalities versus car mass using a new exposure approach. M. 23(5). and Popovich. 16. Accident Analysis and Prevention. A study of personal qualities in accident proneness and deficiency. (1996). 784-786.
Farran.M.S. and Chambers.
Ferguson. (1929). 86(6).. (Industrial Fatigue Research Board Report No. W. (1991). (2000).000 and RM5. L. C. December 10). 84). Herth. (Industrial Fatigue Research Board Report No. L. K.
Fuller. S. M. Tix. Women and traffic accidents. R. R.W.
Finn. 137-145.. Suicide and the continuum of self-destructive behavior. causes.T. and Seiden. 66. Perception of the risk of an accident by young and older drivers.A.A. S. K. P. In Fuller. Malays and Indians compared. Progress in teenage crash risk during the last decade. The intention to commit driving violations – a qualitative study. (1990).P. Towards a general theory of driver behaviour.
Fontaine. (2006). R. I. 9. Reading MA: Addison-Wesley. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. R. (1974). Accident Analysis and Prevention. Human Factors for Engineers (pp. S. New York: Knopf. 289-298. (2005). (2004). E. Journal of Counseling Psychology. and Santos. and Rosenman. Cross Cultural Management.
Forward. August). Human factors and driving. and Bragg.
Frazier. A. H.. Cultural values in Malaysia: Chinese. 207-213.A. and Barron. R. and McCartt. 12(4).W. A. Intention and Behavior.R..H. Journal of Safety Research 38. (1986). J. R. Teoh. (2007). S. Testing moderator and mediator effects in counseling psychology. San Francisco.E. 37. Linderholm.
Fuller. consequences and considerations. S. P. R. Amsterdam: Elsevier. (1975). Belief.
Firestone. (1998. and Järmark. Type A Behavior and Your Heart. 63-77.
Fishbein. and Ajzen. 51(1). Attitude.
Ferguson. Accident analysis and Prevention. (2002). 47-55. 77-97). M. The task-capability interface model of the driving process.18(4). R. B.
Forward. In Proceedings of the 24th International Congress of Applied Psychology.
Fuller. 38(5). (2005). Recherche Transports Sécurité. (2000). 461-472.
. 115-134. and Richardson.. Journal of American College Health. I.
E.S. N. (Eds.) Ethnic Futures: The State and Identity Politics in Asia (pp. (2006). Malta. Aggressive Driver. (1996). E. R.
Ghazali. (1997).D. rights and redistribution in Malaysia.
Gidron. Stress and Coronary Disease. and Syna Desevilya.B. (Eds. 487-491. T. and Davidson.
Fuller. MY: Sage.
Garg. 6. (1977). 540-546. Amsterdam: Pergamon. and Hyder. Ergonomics. and Blanchard. R. 16(5). E. Behavior Paterns. A. and Brown.S.C. 167-202). D. The prediction of accidents of taxicab drivers. L. Nandy. Development and preliminary validation of a brief intervention for modifying CHD-predictive hostility components. Gal.B. Revue européenne de psychologie appliquée. Tracing the ethnic divide: race.
. Hillsdale. E. and Mahbob. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. (2008). 19.. Journal of Food Products Marketing. 12(4).
Ghiselli.. Theories and models in traffic psychology – a contrary view. K. In Rothengatter. Petaling Jaya.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. A. Mutu. Use of auditory icons as emergency warnings: evaluation within a vehicle collision avoidance application. (1999).W. 203-220. (2006). and Pender. G. Journal of Applied Psychology. Attitude towards online purchase of fish in urban Malaysia: an ethnic comparison.
Graham. Task difficulty and risk in the determination of driver behaviour. (2006).. 13-21. Y.
Grayson.E. (1999). 33(6).E. E. (2003). Journal of Behavioural Medicine.. 42(9). (1949). C. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour.. McHugh. In Pfaff-Czarnecaka.
Gidron. and Gomez.
Glass. European Journal of Public Health.A. H. D. Internal locus of control moderates the effects of road-hostility on recalled driving behavior. E. 58(1). Washington DC: American Psychological Association. T.. Exploring the relationship between development and road traffic injuries: a case study from India.
Gomez. 109-116. 109-128. N. S. 93-96). Road Rage: Assessment and Treatment of the Angry. and Carbonell Vaya. C.T. Rajasingham-Senanayake. J. A. Y. 1233-1248.
 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.
Lee. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychiatry. Janssen.
Lenior. Neerincx and Schreibers (2006). 37.
Levenson. H. A comparison of reported levels and expression of anger in everyday and driving situations. (2002). Journal of Personality Assessment.B.
Lawton. R. Applied Ergonomics. 253-269). Conner. Jehle. W.
Levenson. In Lefcourt.G.P.
. N. Human-factors engineering for smart transport: decision support for car drivers and train traffic controllers. A.
Lefcourt.. H. 2nd Edition. H. K. New York: Academic. IV.K.
Lerner. In Southeast Asian Affairs 2002: An Annual Review. C.V. R. Additional dimensions of internal-external control.
Lefcourt. Journal of Social Psychology. Mahwah. Barrett. H. E. (1976). Activism and powerful others: distinctions within the concept of internalexternal control. 41..M.A. D. Accident Analysis and Prevention. SPSS for Intermediate Statistics: Use and Implementation. H. D. (1989). 479-490. (2002).. G. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Billittier. (2005).J.. 38.C. 93. (1975).M. and Nutter. 377-383. Cancer as a turning point. 3. pp. and Morgan. New York: E. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. 659-662. 97. L. 177-196. H.) Research with the Locus of Control Construct.
LeShan. The influence of demographic factors on seatbelt use by adults injured in motor vehicle crashes. (1983). 397-401. (1974).. Malay dominance and opposition politics.M. A. (2001). Volume 2: Developments and Social Problems (pp. The locus of control as a moderator variable: stress. Locus of Control: Current Trends in Theory and Research. and Stiller. British journal of Psychology. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. (Ed.M. G. Dutton. (1973).407-423.
Leech. 303-304.M. Moscati. H.L. Multidimensional locus of control in psychiatric patients.
com/archive/1999/feb99/sg1541. K.asp?file=/2007/3/26/nation/17254652&sec=nation&focus=1. 2007 from http://thestar. Tools of Critical Thinking: Metathoughts for Psychology.
Lindsey.M. 7. M-R. H. C. H. 10. 125-127. In Rothe. Internal and external control as determinants of decision making under conditions of risk. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. R.
Lonczak. A. (1960).S. I.. and Yen. (2002) Driver skill: performance and behaviour.
Looi. February 2). (1981). E. Media Statement released by the Office of the Malaysian Parliamentary Opposition Leader and Democratic Action Party Secretary-General.S. D. Accident Analysis and Prevention. W. 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.. Psychological Reports. (2004). 11. Defensive driving a must under new curriculum.
Lim. (2007). 39(3). (1979). 213-222. powerful others and chance. (1999. 536-545. Predicting risky and angry driving as a function of gender. J. D. 59-67.P. Wu.) Driving Lessons: Exploring Systems that Make Traffic Safer. In Lefcourt. The effect of crash experience on changes in risk taking among urban and rural young people.my/news/story.) Research with the Locus of Control Construct. Edmonton AB: University of Alberta Press.P. Role of primary personality factors in the perception of traffic signs and driver violations and accidents.M. Retrieved May 14..A.limkitsiang. 15-63).
Levy.. S. H. (Ed. Neighbors.
Lin. Differentiating among internality. L. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Huang. (Ed.htm. F. and Donovan. 8-9
Liverant. Accident-proneness: does it exist? Occupational Safety and Health. Retrieved April 5. H-F. Accident Analysis and Prevention. and Scodel. (1980)..com. Hwang. The Star Online. 2007 from http://www. Volume 1: Assessment Methods (pp. 36.
. L-L. (1997). H-D. New York: Academic. March 26). (2007.
L. 233-252). and Hershberger.28. 68(5).
Massie. M. H.
Luckner. 27(1). Balla.R.M. D.) Driver Behaviour and Training (pp. and Mooran. W. 62-67. 55(2). and Jessurun. (1997).A. Young driver research program – a review of information on young driver performance characteristics and capabilities.
Martin. Journal of Rehabilitation.
Maakip. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. In Dorn. and Balla. G. 593-597.
