This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
ALAN GIFFIN DOWNE
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY MULTIMEDIA UNIVERSITY APRIL 2008
Siti Hasmah Digital Library
Digitally signed by Siti Hasmah Digital Library DN: cn=Siti Hasmah Digital Library, c=MY, o=Multimedia University, ou=Research Library, email=kamal. firstname.lastname@example.org 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Several researchers at other institutions have provided assistance in the form of test instruments, unpublished papers and guidance over the course of this project.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.
gender and ethnicity) and psychological (locus of control. 302 and 252. driving experience and demographic characteristics are the specific contributors of these factors.ABSTRACT Motor vehicle crashes are a serious social and economic problem in Malaysia. where. some personality constructs. Previous research has found that human factors play the chief role in contributing to crash outcomes. Distal variables included driver (driving experience and driving frequency). The role of the proximal variable in mediating distal effects on crash outcomes was also investigated. freeway urgency. A contextual mediated model was used to examine interactions between a set of variables considered distal to the causality of the crash event. The present research was conducted to examine the interaction between the role of behaviour in traffic. However. respectively). Three samples of university students whose primary mode of transportation involved driving automobiles (n = 301. vii . externally-focused frustration. demographic (age. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) characteristics. BIT had four components: usurpation of right-of-way. previous attempts to investigate relationships between psycho-social variables and crash incidence have frequently yielded weak associations and inconclusive results. Effects of the distal variables and proximal variable on self-reported history of crash occurrence and injuries were examined. demographic characteristics and driving exposure in predicting crash and injury occurrence. one sample of university students whose primary mode of transportation involved motorcycle riding (n = 122) and one sample of professional taxicab drivers (n = 149) were studied. on average. personality traits. hopelessness. and that driver behaviours. and destination-activity orientation. The proximal variable was comprised of a measure of self-reported behaviour in traffic (BIT) on which high scores were considered consistent with Type A behaviour pattern (TABP). self-reported patterns of driving considered more proximal to the causality of the crash and self-reported crash and injury histories of the participants. seven fatalities are recorded each day.
The role of the proximal variable. particularly with respect to an ongoing debate within traffic psychology over the comparative importance of theories or models of driving behaviour. viii .Results indicated a complex series of interactions between the variables. as well. Implications for both theory and practice are discussed. Among distal variables. As hypothesised. Results indicated that. locus of control moderated the BIT-aggression relationship. 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. BIT exerted a strong mediational influence over the effects of distal variables on crash outcomes. consistent with the assumptions of the contextual mediated model. The advantages of multi-disciplinary approaches to the study of roadway crashes 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. As reported in previous studies. Two types of hostile automatic thoughts – with content related to physical aggression or revenge – moderated the BITaggression relationship. BIT. all four BIT components were associated with higher occurrence of both self-reported motor vehicle crashes and crash-related injury. 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.
2.6 Background of the Study Road Safety in Malaysia The Problem Statement The Professional Significance of the Study Overview of the Methodology Delimitations ii iii iv vi vii ix xv xviii xx 1 1 2 4 5 7 9 12 12 12 17 19 19 21 21 22 24 24 25 26 28 30 31 31 CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 2.1 Human Factors in Roadway Crashes: A Vexing Research Challenge 2.2 Traffic Psychology: Slow Progress in Theory-Building 2.3.3 ix .2.3 The Individual Differences Approach 2.2 Differential Accident Involvement 2. Theories and Models 2.2.1 Risk Homeostasis Theory (RHT) 2.3 1.2 2.1 Human Factors and the Motor Vehicle Safety Problem in Malaysia 2.3.1 Accident Proneness 184.108.40.206.3.2 The Emergence of Traffic Psychology as a Scientific Discipline 2.1 Roadway Crashes in Malaysia and Public Perceptions of Causality 2.2 A Multidisciplinary Approach Theories of Driving Behaviour 2.1 220.127.116.11 1.3.TABLE OF CONTENTS COPYRIGHT PAGE DECLARATION ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS DEDICATION ABSTRACT TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES PREFACE CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1.2.4 Risk Theories 18.104.22.168 1.4 22.214.171.124.1 Concepts.1 An Applied Perspective 2.2 Studies of Causal Factors in Malaysian Roadway Crashes The Professional Background 2.