. 103.R. (2000). Watson.. D. and level of education.L.M. Basics of Structural Equation Modeling. Goodness-of-fit in CFA: the effects of sample size and model parsimony.R.M. and McDonald.. A. L.L.L. Campbell. H.
Marsh. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Australia. behavior and cognition. 869-897. (Ed.A.
Marcoulides. driving violations and accident involvement in relation to drivers’ sex.W. K. 73-87. May). 185-217. G. Annual mileage. Traffic accident involvement rates by driver age and gender.K. J.
Matthews... Malaysia. of affect. Goodness-of-fit indexes in confirmatory factor analysis: the effect of sample size. Victoria NSW. age. Psychological Bulletin. M.L. (1999). Monash University Accident Research Centre. 129. J.W.
Macdonald. 31. Age differences in male drivers’ perception of accident risk: the role of perceived driving ability. A. I. (1998). J. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.P. Driver information systems: a preliminary investigation of motorists information requirements in Kuala lUmpur.F. R. C. 299313. Multivariate Statistical Methods: A First Course. (1986). Journal of Personality. Vissers. and Williams.F. and Wan. R. (1989). J. C. Report No. (1988). Accident Analysis & Prevention. Aldershot UK: Ashgate.. (1994. 391-411. R. Altering locus of control of individuals with hearing impairments by outdoor-adventure courses. A three-factor model of trait anger: dimensions. (1994).A. P. Quality & Quantity. (2003). S. (1995). Accident Analysis and Prevention.
45-52.E. M. Fort Worth TX: Holt.
Md-Sidin. (1989). I. R. [ in press]. J. F. S.
McMillan.. Perspectives Psychiatriques. Retrieved April 5. Relationship between work-family conflict and the quality fo life: an investigation into the role of social support.D. Unconscious suicides. (1977). and Costa. Journal of Managerial Psychology. (1990).
McKenna. 34(47). D.
Mendel. F. The University of Reading.P..malaysia-today.htm
McConnell. Malaysia Today. 649-663. (2007). 71-77.R. F. Cognitive abilities and safety on the road: a re-examination of individual differences in dichotic listening and search for embedded figures. (2009). M.
McRae. A.W.V. Ismail. November 6). New York: Plenum. and Neilly. S. P.net/Bloge/2005/11/malaysia-records-highest-single-day. Hampshire UK.
. E. and Brown. (1974). Traffic accidents and convictions: group totals versus rate per kilometer driven. Risk Analysis. L. Waylen. 769-778. (1989). Rinehar and Winston. G. Cognitive-Behavior Modification: An Integrative Approach. Ergonomics. 29. Sambasivan. (2005. Psychological Medicine.E. 9. and Burkes.
Mercer. Beresford. Gilbody. Accident proneness: a conceptual analysis. 173-181. Male and female drivers: how different are they? AA Foundation for Road Safety Research. Duncan. (1998).
Malaysia records highest single-day death toll during holiday period. Accident Analysis and Prevention. I.. Can we predict suicide and nonfatal self harm with the Beck Hopelessness Scale? A metanalysis. Understanding Human Behavior. 23. D. New York: Guilford.. 2007 from http://www.P. 37(6). Personality in Adulthood.
McKenna. J. (1986).P.. (1983).
Mikkonen.L. Aggressive driving. and Shapiro.org.M.. Hasselberg. Statistics.A. M. Safety Science. P. In Aggressive driving: three studies. A critical review of driver behaviour models: what do we know. Accident Analysis and Prevention. (1949). (1985). 75-85. (1989). AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety. 6(2). and Keskinen. 147-161. 195-211. R. (Eds. 341-353.. (1983. what should we do? In Evans. Washington DC. May). Journal of Psychosomatic Research.
Monárrez-Espino. Kayumov. V. D. and Laflamme. E. First year as a licensed car deriver: gender differences in crash experience. 335-342.A.panducermat. L.) Proceedings of the Finnish-Soviet Symposium on Cognitive Processes.php. and Blum. (1997). Retrieved May 23. 33(3). (2003). G.L. 401406.my/en/street_smart_statistik. from http://www. Turku.L.J. 2006 from http://www. (154). 2007.
Ministry of Transport Malaysia (2007). (Eds. E.
Mizel.. l. 61(3).. J.
. microsleep episodes. J.
Miles. and Johnson.
Mintz. 21(4). A re-examination of the accident proneness concept. K. Journal of Applied Psychology. J. A.aaafoundation. Cognitive theory of traffic behaviour. Explanatory pitfalls and rule-based driver models.
Michon. Bulmas.) Human Behaviour and Traffic Safety. Time intervals between accidents. Finland. and Schwing. and subjective sleepiness: normative data using convergent methodologies to assess driver drowsiness. In Helkama.pdf
Moller.org/pdf/agdr3study. Nhan. (2006). and Niemi. Aggressive driving behaviors: are there psychological and attitudinal predictors? Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. H.E.
Mintz. New York: Plenum. L. 44(2). Retrieved December 15. 38(6). A. M. (2006). Journal of Applied Psychology.
Michon. J. Simulator performance. C.C.
Accident proneness and road accidents.
Mousser. Hopelessness and suicidal behavior. 8. (Eds. Transcultural Psychiatry.
Montag. Religioin 37. D. R. In Pfaff-Czarnecaka. 51-63.
Most.E. 38(1). 72. A.L.
Näätänen. 6. (2003).
Nandy. 320-388). K. W. (1999).
Näätänen. 32-37. 167-202). Amsterdam: North Holland. New York: Allyn & Bacon. H... A. Träskman-Bendz and Alsén (1997). (2007). Coping with the politics of faiths and cultures: between secular state and ecumenical traditions in India. In O’Donoghue . J. Accident Analysis and Prevention. I. R. W. and Gomez. (1987). R. and Comrey. A. Feature-based attentional set as a cause of traffic accidents. Journal of the Institute of Automobile Assessors.L. Fifth Edition. (2007). Visual Cognition. and Maniam. A. S. and Krasner. 137-144. Rajasingham-Senanayake.) Ethnic Futures: The State and Identity Politics in Asia (pp. Defining ‘modern’ Malay womanhood and the coexistent messages of the veil. Clinical problems of anger and its assessment and regulation through a stress coping skills approach. A. 164-174. Petaling Jaya. R. 125-132.S. 243-261. Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. (Eds. L. E. (1994). Internality and externality as correlates of involvement in fatal driving accidents. 15(2). Road User Behavior and Traffic Accidents. (1976). Journal of Applied Psychology.
Novaco. A model for the role of motivational factors in drivers’ decision-making. Boston: Pearson. and Summala. Nandy. MY: Sage.) Handbook of Psychological Skills Training: Clinical Techniques and Application (pp. 339-343. P.. (1974). (2001) Ethnicicity and suicidal behaviour in Malaysia: a review of the literature. and Astur. T.T.
. Journal of Affective Disorders. and Summala H. 42.B. (1956).
) Targets of Violence and Aggression: Advances in Psychology (pp. Injury Prevention. 237-252. M.F (2001). Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice. 171. In Baenninger. 34.L (2002). R. 1016-1024. (Eds. P.
O’Neill. R. P. [Review of the book Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application]. (1996. Human factors in modern traffic systems. and Hermida.38. February 8).
Novaco. Social psychological principles: ‘the group inside the person’. J. UK: Ashgate. 468-472. K.. 4(2). 2(5).
Ohberg. Human Factors for Engineers (pp. A. Garner. Oxford UK: North Holland.L. Aggression on roadways. The decade 1989-1998 in Spanish psychology: an analysis of development of professional psychology in Spain.) Human Factors in Traffic Safety (pp. (2002).B. F. Tropical Medicine and International Health.
Our roads are filled with selfish drivers. p. (1996). 40(10). R. Driver suicides. (1998).
Noy. 445-460. Amsterdam: Elsevier
Odero. p. N51.
N-S highway still one of the safest roads.
Novaco. 201-215).. Driver perception-response time. E. Spanish Journal of Psychology. R.
Ogden.. 92-93. 43-76). 654-656. and Z. AZ: Lawyers & Judges. A. Zwi (1997).
Olson. and Lonnqvist.W. Safer Roads: A Guide to Road Safety Engineering. (Ed. M. I. Road traffic injuries in developing countries: a comprehensive review of epidemiological studies. Temes. (2007.
O’Connell. Pentilla.A. Straits Times. (2000). British Journal of Psychiatry. [Letter to the Editor] The Star. (1997). and Olson. and Williams. In Dewar. 253-326). December 9). W.R. R.W. Tucson. (1997). Ergonomics.W. (2001). In Fuller. Risk homeostasis hypothesis: a rebuttal. 4.
. J. says operator. J. P.S. A. Aldershot. B. and Santos.
Accident Analysis & Prevention. Lajunen. J.. and Summala..
Özkan. Poster session presented at the 18th International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT). 125-134). and Kaistinen. T. (2002). L. D. Lajunen.
Papacostas.. (1995). 479-486. Traffic locus of control.. and Schneider. R. J. Dimensions of driving behaviour and driver characteristics. 38(5).
Parsons.M... 229-235. T. 1036-1048. and Huguenin. (pp. N.
Parker. and Lajunen (2005). 38(3). (1988). T.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application. 533-545.pdf -
Pai. Multidimensional Traffic Locus of Control Scale (T-LOC): factor structure and relationship to risky driving. Accident Analysis & Prevention. D. (2005). C. Journal of Environmental Psychology. (2004). 42. (1974).S.T. J.A. 92. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 37(1). M.G.D. M. Tassinary. R. and Saleh. 3-13. D. (2001). Anger on and off the road. Locus of control in university students from eastern and western societies. driving violations and accident involvement. 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. T.E. 113-140. S.W. The view from the road: implications for stress recovery and immunisation. Retrieved December 20.org/workshops/05Helsinki/P1_Ozkan. Anger and aggression among drivers in three European countries.
Parsons. Applied Psychology: An International Review. and Grossman-Alexander. Reason.R and Stradling. O. T. 456-461. B. Manstead. (1998). Ergonomics. Finland. Ulrich. 18. A.
. Personality and Individual Difference. C. Amsterdam: Elsevier. H. 507-526. (Eds. Driving errors. Hebl. 34. (2008). driving skills and attitudes toward in-vehicle technologies (ISA & ACC). British Journal of Psychology.
Parker. 2007 from www. 40.G. Road safety: what has social psychology to offer? In Rothengatter. and Synodinos. R..S.S.ictct. W. Helsinki.
Perry. Proceedings of the International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT) Extra Workshop. duration of driving and sleep deprivation in young versus old automobile drivers. Type A behaviour pattern and motor vehicle drivers’ behaviour.
Philip. M. A. W. 875-878. U. M. Accident Analysis and Prevention.A. (2000). Jarawan.. Quera-Salva. Geneva. P. March 20-22.
Peden. 63. B. (1971). Retrieved March 31. (1986). Matto Grosso do Sul..H. 9-14
.ictct. 8(1)..R. A. 68-79. Simple reaction time. D. Road traffic injuries are a global public health problem [Letters]. British Medical Journal. (2002). M. Neuroticism-extraversion as correlates of accident occurrence.. and Baldwin. Mohan. Locus of Control in Personality. and Åkerstedt. Taillard.
Peden.) (2004)..J. and Mathers (Eds. World report on road traffic injury prevention. A. Brazil. (2005).. London: Taylor & Francis.A. 201-204. Bioulac. 324. D. Sleet. E. 91. Superstition. T. 3. 2007 from http:www. and Renner.R. Switzerland: World Health Organization.J. G. 35.
Perry. R. (1976). and Peters. L. S. risk-taking and risk perception of accidents among South African taxi drivers.M. E. (1999)..
Peltzer. 147-154. Automotive Vehicle Safety. K. (2003). Road safety in southeast Asia: factors affecting motorcycle safety. D.B.
Pestonjee. 12(3). Perceptual and Motor Skills. J.
Per.and Schuman. Perceptual and Motor Skills. 1153. Campo Grande. (1980).. Scurfield. (2002).C. A. and Al Haji. Journal of Sleep Research. Further evidence of associations of type A personality scores and driving-related attitudes and behaviors. and Singh. G. B. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Hyder. and Hyder. Morristown NJ: General Learning. D.s
Pelz.A. Are young drivers really more dangerous after controlling for exposure and experience? Journal of Safety Research. D.
C. Psychology of drivers in traffic accidents. Accident Analysis and Prevention. J. 32. (2005). Performance differences of individuals classified by questionnaire as accident prone or non-accident prone. (1976). Journal of Clinical Psychology. and Harris. 334-343. and Langley. Updates of road safety status in Malaysia.. Human Error. 32(2). 32(3). E. F. Ergonomics. S. Manstead.
Plous.N. Stradling. Disaster Prevention and Management. 29(1). (2000). Chalmers. Rider training. S. R.J. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health.
Porter. 1315-1332. 284-288. Errors and violations on the roads: a real distinction? Ergonomics. (1991). D. P.
Reason. (1993). 566-573.I. Journal of Applied Psychology.
Preston. (1994).J. 673-678..-G. IATSS Research / International Association of Traffic and Safety Sciences.
Prociuk. Delineating road accident risk along mountain roads. Baxter. Accident reduction through area-wide traffic schemes.
. (2007). L. C. Breen. Models of driving behavior: a review of their evoloution.. 26. Venturesomeness and extraversion as correlated of juvenile drivers’ traffic violations. and Pant. and Anderle. (1990). 33. S.
Reason. J. S. T. T. (1965). 299-300. New York: McGraw Hill. and Corlett.J. Traffic Engineering and Control.
Proctor. 49(4). and Campbell. and Lussier.S.
Renner. Hopelessness.J. J. 78-80. The Psychology of Judgment and Decision Making. S. W. 3112).. Cambridge University Press.
Reeder.S. 317-333. reasons for riding and the social context of riding among young on-road motorcyclists in New Zealand. 16(3). S.
Radin Umar.H. (1989).E. (1990).D.A. internal-external locus of control and depression. A. (1996). 733-750. J. R. K. 20(4).
1-7. and Huguenin. T. P.. (2007) Statistik2006.Y. In Lim. (Ed). 485-489. (2000). April). Aberrant driving behaviour: homogeneity of a four-factor structure in samples differing in age and gender. Retrieved May 23. E. Journal of Safety Research.efpa.L. 569-582. Proceedings of the joint conference of the Asia Pacific Conference on Human Computer Interaction and the Southeast Asian Ergonomics Society Conference. R. In Rothengatter. Singapore: Elsevier. 37(1).G.. (2003. M. E. S. Weinstein. W-R. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Stress and Health. Theories of science in traffic psychology. (2005b) Fatal red light crashes: the role of race and ethnicity.64. 34(15). S.
Road Transport Department Malaysia [Jabatan Pengagkutan Jalan Malaysia].
Risser.R. Tippetts. (2002). S. R. K. Report to the General Assembly.B. 37(3). (2004). (2000). 2007 from http://www. 453-460. (1999). (2005a) Stop sign violations: the role of race and ethnicity on fatal crashes.
Retting. Human factors and motor vehicle crashes: a conceptual framework for ergonomic research in South East Asia. Jefferson NC: McFarland & Company.A. (Eds.96/v5/statistik/statistik-2006.
. 2007 from http://202. S.P. R. R. Journal of Safety Research. Ergonomics. P.
Richardson. (2003). Anger.S.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application. European Federation of Psychologists’ Associations Task Force on Traffic Psychology. R.
Romano. A. Organizational Behavior. Accident Analysis & Prevention.190. Retrieved December 11.
Risser. and Voas. Analysis of motor-vehicle crashes at stop signs in four U. Pacific Grove CA: Brooks/Cole.
Romano. Upper Saddle River NJ: Prentice Hall. R.be/doc/Final%20report%20TF%20Traffic%20Psychology%20GA%202003.html
Robbins. and Voas.. Aggression and Violence: An Interdisciplinary Approach. H. 45(8).D.G. and Nickel. (2005). cities. Tippetts. P-A. and Solomon. and Downe.
(Ed.) Behavioural Research in Road Safety VIII. 56-67. Internal versus external control of reinforcement: a case history of a variable. 80. (Ed. (2006). P-E. and Bhopal. 10. T. (1990). An overview of traffic psychology: do research and measures match? In Grayson. (2002). 45. 3-12).P. American Psychologist. Crowthorne UK: Transport Research Laboratory. 84-115. J.
Rothengatter. M. (1975). J.B. 489-493. Psychological Monographs. Amsterdam: Elsevier. 214-220). Capital & Class. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. Differences between taxi and nonprofessional male drivers and attitudes towards traffic-violation penalties. Boston: Kluwer.