3.4.3 Locus of Control 3.5.5 Hierarchical Theories of Driver Adaptation 2.3 Locus of Control and Ethnicity 126.96.36.199 Gender 2.1 Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) 2.2.6 Task Capability Interface (TCI) Theory 2.1 Statistical Models 2.5 Aggression 78 78 84 84 84 84 85 85 x .188.8.131.52.184.108.40.206 Conceptualization and the Research Framework Definition of the Variables 3.2 Demographic Variables: Age.2.2 Zero Risk Theory 2.5.3 Ethnicity 2.6 220.127.116.11.4.1 Unidimensional and Multidimensional Constructs 2.2 Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) Descriptive Models of Driver Behaviour 18.104.22.168 Age 2.3 Aggression Proximal Variables in the Present Research 2.5 22.214.171.124 Driver Characteristics: Driver Experience and Driving Frequency 126.96.36.199 Type A Behaviour Pattern and Motor Vehicle Crashes 188.8.131.52.4 2.3 Core Concepts in the Contextual Mediated Model: Moderation and Mediation 2.4.2 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 184.108.40.206.3.4.4 Hopelessness 220.127.116.11.2 Hopelessness 2.2 A Contextual Mediated Model of Personality and Behavioral Predictors of Motor Vehicle Crashes 18.104.22.168 Psychological Variables 22.214.171.124.1 The Haddon Matrix 2.2 Driving Frequency and Traffic Exposure 126.96.36.199. Gender and Ethnicity 3.4 Studies of Driving Behaviour Using the Contextual Mediated Model 2.1.2 Driver Characteristics 188.8.131.52.5.7 Attitude-behaviour Theories 2.1 3.5 Use of the Contextual Mediated Model in Other Research Distal Variables in the Present Study 2.9.2 Process Models 184.108.40.206 Locus of Control 220.127.116.11 Demographic Variables 2.1 Experience 2.2 Locus of Control and Driving Behaviour 2.1.3.
3 Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) and Root Mean Square Residual (RMR) 3.1 Studies 1 and 2 3.3.6 3.6 Logistic Regression Analysis 18.104.22.168 Study 3 Formulation of Hypotheses Methods of Data Collection and Analysis 3.2 Degree of freedom (df) 3.1 Chi-Square (χ2).5 Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) and Comparative Fit Index (CFI) 22.214.171.124 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) Scale 3.8 Crash Occurrence 126.96.36.199.2 Study 3 Analysis of the Data 188.8.131.52 Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index (AGFI) 3.7.5 Hostile Automatic Thoughts (HAT) 3.3 The General Linear Model (GLM) Univariate Analysis 3.7.8 Parsimony Goodness-of-Fit Index (PGFI) 3.2 Study 1B 3.5.3 Beck Hopelessness Scale (BHS) 184.108.40.206 220.127.116.11.7.3 3.7 3.1 The Sample 18.104.22.168.2.7.4 Normed Fit Index (NFI) 22.214.171.124.7 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) 3.3 Study 1C 126.96.36.199.188.8.131.52 One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) 3.7 Structural Equation Modelling 3.4 Linear Regression Analysis 3.7.7 Expected Cross-Validation Index (ECVI) 3.2.5 Multiple Regression Analysis 184.108.40.206.220.127.116.11 Levenson Locus of Control Scale 3.6 Hostile Automatic Thoughts 3.7. p-Value and χ2/df Ratio 3.2 Research Instruments 18.104.22.168 Independent-sample t-tests 3.5.9 Skewness and Kurtosis 86 87 88 88 88 88 89 89 90 90 91 93 93 94 94 96 97 97 98 98 99 99 100 100 103 103 104 104 104 105 105 107 107 107 108 108 108 109 109 110 110 xi .4 Study 2 3.9 Injury Occurrence Research Design of the Studies 3.7.6 Personal Information Form (PIF) Procedure 3.7.8 Kolmogorov-Smirnov One-Sample Test 22.214.171.124.5.4 3.4 Aggression Questionnaire (AQ) 3.1 Study 1A 3.