Rowley. (2002). (2005). Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. (2001) Objectives. Drivers’ illusions – no more risk.
Rotter. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources. (2005).
Rosenbloom. Traffic safety: content over packaging. The ethnic factor in state-labour relations: the case of Malaysia. G. 249-258. A. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. 43(3). (1966). The role of ethnicity in employee relations: the case of Malaysia. In Underwood. M. whole issue. 308-331. C. J. T. (2007). 428-435
Rothe.P. T.) Traffic and Transport Psychology (pp.
Rotter. 5.(Ed. 88.B. topics and methods. (pp.B.) Driving Lessons: Exploring Systems that Make Traffic Safer. 43(1). and Shahar. T. In Rothe.
Rothengatter.) Traffic Psychology Today (pp. J. C.
Rothengatter. 595-600). Edmonton CA: University of Alberta Press. J. In Barjonet. Traffic psychology and road safety: separate realities. Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. G.
Rothengatter. and Bhopal.
Rotter. Some problems and misconceptions related to the construct of internal versus external control of reinforcement. (1998).B. T.
33-36. and Santos (Eds. (2006. (2005.
Saad. Bukit Aman.net/Blog-n/2006/09/thrillsspills-death-plague-malaysian. Kuala Lumpur. 373-376. Malaysian Road Accident Statistics. J. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Bukit Aman. Malaysian Road Accident Statistics. spills & death plague Malaysian roads.htm
. IBU Pejabat Polis.
Salminen.gov. [Perankaan Kemalangang Jalanraya Malaysia]. Malaysiatoday (Reuters). sports and home accidents.
Royal Malaysian Police [Polis Diraja Malaysia] (2001). [Perankaan Kemalangang Jalanraya Malaysia]. Road Safety – Back to the Future. 2003 from http://www. [Perankaan Kemalangang Jalanraya Malaysia]. IBU Pejabat Polis. 37(2).my.
Royal Malaysian Police [Polis Diraja Malaysia] (2000). Kuala Lumpur. 23-42). Basingstoke UK: AA Foundation for Road Safety Research. Human Factors for Engineers (pp.
Royal Malaysian Police [Polis Diraja Malaysia] (2007). F. Accident Analysis and Prevention. J. Ergonomics of the driver’s interface with the road environment: the contribution of psychological research. S. The Star. M. B. Thrills.).A2. [Perankaan Kemalangang Jalanraya Malaysia]. S. 2007 from http://www. Kuala Lumpur. (1999).
Rude drivers lack emotional control. (1997). Relationships between injuries at work and leisure time.A. Retrieved May 22. Correlations between traffic.
Sadiq. 29(1). (2002). In Fuller.
Salminen. Malaysian Road Accident Statistics. p. Kuala Lumpur. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Statistik Kemalangan Jalanraya & Kematian. Retrieved December 11.rmp. IBU Pejabat Polis. (2005).malaysia-today. R.
Royal Malaysian Police [Polis Diraja Malaysia] (2002). Malaysian Road Accident Statistics. and Heiskanen. Bukit Aman. occupational. September 26).
Royal Malaysian Police [Polis Diraja Malaysia] (2003). September 29). IBU Pejabat Polis. Bukit Aman.
L. (1966). 34. K. In Sansone. Accident Analysis and Prevention. I. (2004). Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.
Sagberg. Singapore: Maruzen Asia for United Nations Centre fro Regional Development.) The Sage Handbook of Methods in Psychology (pp.L. Jr. (2006). little
details. Nagoya: Japan.
Sambasivan. 314-318. and the social psychological road in between. In Healy. Asian Survey. 41. (2000). Malaysia: urbanization in a multiethnic society – case of peninsula Malaysia. 29(3). Contemporary urbanization in Malaysia. Learning and Memory of Knowledge and Skills: Durability and Specificity.E. 6. Morf. and Sætermo. In Honjo. (2008. Severson. (1981). Fosser... S. A model of traffic crashes in New Zealand. Economic factors and traffic crashes in New Zealand. Urbanization and Regional Development (pp.A. H. P. 484-491. Applied Economics. (2003). Public acceptability of traffic demand management in Europe.F.. 6(9). P. v.T. 3-16).
Scuffham. Healy. J. B. (Ed..C.
 Sansone. The research process: of big pictures. Ericsson. and Panter. A. Morf. M. M. 179-188. and Panter. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.A. and Bourne. and Bourne.A.E. M. 673-687.. 35.F. Ball. C.).
Schneider. 38. November 15). (1995).C.K.F. 801-810. C. An investigation of behavioural adaptation to airbags and antilock brakes among taxi drivers. and Young. Personal correspondence. D. 293302
Salih. The effects of contextual interference on the acquisition and retention of logical rules. A. and Rizzo.C. (1997). M. Regional Development Series. Traffic Engineering + Control. C. C. 117-147). K. A.I.
Schwebel. V. F. Accident Analysis and Prevention..T. and Schade.
. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Individual difference factors in risky driving: the roles of anger/hostility.
Sendut. K. and sensation seeking.. A. Jr. (Eds. J.
Schlag. conscientiousness. L. and Langley (2002).
Journal of Counseling and Development. Los Angeles CA: Western Psychological Services. P-E. (1962). 361-365.T. P. S. E. Strategic Management Journal.
Sheppard. 3-7. Ergonomics. D.
Shinar. 1549-1565. and Kanekar. K. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. 119(3). Journal of Consumer Research. D. D. 46(15). Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. Research Methods for Business: A Skill Building Approach. Fourth Edition. B.
Shapiro. Automobile accidents. G. M. (1956). J.H.L. (1998). M. 397-404. Summala. Dewar. 15(3). (Ed. Traffic sign symbol comprehension: a cross-cultural study. (2003). 25. and Warshaw. S. and Zakowska.M and Kacmar. 137-160. (1988). In Barjonet. The effects of safety regulations and law enforcement. J. Hartwick. An assessment of the use of structural equation modeling in strategic management research. R. 325-343. H. Hult..J. New York: McGraw Hill.L. 237-240..
Siegel. and Roskova.
Sharkin. B. Ketchen. American Journal of Psychiatry.
Sharma. Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education. suicide and unconscious motivation.
Shook.) Traffic Psychology Today (pp. (2001).. New York: John Wiley & Sons. The theory of reasoned action: a metaanalysis of past research with recommendations for modifications and future research.. 1.S.M. Boston: Kluwer.
Siegriest.E. (1988). (2004). 180-205). C. L.. U. and Payne. Theory of reasoned action and theory of planned behavior in alcohol and drug education. (2007).
Sekaran. C. 51(1). Manual for the Attitudes toward Guns and Violence Questionnaire (AGVQ). 66. Aggressive driving: the contribution of the drivers and the situation. (2000).E. The measurement and treatment of client anger in counselling. (2003).P.
J. M. 386-397. Corrigan. American Psychologist. N. Ergonomics. 2007 from http://findarticles.. Kurylo. C. Lichtenstein. (1998). Auto safety and human adaptation. 14(4). S. Fishchoff. 1151-1158.C. H. Editorial.pdf
Spielberger. Matthews. B. (1995). and Guest. and Poirier. Stress. (2007).D. and Frank. In Kassinove.org/publik/driving. (1997). S. Winter). Measuring the experience. Boca Raton. Reheiser.
Stanton. Retrieved December 1. 50(8).K. and Watson.R.G. Oxford UK. International Journal of Stress Management. Retrieved December 25. Journal of Risk and Insurance. A. C.. (2001. C.
Sinha.K. 44... 237-258. Assessing hostile automatic thoughts: development and validation of the HAT scale. and Coombs. (1992).C. P.
Smiley. R. 21(4). (2004).. B. (Ed. D. and Sydeman. N. London: Arnold. In Stanton.) Anger Disorders: Definition and Treatment (pp. coping and psychological illness: a cross-cultural study.
Social Issues Research Centre (2004. Issues in Science and Technology.sirc. Injury control: a promising field for psychologists.
Snyder. B. Philadelphia PA: Taylor & Francis. N.D. Product design with people in mind.
Slinn. 477-492. 47(8).J. M. expression and control of anger.A.
Slovic. (Ed. Human Factors in Consumer Products (pp. FL: Taylor & Francis. 49-68).). P. 1-18). E.. 2007 from http://www. J. B. (1977). Crowson. Cognitive Therapy and Research.. 1029-1030. Sex differences in driving and insurance risk: an analysis of the social and psychology differences between men and women that are relevant to their driving behaviour. B. J. (2007). Preference for insuring against probably small losses: insurance implications.A. August). Houston.A.. Jr. Traffic Engineering Design: Principles and Practice. P.
N. M. 529-544..M. M. N.) Handbook of Emotions (pp. J. 63. (2005).
Stevenson. Sydney AU: Educology Research Associates.. N. In Lewis. (Eds. (1989) Prevention and control of injuries arising from road traffic accidents in Malaysia. Bilgic.E.
 Storey. Medical Journal of Malaysia. Novaco. Attributions of responsibility for motor vehicle crashes.A. D. R. Ergonomics. Harlow UK: Addison-Wesley.L. Personality attributes as predictors of psychological well-being for NCOs. Sümer. 178-182. J. (2003).. (1978). Morrison. E. (Ed. 35. (2001). 44(3).
Steiner. Accident Analysis and Prevention.E. N.. R. and Ryan.W. and Havland. R. M.
Stewart.R.C. R. G.. The Methodology of Theory Building. Stokols. P. (2000)..
Sümer. Trabasso.. A. and stress. Cheltenham. 279-300). and Jin. Behavioural compensation by drivers of a simulator when using a vision enhancement system. J. Maggio. T. 247-254. (1993). Accident Analysis and Prevention. N. Personality and behavioral predictors of traffic accidents: testing a contextual mediated model. M. D. 949-964.
Stanton. Traffic Injury Prevention. (1996).R. and Campbell.
 Stough.A. Traffic congestion.
Stein. 467-480. UK: Edward Elgar. Methodological and technical challenges in regional evaluation of ITS: Induced and direct effects. In Stough. 43(9).
Sümer. (2005). Journal of Psychology. Palamara. H.. and Erol. (2001). Behavioral factors as predictors of motor vehicle crashes in young drivers. Type A Behavior. M. 139(6). The representation and organization of emotion experience: unfolding the emotion episode. R. (1988). and Pinto. New York: Guilford. 681-688.
Subramaniam. Journal of Applied Psychology. T.
. 37(4).) Intelligent Transportation Systems. and Liwag. D. 1359-1370. 2(4). Safety-Critical Computer Systems. N.
) Road User Behaviour: Theory and Research (pp. Amsterdam: Elsevier. 82-92). pedestrians and road environments involved in
. Nieminen. (2006). H.
Summala.) Traffic and Transport Psychology (pp. 18(4). H.
Swaddiwudhipong. Koonchote. (Eds. In Rothengatter. 383-394). G. R. In In Rothengatter. 22(1-3). Traffic psychology theories: towards understanding driving behaviour and safety efforts.
Summala. University of Helsinki Traffic Research Unit. 41-52). (Report 11). (1986). Mahasakpan. R.. (2005). Asymmetric relationship between driving and safety skills. Nguntra.
Summala. In Underwood. 193-199. T. and Merisalo. and Gunes.. and Punto. (1980). and de Bruin. 38(3). H. 21.. H. W.N.K.
Summala. Accident Analysis and Prevention.
Sümer. H. T. P. 31. Epidemiologic characteristics of drivers. H. T. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology. Human Factors. 331-342. Assen/Maastricht: Van Gorcum. A. (2005). Helsinki. 491-506. (1996). Amsterdam: Elsevier
Summala.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. Journal of Traumatic Stress. vehicles. (Eds. and Carbonell Vaya E.. (1996). Ergonomics. Berument. A. H.
Sümer. A psychophysical method for determining the effects of studded tires on safety.. The zero-risk theory and overtaking decision. Safety Science.
Summala. Maintaining lane position with peripheral vision during in-vehicle tasks. Risk control is not risk adjustment: the zero-risk theory of driver behaviour and its implications. (1988). H. T. and Tantriratna. S.. Özkan. coping selfefficacy and quake exposure as predictors of psychological distress following the 1999 earthquake in Turkey. Karanci.
Summala. P. 38. (1997). H. 703-711. (Ed.. N. M. (1994). 103-117. T. Personal resources. Risk control is not risk adjustment: the zero-risk theory of driver behavior and its implications. S. Accident risk and driver behaviour.
Summala. and Näätänen. 442-451. and Lajunen. G. (1988). Hierarchical model of behavioural adaptation and traffic accidents. N.
Tavris. and Layde.. Kuhn. 581-590. N.
Tavris. Age and gender patterns in motor vehicle crash injuries: importance of type of crash and occupant role.J. (1998). Neural Networks.. E. 18(4)..S. 609-615. Journal of Social Psychology. C.G. 33(2). Sakamoto.road traffic injuries in rural Thailand. Fujihara. (1996). (1989). P. E. G.
.R. Ten commandments of structural equation modeling. P-E. (2001). Hopelessness in a community population in Japan. S.) Reading and Understanding More Multivariate Statistics.. and Papacostas.
Thompson. C. A Modern Dictionary of Sociology. 34.M. A. 241-263). 37-44. (2000). New York: Simon & Schuster.. B. D. T. In Barjonet. A fit-index for covariance structure models under arbitrary
GLS estimation. E.
Theodorson. L. Boston: Kluwer. Sakamoto. In Grimm. Driving habits and behaviour patterns of university students. Fujihara. 167-172. 241-257. and Fragopanagos (2005).
 Tanaka. and Theodorson. (Ed. New York: Thomas & Cromwell. (1969). and Kitamura.S. Y. and Huba. G.E. (1985). S. Anger: The Misunderstood Emotion. and Yarnold.
Synodinos. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 353-369.M. International Review of Applied Psychology. Washington DC: American Psychological Association. P.
Theeuwes. Y. Southeast Asian Journal of Tropical Medicine and Public Health.) Traffic Psychology Today (pp.
Tanaka. T. J. (1985).. (2001).R.C.. Hopelessness in a community population: factorial structure and psychosocial correlates. The effects of road design on driving. 138(5).
Taylor. The interaction of attention and emotion. J. Ono.A. and Kitamura. 25(1). 52(6). 42.233-239. S. Journal of Clinical Psychology. Ono. G. J. British Journal of Mathematics and Statistics. S.
Judgment under uncertainty. American Journal of Psychiatry. accident involvement.
Tversky. and Vavrik. 5.
Thurman.) Handbook of Perception and Action. (2004). Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. Effectivenss of cognitive-behavioral treatments in reducing Type A behavior among university faculty – one year later. 123-130. C.F.
. 4(4). (1949). and Milton. Availability: a heuristic for judging frequency and probability. (1973). 185. 445-448.
Trick. 279-297. (1996). Anger while driving.
Underwood. 2. 106(5). (1974). D. 385-424. P.W. Personality predictors of driving accidents. 10(3).. Automatic and controlled information processing: the role of attention in the processing of novelty. A.
Trimpop. 55-68. 207-332. (1997). Age and gender differences in risk-taking behaviour as an explanation for high incidence of motor vehicle crashes as a driver in young males..M. Personality subtypes of young drivers. (1999). In Neumann. (2001). Collusion after a collision: witnesses’ reports of a road accident with and without discussion. D. and Everatt. (Eds. and McClure. Wright and Crundall. G.
Underwood. G. A. 1124-1130. H. J. G. O. Paying attention behind the wheel: a framework for studying the role of attention in driving. (1985). J. C. Injury Control and Safety Promotion. Cognitive Psychology. R. A. Personality and Individual Differences. J. 23(1).
Ulleberg. R. Mills.E.
Turner. Journal of Counseling Psychology.. London: Academic. The accident prone automobile driver. G.. and Sanders. 321-333.
Underwood. 7. Relationship to risk-taking preferences. Chapman. D. 5(5).A and Hobbs. (1993). Applied Cognitive Psychology. L. P.T. 32(3). Science. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomic Science. and Kahneman. and Kirkcaldy. Enns. and Kahneman. and response to a traffic safety campaign. W. J. Volume 3: Attention. 147-152. 11-22.
Cognition and emotion in driver behaviour models: some critical viewpoints. and Rothengatter. Matto Grosso do Sul. R. (1998). Traffic accident risks in developing countries: superseding biased approaches. In Rothengatter. D. 444-458.B. “Accident prone.) Traffic and Transport Psychology (pp. Amsterdam: Elsevier
Van der Hulst. Sanson.A. A. Personality and Individual Differences. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Meijman. S. T.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application. Bergerson.