4 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the HAT Scale Normality.1 Age.6.2 Externality-chance and Externality-powerful-others as Moderators 4.2.6 xii .2 Results of Study 2 4.2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Levenson Locus of Control Scale 126.96.36.199.6.6.1 Description of the Sample 4.1 Results of Study 1 188.8.131.52 4.10 Hypothesis 10: Demographic Factors Influence Aggression 4.15 Hypothesis 15: Hostile Automatic Thoughts Moderate the 112 112 112 114 115 115 116 116 118 118 119 120 120 121 122 124 126 126 130 132 134 134 135 139 140 142 143 143 145 147 149 151 153 153 154 156 157 184.108.40.206.220.127.116.11 Hypothesis 8: Locus of control Influences Behaviour in Traffic 4.6.5 Hypothesis 5: Demographic Variables Influence Hopelessness 18.104.22.168 Hypothesis 1: Behaviour in Traffic Influences Motor Vehicle Crash Outcomes 4.2 Hypothesis 2: Driver Characteristics Influence Behaviour in Traffic 4.1 Internality as a Moderator 4.6.3 Hypothesis 3: Demographic Variables Influence Behaviour in Traffic 4.11 Hypothesis 11: Aggression Influences Behaviour in Traffic 22.214.171.124 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the BIT Scale 126.96.36.199.4 4.2 4.4 Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 3 Reliability and Validity 4.6.14 Hypothesis 14: Hostile Automatic Thoughts Influence Behaviour In Traffic 4.3.1 Reliability Test Results: Cronbach’s Alpha 188.8.131.52 4.2.6 Hypothesis 6: Locus of control Influences Hopelessness 4.2 Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 1 4.2 Parallel-Form Reliability 4.6.7 Hypothesis 7: Hopelessness Influences Behaviour in Traffic 4. Skewness and Kurtosis Crash and Injury Occurrence Data Distal and Proximal Variable Data 4.6.3. Gender and Ethnicity 4.3 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the AQ Scale 4.9 Hypothesis 9: Hopelessness Moderates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Behaviour in Traffic 4.3 Results of Study 3 Hypothesis Testing 184.108.40.206.4 Hypothesis 4: Demographic Variables Influence Locus of Control 4.6.6.CHAPTER 4: ANALYSIS OF DATA 4.12 Hypothesis 12: Locus of Control Moderates the Relationship Between Aggression and Behaviour in Traffic 4.13 Hypothesis 13: Demographic Factors Influence Hostile Automatic Thoughts 4.3 Validity Test Results 4.3 Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 2 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 5.4.16 Summary of Hypothesis Tests Testing the Contextual Mediated Model Using Structural Equation Modelling (LISREL Analysis) 220.127.116.11 Study 3: Taxicab Drivers 5.1 Study 1C 4.1 Generalisability of Findings 18.104.22.168.5.3 Timeframe for Data Collection 179 182 185 185 187 189 190 194 194 196 197 201 201 202 203 203 204 204 210 211 5.4 Testing the Contextual Mediated Model 5.3.6 xiii .22.214.171.124 4.1 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hopelessness and Crash Outcomes 4.1 Differences between Automobile Drivers and Motorcycle Drivers 4.6.4 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Crash Outcomes Comparison of Automobile Drivers.126.96.36.199.9 Relationship Between Aggression and Behaviour in Traffic 4.3.1 Advantages of Using SEM 5.6.3 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hostile Automatic Thought and Crash Outcome 4.2 Locus of Control and Ethnicity: Indian-Malaysian Drivers 5.1 Study 1C: Automobile Drivers 5.4 5.2 Differences between Automobile Drivers and Taxicab Drivers 4.2 Use of Self-Report Methods 5.2 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Aggression and Crash Outcomes 4.2 5.5 What Can be Learned from Testing Contextual Models with SEM? Limitations of the Study and Methodological Considerations 5.2 Study 2: Motorcyclists 5.3 Study 3 Testing Mediational Relationships Using SPSS 4.8.5 5.3 A Contextual Mediated Model for Understanding Factors Influencing Unsafe Driving Hopelessness Locus of Control 5.7 4.1 188.8.131.52 Goodness of Fit 5.2 Study 2 184.108.40.206.4.9.3 Best Fit or Best Model 5.5.1 Internal and External Locus of Control as Determinants of Driving Behaviour 5.3 Locus of Control and Ethnicity: Malay and Chinese-Malaysian Drivers Aggression Testing the Contextual Mediated Model Using Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) 5.8. Motorcycle Drivers and Taxicab Drivers 4.5.