Verwey. The role of attributions and anger in aggressive driving behaviours. Accident Analysis and Prevention.
Vavrik. Smart. Anticipation and the adaptive control of safety margins in driving. J. In Underwood. 24-29. (2005). Harris. 42. Ergonomics. 210-222. 43(2).D..J.org/workshops/05-CampoGrande
Vassallo. On-line driver workload estimation. Effects of road situation and age on secondary task measures.ictct. M.F. 39.. Personality and negative expectancies: trait structure of the Beck Hopelessness Scale.ictct. W.
Vallières. 2007 from http:www. A.
Velting. D. A. W. (2004). E. H... and Vallerand. Proceedings of the International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT) Extra Workshop. 26. S. (2005).
Utzelmann. 336-345. J. (1999).F. 913-921.M.
Vasconcellos..” Recovery. (2001). G. (2007). Cockfield. Ergonomics. Campo Grande. Retrieved December 5. Retrieved September 1. March 20-22.
. Driver selection and improvement in Germany. 2007 from www. T. (1999). (Eds. 9(2). Brazil. and Huguenin. Italy. Harrison. Risky driving among young Australian drivers: trends precursors and correlates. R.org/workshops/01-Caserta/Vaa. É.D.. T. (Ed. Caserta. (2000). 181-190). Proceedings of the 14th workshop of the International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT). and McIntyre. J..
Transportation and society.A. 123-142. T.html.P. and McKenna. 28.F. Retrieved November 2.J.
. M.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. New Zealand. eye blinks and ongoing driver behaviour. Changes in young adults offense and crash patterns over time. Stanton. Feeling nostalgic? Now you’ll rave. W.P. 421-444. P.M..
Watson. Perceived coping as a mediator between attachment and psychological distress: a structural equation modeling approach.pdf
Wei. T. 2008 from http://www. Wellington. Drivers’ decision to speed: a study inspired by the theory of planned behavior. (2001). M. and Carbonell Vaya E. F. N.H. Retrieved December 15. H.B. Amsterdam: Elsevier.com/public_affairs/reports/AA-foundation-FDN33-cradle-grave.backwoodshome. 33. Shope. and Little. Predicting drowsiness accidents from personal attributes. Backwoods Home Magazine.. P. and Åberg. P.A. 427-433.com/articles/waterman37. and Zaidel. Personality and Individual Differences. A.
Waller. Cradle Attitudes – Grave Consequences. Heppner. L... (2001). Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. International Journal of Cognitive Ergonomics. Accident Analysis and Prevention. G. (Eds. and Young. 50(4). In Rothengatter.
Waller. Basingstoke UK: AA Foundation for Road Safety. 438-447. 117128. Elliot. An on-road investigation of vehicle feedback and its role in driver cognition: implications for cognitive ergonomics. In Proceedings of the 1998 Road Safety Research. (2006). (2009. R. (2002). (1998).theaa. January 21). Raghunathan.
Waylen.F. Here’s the story of Burma-Shave. 9.S. Methodological problems associated with surveying unlicensed drivers. and Mallinckrodt (2003).
Waterman. Journal of Counseling Psychology.R. (1997). (2000).. 1-8). B. 5(4). M.
Verwey. 2007 from http://www.
Wállen Warner. J. Policing and Educatino Conference 2.T. D.E. The development of gender differences in risky attitudes and behaviour in road use (Summary Report).
S. Target Risk. Accident Analysis and Prevention. G. G.J. (2007). 31. deductions and discussion of recent commentaries. Mild social deviance. and Klerman.
Wells. 2. Toronto: PDE Publications. Preventions of accidents in childhood.
Wilde. (1973). and French. G. J. G. Risk homeostasis theory and traffic education requirements.
Wilde. (pp. (2005). (1993). (2002). Type-A behaviour pattern and decision-making style as predictors of self-reported driving style and traffic accident risk.W. E. and Anderson. Hallberg.S. (1984). British Journal of Psychology. G.J. M. 84. Wiliams..J. 8. (1988). M. Childhood accidents. Guiling.L. R. 209-225. Snow.
469-529) New York: McGraw Hill. (1994). Hostility and depression associated with suicide attempts.. Does risk homeostasis theory have implications for road safety? British Medical Journal. In Halsey..). Fox.. P. 450-455.
Wilde. R. Dunaway. S. J. G. 1116-1121.. (1982).
Wells-Parker. Accident Prevention.J.S.) Transport Risk Assessment (pp.S.
 Wheatley.. D. Proceedings of the International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT) Extra
. Advances in Paediatrics. Elander.
Wilde. G. Risk Analysis. 195. S. (Ed.
West. (ed. 207-219. The theory of risk homeostasis: implications for safety and health.S. 34. 441-468. (1961). 1149-1152. Risk homeostasis and traffic accidents: propositions. In Yager. Deaths and injuries from car accidents: an intractable problem? Journal of Cleaner Production.
Wilde. B. 15(11/12). Ceminsky.J. 135-154). M. K. American Journal of Psychiatry. 324. University of Waterloo Press. G. (2002).S. On the choice of denominator for the calculation of accident rates.J. 130(4).
Wilde. 271278. Ergonomics.M (1956). G.. G. An exploratory study of the relationship between road rage and crash experience in a representative sample of US drivers.
T. E. March 20-22.F. S. 398-403. Space and Culture.
.A. J. Welsh.. S. 557-567.org/workshops/05-CampoGrande
Willford. Accident Analysis and Prevention.
Williams. 2007 from http:www.F. Lenard. and Boyd. Campo Grande.) Contemporary Ergonomics. 110-131.E. D. 8.
Williams. N.B. and Hartman. M. T.Y. 31. 99-109. Structural equation modeling in strategy research: applications and issues. and Shabanova. by age and gender. and Poythress. Fundamentals of ergonomics in theory and practice.Workshop. In Hanson. (2008). for motor-vehicle crash deaths. 26(6). (1996). V. 1.
Wood. Applied Ergonomics. L. Possession and displacement in Kuala Lumpur’s ethnic landscape. Gavin.
Williams. M.R. 303346.. N. Cascardi. (2000). Boyd.. The fluid state: Malaysia’s national expressway. (2004). Research Methodology in Strategy and Management.G. (2001). Brazil.G.C. 807-811.I. (2003). (2003). Responsibility of drivers. 6(2).ictct. Retrieved March 31. (Ed.
Woodcock. J. A. T.. Farmington Hills MI: Gale.
Williamson. A. New York: Taylor & Francis. and Well. Wood.S. Countries and Their Cultures. (1999).. A. M. Psychological Assessment.K. (1994). 34(5). 55(175). Journal of Safety Research. (2003). 527-531. Mastering the World of Psychology..J. J. Boston: Pearson.
Williams. Designing for the in-car safety and security of women. A. Flyte and Garner. The factor structure and convergent validity of the Aggression Questionnaire in an offender population. International Social Science Journal. Matto Grosso do Sul. Driver experience with antilock brake systems. J.
A. Ergonomics.C. Negotiating identity in Malaysia: multi-cultural society. 33(3). 740-746. A three-dimensional dynamic posture prediction model for simulating in-vehicle seated reaching movements: development and validation. 50(1). 1314-1330. N. (Ed. G. X. Technical Report Series No. Accidents in Childhood: Facts as a Basis for Prevention. S. Back to the future: brake reaction times for manual and automated vehicles.
World Health Organization [WHO] (2004). 118. (2007). D. and Harris. Head tilt during driving. Country reports. 487-503).
Yaapar. D. Asian Journal of Social Science. 43(9).
World Health Organization [WHO] (1957). Ergonomics.
Yergil. 46-58. Report of an Advisory Group.
Zhang. 42(5).) Traffic and Transport Psychology (pp. (2005). Regional Office for the Western Pacific. Islam. M. Amsterdam: Elsevier
Young. (2005). Ergonomics. Geneva.S.
Zikovitz. D. In Underwood. 473-485.R. and Stanton. and Chaffin. L. Drivers and traffic laws: a review of psychological theories and empirical research. (2000). . (1999). theatre and tourism.
the brake line pressure is relates. presumably because of personality factors.
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.
Behavioural adaptation (BA): “the ability to adapt to novel conditions based on one’s experiences. the ABS reapplies it until the wheels begin to lock-up again.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
Accident-proneness: a tendency toward accidents. drivers stop sooner and in a more controlled manner than with traditional rack-and-pinion braking systems. to the individual” (Brown &
. Immediately after releasing the pressure. differential accident involvement). a concept generally attributed to Farmer and Chambers (1926. the outcome of which is typically reflected by perceived advantages. allowing the wheel to turn. (see also. on most surface types. or benefits. Because the wheels continue to turn during the braking manoeuvre. As a result. traction is maintained steering and braking actions continue to be effective. 1939) and arising from the individual differences approach in psychology. ABS ensures that.
Noy. rather than a theory. (b) does not prejudge the causation of personality variables. BA is a core concept in all risk theories of driver behaviour. black event)
Contextual mediated model: an empirically-based path analysis. it refers to a combination of circumstances. where effort to save lives may be concentrated. therefore allowing for the influence of external factors. including driver behaviour.
Black event: a post-hoc extension of the black spot concept.
. where possible. The concept has been applied both to Summala’s (1996) hierarchical adaptation theory and to Fuller’s (2000) task capability theory. It differs from accident proneness in that it (a) denotes an area of study. proximal variable. task capability theory) . road and traffic conditions. first offered by Nebi Sümer of the Middle East Technical University in Ankara. (see also. Usually based on geographical location of the crash. hierarchical driver adaptation theory. The central idea is that. p. when confronted by differing levels of perceived or objective risk in the environment. characteristics of road users. It refers to accumulations of motor vehicle crashes in amassed statistics. the statistical model was based on the results of automobile users’ responses to psychological testing and questionnaires. black spot)
Black spot: a term attributed to Heikki Summala of the Traffic Research Unit at the University of Helsinki. Turke showing the manner in which the certain demographic. (see also. it is essential when searching for black spots to disaggregate the accident mass by splitting it into progressively smaller units by type. McKenna of the University of Reading. that corresponds to an accumulation of crashes in the statistical mass. accident proneness)
Differential psychology: see individual differences approach. crash outcome)
Differential accident involvement: a concept proposed by Frank P. In the present research. The contextual mediated model forms the basis of ordering variables within the research design for studies reported in this thesis. 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. (see also. Also referred to as risk compensation. driving and psychological variables influence self-reported behaviour in traffic and self-reported crash outcomes. drivers will alter their behaviour (see also. 2004. 25). time of week and. and (c) assumes that individuals may vary along a continuum with regard to factors that affect their risk of crash. risk homeostasis theory. (see also. distal variable. as an alternative to the largely discounted notion of accident proneness.
ability. not as a unidimensional.
. Individual differences research typically focuses on the domains of personality. Rotter of the University of Connecticut. Later conceptualisations have viewed LoC. 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). In traffic psychology. Each of the nine elements of the matrix represents a possible focus for road safety. then of the Veteran’s Administration Medical Centre in San Francisco. leading to the now largely discredited concept of accident proneness. bipolar construct ranging from I (internal) to E (external) maximums. aptitudes.. 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.
Locus of control (LoC): a concept generally credited to Julian B. 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.
Haddon matrix: a model developed by the American traffic analyst. the vehicle and the road – with the three phases in a motor vehicle crash – pre-crash. accident proneness)
Inner speech: see self-talk. which combines the three components of the road traffic system – the human. Externality Chance (C) and Externality Powerful Others (P). One such multidimensional model of LoC was advanced by Hanna Levenson. but rather as a multidimensional variable made up of three or more dimensions. and after crash – to form a matrix with nine cells. selfefficacy and self-esteem.
Headway: the distance between two vehicles travelling one in front of the other. intelligence. interests. William Haddon Jr. who posited three dimensions: Internality (I). It contains detailed information about fatalities resulting from motor vehicle crashes on public roadways in the United States since 1975. values. motivation. a body of theoretical and empirical knowledge has been generated from attempts to consider how individual differences – primarily in personality. Department of Transportation. demographic and motivational variables – contribute to diving outcomes.S. self-concept.Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS): is a database in the public domain maintained by the U. in-crash. It was at the IFRB that statisticians and analysts first examined the distribution of accident frequency. The name was changed to the British Industrial Health Research Board in 1931.
Individual differences approach: also referred to as differential psychology. (see also. (see also.
When there is a discrepancy between the level of perceived risk in the environment and an internalised “target risk” level. motorcycles. if perceived risk exceeds target risk. individuals will engage in more cautious behaviour. and buses. as expressed by Raymond Cattell. if perceived risk falls below the target risk. operates to keep user risk at an essentially constant level.
Risk compensation: see behavioural adaptation. individuals are likely to perform riskier behaviour. trucks (lorries). PBC refers to the degree of control that individuals believe they have over a given behaviour. and using animal-drawn or human-drawn carts or other devices. Wilde.
Personality: is the integration of traits that can be investigated and described in order to render an account of the unique quality of the individual.
Non-motorised transport: any transport that does not require a motor to generate energy. most usually on roads. 333-334).
Private speech: see self-talk. the ego and the superego. Different schools of psychology vary in their conceptualisation of personality: the individual psychology of Gordon Allport views personality as “the dynamic integration within individuals that determine their characteristic behaviour and thought”. motor vehicles included automobiles.Motor vehicle: a machine which incorporates an engine and wheels and is used for transportation on land. the RHT posits that an underlying feedback system.
Risk homeostasis theory (RHT): Originally postulated by Gerald J. motorised bicycles. 1985. Included in this term are walking. mobile construction equipment or platforms. Wilde’s theory has generated equivocal
. Professor Emeritus at Canada’s Queen’s University.
Perceived behavioural control (PBC): a key concept in Azjen’s Theory of Planned Behaviour. or characteristic manner of responding to life’s problems. 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. regards it as “that which permits a prediction of what a person will do in a given situation. occurring on a public road and involving at least one moving motor vehicle. Freudian psychology considers it to be a manifestation of the integration of the id. somewhat analogous to a thermostat. p. but excluded those vehicles which operate on rails. conversely. That is. motor vehicle crash was considered largely synonymous with the concept of motor vehicle accident. Adlerian psychology views it as “the individual’s style of life. For the purposes of the present research. the individual differences approach. bicycling. For the purposes of the present research. including life goals” (Chaplin.S.
parking spaces. these tyres are manufactured with small metal studs – much like football cleats – inserted in the treads.
Self talk: a fundamental concept in most theories of cognitive behaviourism. draining system. Also referred to as private speech or inner speech. stopping places. (see also. signage. but only
Road safety engineering: “a process. based on analysis of road and traffic related accident information. including the network. A motor vehicle crash may be considered as a failure in the system. self talk related to drivers’ cognitive statements about other drivers was studied in terms of its direct effect on driving behaviour and as a mediator of trait aggression on driving behaviour. and (d) improvement of known hazardous locations on the road network. bridges. the vehicle and the road) interact with each other.
Road traffic system: Road traffic may be considered as a system in which three components (the human. p. archways and footpaths. 1996. zero risk theory)
Road infrastructure: road facilities and equipment.” (Ogden. which applies engineering principles in order to identify road design or traffic management improvements that will cost-effectively reduce the cost of road accidents.
Studded tyres: used primarily in countries that experience ice.and snow-covered roads during the winter months. target risk. (b) incorporation of safety features in the design of new roads. Within the context of this research. (c) improvement of safety aspects of existing roads to avoid future problems. 35). as the result of injury sustained in the crash. Opportunities for road safety engineering in general apply at four levels: (a) safety conscious planning of new road networks.research results and some heated controversy within the field of traffic psychology.
Road traffic fatality: a death occurring within 30 days of a motor vehicle crash. Cognitive self-statements may be either negative or positive. most frequently attributed to Donald Meichenbaum at Canada’s University of Waterloo. behavioural adaptation. at both conscious and unconscious levels. overpasses. tunnels. It refers to the constant stream of chatter that goes on in one’s mind.
Road traffic injuries: fatal or non-fatal injuries incurred as a result of a motor vehicle crash. They enable better traction and shorter braking distances than non-studded counterparts.
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.
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. These are energy absorbing buffers designed to protect drivers from injury during collision by preventing the head and upper body from striking the steering wheel.