7.2 Engineering Interventions 5.7.2 Factors in Behavioural Adaptation (BA) 220.127.116.11 18.104.22.168 Enforcement 212 215 215 218 220 221 221 221 229 230 CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION 233 REFERENCES GLOSSARY APPENDICES Appendix A List of Published and Research Scales Appendix B Personal Information (PIF) 237 287 294 297 xiv .3 Driver Selection.4 Preventive Measures: “The Three E’s” 5. Models in Traffic Psychology 22.214.171.124.3 Education 5.6.1 Theory vs.7. Training and Rehabilitation 5.1 Generating and classifying crash prevention interventions 126.96.36.199.4 Measurement of Driving Frequency Implications and Areas for Further Study 5.
1 2.4 3.5 4.2 4.10 4. 2 and 3 States from Which Study 1 Participants Had Acquired Their Original Drivers’ Licenses States from Which Study 2 Participants Had Acquired Their Original Motorcyclists’ Licenses Summary of Internal Reliability Coefficient Results Parallel-Form Reliability for Form A and Form B (BIT) Validity of BIT scales – Summary of Confirmatory Factor Analyses Validity of the Levenson Locus of Control Scale – Summary of Confirmatory Factor Analysis Validity of the AQ scales – Summary of Confirmatory Factor Analysis Summary of LISREL Results on Validity for HAT (Study 1C) Normality Tests. 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.3 114 4.2 3.4 115 117 118 119 4.9 4.5 4.3 3.11 xv .8 111 121 121 122 4. Gender and Ethnicity of Participants in Studies 1. Kurtosis and Skewness Statistics 13 14 57 91 95 97 98 101 112 114 2.3 3.7 4.1 4. Table Page 2.1 3.LIST OF TABLES No.6 4.2 Malaysian Roadway Crashes and Casualties.
Gender and Ethnicity in Study 1 (N=855) 124 125 Crash Occurrence Frequency. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 3 (n=133) Results of Logistic Regression Analyses Showing the Effects of BIT Component Factors on Crash Occurrence Results of Logistic Regression Analyses Showing the Effects of BIT Component Factors on Injury Occurrence The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores in Study 1A (N=301) The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores in Study 1B (N=302) The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores in Study 1C (N=252) The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores in Study 2 (N=122) The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores in Study 3 (N=133) Effects of Demographic Factors on total BIT Scores Direct effects of hopelessness on BIT scores Direct Effects of Locus of Control on Total BIT Scores 127 4. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1B (n=302) Means. Gender and Ethnicity in Study 2 (N=122) 125 Means.23 136 4.24 137 4.22 136 4.29 xvi . Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 2 (n=122) Means.14 4.28 4.20 134 4. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1A (n=301) Means.25 138 4.17 129 4.15 Crash and Injury Occurrence Crash Occurrence Frequency.12 4. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1C (n=252) Means.26 138 139 144 145 4.16 128 4.13 4.19 133 4.27 4.4.21 135 4.18 131 4.
4 208 5.41 175 5.39 4.2 5.35 4.34 4.1 199 206 207 5.5 209 225 5.6 xvii .36 4.4.40 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Aggression and Crash Outcomes 174 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hostile Automatic Thought and Crash Outcomes BIT Mediates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Crash Outcomes Goodness of Fit Statistics for Model 1C5 and 1C6 (Initial and Subsequent Analyses) Distribution of National Population and Sampled Participants by State State of Origin Compared with Crash Frequency and Vehicle Registrations (Study 1) State of Origin Compared with Crash Frequency and Vehicle Registrations (Study 2) Spearman rank correlations for States of Origin for Participants in Study 1 and Study 2 Engineering Applications for Crash Prevention 174 4.37 4.33 4.3 5.32 4.38 Direct Effects of Gender on AQ Total and Subscale Scores Direct Effects of Ethnicity on AQ Total and Subscale Factors 149 150 Effect of Aggression on Total BIT Scores and on BIT Component Factors 152 Summarised Results on the Hypotheses and Sub-hypotheses SEM Comparison (Study 1C) Different Contextual Models (Study 1C) Different Contextual Models (Study 2) Different Contextual Models (Study 3) BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hopelessness and Crash Outcomes 160 163 167 169 171 173 4.30 4.31 4.