Target risk: a core concept in Wilde’s risk homeostasis theory. A complex 3 X 5 X i matrix.when manoeuvring on icy or hard-packed snowy surfaces. and (c) perceived behavioural control (PBC) over the performance of the behaviour (which jointly influences both the intention and behavioural performance). theory of planned behavriour)
. and (4) the costs expected from risky behaviour alternatives. (see also. remains constant at the target level. hierarchical adaptation theory)
Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB): as proposed by Icek Ajzen of the University of MassachusettsAmherst. (see also. (3) the benefits expected from cautious behaviour alternatives. Individuals will undertake behaviour to ensure that the level of risk in which they are engaged. derived from Summala’s (1996) hierarchical adaptation theory of driver behaviour. theory of reasoned action. (b) subjective norms (opinions about what significant others would think of the behaviour). The theory of reasoned action (TRA) proposes that behaviour is a function of intentions. (see also. behaviour control) (see also. According to RHT proponents. The TPB has been applied to a wide range of research problems in traffic psychology. the TPB posits that a given behaviour is determined by individuals’ intentions. which in turn are a function of attitudes and subjective norms. which are the best predictors of behaviour. target risk is determined by four “classes of utility factors”: (1) the benefits expected from risky behaviour alternatives. studded tyres actually increase braking distances and decrease lateral control of the vehicle. it is a level of risk that each individual is willing to accept. According to Wilde (1994). On dry roads. instrument panel and windshield of a motorcar. (2) the costs expected from cautious behaviour alternatives.
Supplementary restraint system (SRS): Also referred to as “airbags”. and Icek Ajzen at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst. 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). risk homeostasis theory)
Task cube. Each cell of the matrix represents a combination of the three dimensions which form the basis of the theory. 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.
has embraced a multidisciplinary approach and a shared focus with human physiology. In the present research.
Transportation factors: a set of five domains operating on the process of moving goods or persons from one place to another. only when a subjective threshold is exceeded and “feelings of fear” are experienced. time. coordinating.
Traffic mix: the form and structure of different modes of transport. ergonomics. community planning. road engineering. that share the same road infrastructure.Traffic management: planning. (see also. comfort. It is primarily concerned with the study of the behaviour of road users and the psychological processes underlying that behaviour. the term is considered synonymous with transport psychology and with mobility psychology. risk homeostasis theory)
. it posits that drivers attempt to maintain a stable balance between subjective and objective risk. The five basic transportation factors include: safety. convenience and economy. behavioural adaptation. adapting behaviourally to driving conditions. It is often proposed as an alternative to Wilde’s risk homeostasis theory. from its outset. management science and economics. controlling and organising traffic to achieve efficiency and effectiveness of the existing road infrastructure capacity.
Zero risk theory: as proposed by Heikki Summala of the Traffic Research Unit at the University of Helsinki.
Traffic psychology: a relatively new and developing field of applied psychology that. motorised and non-motorised. The emergence and impact of the field of traffic psychology is discussed in chapter 2 of this thesis.
Appendix A: List of Published and Research Scales
eng. Papacostas Department of Civil Engineering 2540 Dole Street University of Hawaii at Manoa Honolulu.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. Available from: The Psychological Corporation (Harcourt.html
. 2000). Hawaii 96822 USA
http://www. Research scales (BIT and HAT) were obtained and used with the permission of the authors. San Antonio.com/portal/page?_pageid=53.A number of variables studied in the present research were measured using scales copyrighted by corporate publishers or by universities where they were developed.wpspublish.S.hawaii. TX 78259 USA
Beck Hopelessness Scale (BHS. Available from: Western Psychological Services 12031 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles. 1988) Obtained with permission from the authors: c/o Dr.edu/~csp/csp. Papacostas & Synodinos. Beck & Steer. Buss & Warren. Information for obtaining copies of these instruments is provided below:
Aggression Questionnaire (AQ. Brace & Company). CA 90025 USA
http://portal. Published scales (AQ and BHS) are marketed only to professional psychologists capable of meeting criteria for psychometric knowledge and expertise. C. 1993). 19500 Bulverde Road.com/cgibin/MsmGo. with the understanding that they would not be re-published.
Hostile Automatic Thoughts Scale (HAT. Kurylo & Poirier) Obtained with permission from the late Dr.edu/hope.R. Correspondence regarding this scale or the associated hope theory should be directed to: Graduate Training Program in Clinical Psychology The Department of Psychology 340 Fraser Hall University of Kansas 1415 Jayhawk Boulevard Lawrence. Snyder.ukans. C. Snyder. Kansas 66045 USA
. Houston.psych. Crowson.
Appendix B: Personal Information Form (PIF)
. In what city/town did you learn to drive? _______________. Most of the time when you travel.g. so please answer all questions as truthfully as you can. We are not asking for your name. 1..g. please answer the following questions: 2. _________. How often do you travel in a car: as a driver (please check only one): ___ every day ___ several times a week ___ about once or twice a week ___ about once every two weeks ___ almost never ___ never
as a passenger (please check only one) ___ every day ___ several times a week ___ about once or twice a week ___ about once every two weeks ___ almost never ___ never
. what kind of transportation do you use? (please check only one) ___ bus ___ motorcycle (driver) ___ car (driver) ___motorcycle (pillion. What type of motor vehicle do you most often drive? (please check only one) ___ car -. sitting behind driver) ___ car (passenger) ___ bicycle (non-motorized) ___ walk ___ other (please specify: _______________) 6. __________ (city/town) (state) (country) 5.what manufacturer & model (e. For how long have you had your driver’s licence? __________ years and ___________months (number) (number) 3. __________ (city/town) (state) (country) 4. In what city/town have you lived most of your life? _______________. 250 cc) ______________ ___ other (please specify: _________________) 7. Proton Wira) _______________ ___ motorcycle – what engine size (e. Do you presently have a driver’s licence? (circle one) yes no
Personal Information Form
Please answer the following questions about Please answer the following questions about YOURSELF. _________.
all the time ___ yes. Within the last twelve (12) months. How often do you travel on a motorcycle: as a driver (please check only one): ___ every day ___ several times a week ___ about once or twice a week ___ about once every two weeks ___ almost never ___ never
as a passenger (please check only one) ___ every day ___ several times a week ___ about once or twice a week ___ about once every two weeks ___ almost never ___ never
9. do you have ready ACCESS to a motorcycle? (please check only one) ___ yes. When you want to use a motorcycle. most of the time ___ no
11. 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. some of the time ___ yes. some of the time ___ yes. have you been in a motor vehicle accident that required you to be hospitalised for 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:__________________________________________ )
. all the time ___ yes. When you want to use a car. do you have ready ACCESS to a car? (please check only one) ___ yes. most of the time ___ no 10.8.
but no injuries? If yes. what phrase best describes what happened? (please check only one): ___ my vehicle was changing lanes and hit (or was hit by) another vehicle ___ my vehicle hit (or was hit by) another vehicle that was changing lanes ___ my vehicle went out of control and went off the side of the road ___ my vehicle went through a red light (or sign) at an intersection (junction) ___ the other vehicle went through a red light (or sign) at an intersection ___ my vehicle hit another vehicle from behind ___ my vehicle was hit from behind by another vehicle ___ other (please specify:__________________________________________ ) 13. in what kind of vehicle were you travelling when the accident occurred? ___ bus ___ motorcycle (driver) ___ car (driver) ___motorcycle (pillion. what phrase best describes what happened? (please check only one): ___ my vehicle was changing lanes and hit (or was hit by) another vehicle ___ my vehicle hit (or was hit by) another vehicle that was changing lanes ___ my vehicle went out of control and went off the side of the road ___ my vehicle went through a red light (or sign) at an intersection (junction) ___ the other vehicle went through a red light (or sign) at an intersection ___ my vehicle hit another vehicle from behind ___ my vehicle was hit from behind by another vehicle ___ other (please specify:__________________________________________ ) 15.12. 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 resulted in damage over RM100 to your vehicle. Within the last twelve months. What is your age? ___ male _____ years ___ female
17. in what kind of vehicle were you travelling when the accident occurred? ___ bus ___ motorcycle (driver) ___ car (driver) ___motorcycle (pillion. What is your gender? 16. sitting behind driver) ___ car (passenger) ___ bicycle (non-motorized) ___ I was walking ___ other (please specify: _______________) If yes. Within the last twelve months. What is your ethnic background? (please specify only one:) ___ Malay ___ Indian-Malaysian ___ Chinese-Malaysian ___ other (please specify: _____________)
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR COOPERATION
. have you been in a motor vehicle accident that required you to go to a medical clinic for minor injuries? yes no If yes.