2007) 50 Hierarchical Levels of Driving Behavior (after Keskinen.4 148 xviii . 1997) Contextual Mediated Model of Personality. Hatakka. Behavioral Predictors and Motor Vehicle Crashes (from Sümer.8 Proposed Contextual Mediated Model for Safety Research in Agriculture (from Downe.3 2.4 2.2 2.7 2.6 2.9 59 2.LIST OF FIGURES No. 1996) Task-Capability Theory (after Fuller.1 4.2 3.4 4.1 2. 2000) Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen. 2000) Contrast between Rotter’s Unidimensional and Levenson’s Multidimensional Conceptual of Locus of Control Research Model (Study 1A and Study 2) Research Model (Study 1B) Research Model (Study 1C) Research Model (Study 3) Interaction Effects between Ethnicity and Internality on BIT Interaction Effect between Ethnicity and Externality-Chance on Usurpation of Right-of Way Moderating Effect of BHS on the Internality-BIT Relationship Moderating Effect of BHS on the Externality (Chance)-BIT Relationship 2. 2.5 Figure Task Cube (from Summala. 1989) The Haddon Matrix (Noy.3 3.3 4. 2003) Inter-variable Relationships in Mediation Models Inter-variable Relationships in Moderation Models Page 36 37 40 42 44 46 47 2.2 147 148 4. 1996.10 64 80 81 82 83 146 3.1 3.
13 xix .4.5 4.6 4.11 Interaction of Ethnicity and Verbal Aggression on Freeway Urgency Moderating Effect of Internality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship Moderating Effects of Externality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship Moderating Effect of Externality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship Contextual Mediated Model Study 1C5 Contextual Mediated Model 1C6 (Four BIT Factors) Contextual Mediated Model Study 1C (Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thoughts) Contextual Mediated Model Study 2 Contextual Mediated Model Study 3 153 154 155 158 165 166 168 170 172 4.12 4.7 4.9 4.8 4.10 4.
I knew the fellow. they were frustrated and angry with each other. I despair that we may never be able to snare this werewolf. . handle the latent variables I wanted to include in my structural equation model. things were not going well. like encounters with fairies and werewolves. He died instantly and she spent three weeks in the hospital. But sometimes. I don’t cry much any more. I hope it makes a contribution. I’m pretty happy with it. Her hands and voice quivered. only a trimester or two earlier. I feel like it a bit right now. I didn’t recognise her at first. externally-focused frustration. lane deviation and all the rest. is a matter of debate … Obviously. at least not with real tears. xx . Her face and arms had been bruised and lacerated. The factors she described that evening were the same ones I’d been trying to study – freeway urgency. They quarreled and then left on his motorbike. He was very popular with other students. He didn’t want to go. He was driving. 2004 Some three years or so into my Ph. They were hurrying. The behaviour of the traveller. they were focused on the errand. My research design needed a serious re-working. but she’d nagged him. I like to watch boxing. just every so often. programme. they are prone to other types of error as well. she was riding pillion. She had been badly injured. How important these factors are. She started crying and couldn’t stop. LISREL couldn’t. Then one evening into my office came a student from my first-year Critical Thinking class. or wouldn’t. And they crashed. She had needed to go on an errand. She told me about the motorcycle crash that had claimed the life of her cousin. and his mental state. I wanted to throw in the towel. I’m a fairly big guy. She was afraid she had missed too many lectures. But. I sure felt like it as I sat there beside her. I got back to work on them. I was confused by the results I was getting. when humans are prone to imagine fairies or werewolves.PREFACE Accidents occur. I told her not to worry. He’d sent me a nice card at Christmas. to the weary traveler. they cut across a lane too quickly. and this thesis is the result. but accidents or encounters with fairies or werewolves are random events. he’d taken the same course as she. finally. are factors that influence the likelihood of occurrence.Talib Rothengatter & Raphael Huguenin.D. I feel like it each time I think of that moment.
highway engineers and automotive design specialists. Olson. leading to a rich information base for regarding humancentred design as a “requirement for all elements in the traffic system.1 Background of the Study With an estimated 1. Ogden. 2002). “human factors play a major role in road accidents. 2004). 11). Scurfield. 2006. environment and human characteristics on the risk of accidental events and fatalities. Verwey. 2002) and road safety engineering (e. 2000. Drivers’ performance and avoidance of collisions depend on their skills. This is particularly salient in developing countries. Drivers’ attentional (Most & Astur. the quest for a better understanding of the causality and prevention of roadway mishaps has become an urgent task for safety researchers. 2002) and their impairment (de Raedt & Ponjaert-Kristofferson. perceptual difficulties and drink driving” (p. Sleet.g.. Theeuwes. 1996. Iwasaki. Mohan & Hyder. kinaesthetic (Zhang & Chaffin. judgement. Notwithstanding the extensive literature that exists on safety design factors for automotive products (e. Furuichi & Kadoma. for instance. 2000). where rates of roadway accidents and deaths have been consistently higher than in other parts of the world (Peden & Hyder. much of the recent attention on causal elements in roadway crashes has focused on the human factors involved. commented that.g. 2004) have been studied extensively. 2007.CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1. 2001). Enns.2 million deaths in motor vehicle crashes worldwide (Peden. road. Even after decades of study. Consistently over the years. cognitive (Vaa. Sabey (1999). policy-makers.. Peters & Peters. including the 1 . state of mind and physical well-being. scholars still search to identify the relative effects of vehicle. Mills & Vavrik. anticipation. 2001. the most prevalent factors have been human failures associated with speed. 2004). Trick. 2007. 1999). 2000). Green. perceptual-motor processes (Young & Stanton. 2002. Stanton & Pinto. Graham. perceptual (Hong. such as Malaysia.
the vehicle and the new technologies that are increasingly being deployed by the road and fitted in vehicles” (Carsten. Very early initial attempts to identify an “accident proneness” personality trait (Tiliman & Hobbs.2 Road Safety in Malaysia Malaysia is a nation of motor vehicle users. 2 . locus of control. 1989). hopelessness and other variables interacted to affect attitudes toward driving and the severity and frequency of participants’ self-reported involvement in motor vehicle crashes. Malaysia is also a nation with a disproportionately high frequency of motor vehicle accidents. behavioural and attitudinal characteristics of drivers and the environmental situations in which they find themselves (Haight. there are conflicting findings and associated problems with this research” (p.732 motor vehicles were registered in 2006.252 accidents in 2006 and over 6. concludes by noting the delimitations of the research. However. 2002. 2003). 2007). p. 2004.351.790. 1983).roadway. 21). The research comprised five separate studies of Malaysian drivers aged 18 to 73 years. This dissertation is a report of research into relevant psychosocial variables and their effects on self-reported driving behaviour. “the literature on personality has a long history. 2005). This first chapter of this dissertation presents the background of the study. A total of 10. and as a “major public health problem” (Subramaniam. 1949) have since been replaced by more complex explanations that focus on the interaction between emotional. including the study of a large number of variables. as a “social menace”(Abdul Kareem. The high rate of roadway accidents and deaths has been described in both scholarly and popular print or internet media in extreme terms. The chapter 1. with the intent to determine the degree to which measures of aggression. describes its significance and presents an overview of the methodology used. According to Dewar (2002b). McKenna.000 fatalities were recorded (Ministry of Transport Malaysia. There was a total of 341. often labelled as “tragic” (Koh.112).332 drivers and 15. More challenging has been the attempt to link personality and psychosocial variables to driver behaviour and performance.
1997). 2004. Özkan. 1999. and (b) the elimination or reduction of effects of task-induced or environmental stressors on human performance when driving (Brown. 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. Elander. that allow for better prediction and explanation of roadway crashes (Risser & Nickel. 2002. 1997). Dewar. Gidron. 2004. 1997). Shinar. easily generalised to a variety of cultural and social settings. attitudinal and personality correlates of roadtraffic crash risk. 2005). Vasconcellos. Ulleberg. 2001. 2000. Cohn. Historically. Lajunen & Summala. risk-taking and sensation-seeking (Horswill & Coster. 3). 3 . Sumala & Zakowska. 2005. 2002. 2003). Parada & Cortes. Lin. 2006. 2002) and many others. Severson. 1991. 1997). Lajunen & Kaistinen. Hence. 2007). 1993. Renner & Anderle. Blasco. aggression (Parkinson. Huguenin (2005) has argued that the field of traffic psychology arises from an “interdisciplinary. Investigations of individual differences have included driver age and gender (Beck. Loo. Draskóczy. 2001. Barjonet & Tortosa. and the past twenty years has seen the emergence of the new discipline of traffic and transport psychology (Barjonet & Tortosa. 2002b.Trends toward high rates of motor vehicle crashes and fatalities have been observed in developing countries world-wide (Peden et al. there has been an increasing recognition of the need for theoretical formulations and specific models. Verwey. 1979. Rimmö. Schwebel. Hwang. leading many researchers and safety organisations to regard road safety as a leading international development issue (Garg & Hyder. locus of control (Arthur. Stewart. Trimpop & Kirkcaldy. 2006. 2001). Many studies have been devoted to the examination of behavioural. Ball & Rizzon. 2002. 2000). Huang. integrative and international viewpoint based on application in order to address changing situations and objectives” (p. Wu & Yen. 2003. 1997. Gonzalez. Barrett & Alexander. often with widely varying results (Dewar. Wells. 1994. Hartos & Simons-Martin. ethno-cultural background (Byrd. 2005. West & French. 2004). Wells-Parker et al. Gal & Syna Desevilya.
. Sümer (2003).3 The Problem Statement Given widespread awareness about the high rates of death and injury resulting from motor vehicle crashes worldwide and in Malaysia. What demographic and personality factors are associated and interact with unsafe driving behaviour and. for instance.e. 1996. A frequent criticism. This has led to a growing interest in modelling human behaviour involved in the driving task and. with the risk of roadway casualty? 4 . drivers still operate automobiles and motorcycles in ways that reduce the likelihood of safe arrival at destinations. 2005). in particular. 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. 1997).. has been that such behavioural models have seldom been used as the foundation for developing an integrated. personality and demographic) and proximal (i. road and environmental conditions that comprise the driving situation. has recently proposed a promising contextual mediated model which distinguishes between distal (i. Noy (1997). it has been recognised that the psychosocial factors involved in driving safely differ greatly across the range of human. falsifiable hypotheses might be drawn (Summala. theoretical basis for traffic psychology (Huguenin.Increasingly. leaving the field with inadequate theory development from which testable. in turn. Speeding. with resulting outcomes often involving crash and injury. in developing general and specific cognitive models of individuals’ interaction with the world around them (Brown. vehicle. 2004). externally-focused frustration. 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. aberrant driving behaviours) variables in predicting traffic accident involvement. loss of attention and the deliberate usurpation of right-of-way are frequent behaviours in traffic. Parker. however. 1.e. 1997. Hampson & Morris.
(d) driver hopelessness. injuries and deaths. 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. While there is no doubt that collective knowledge pertaining to the causality and prevention of roadway crashes is growing exponentially. with a view to assessing which preventive measures would be most effective. (e) driver aggression.The aim of the present research is to determine those factors contributing to traffic accidents on Malaysia roadways. 9). but also on their interactions. the present research might be seen as making a contribution to our growing understanding of that very interface. Results of the resulting analyses are detailed in chapter 3. in which distal psychosocial factors exert an influence on behavioural tendencies more proximally related to the crash event. and (f) drivers’ hostile automatic thoughts would not only affect each other but also four self-reported measures of behaviour in traffic. (c) driver locus of control. Fifteen hypotheses are formulated to predict that distal variables including: (a) driver age.4 The Professional Significance of the Study With the frequency of roadway crashes. By focusing on not only demographic. 2005. 5 . psychological and behavioural variables inherent in the dynamics leading motor vehicle crashes. situated as proximal variables. The effect of the proximal variables on self-reported crash experience and the severity of injuries associated with crashes are hypothesised to be moderated by the distal variables. “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. By better understanding the manner in which psychosocial characteristics of individuals might predispose them to engage in unsafe driving behaviour. this research is important to organisations and people concerned with driving safety. gender and ethnicity. This is both a key goal and a persistent challenge within the emerging field of traffic psychology. p. it becomes possible to construct a broader awareness of how demographic and personality variables contribute to motor vehicle crashes. 1. (b) driving experience.
The present research adds to the growing body of literature dealing with driver aggression and its various forms of expression. the Malaysian setting has remained relatively understudied (Richardson & Downe. the plethora of theories available. in the applied sciences. 1993). Recent trends in the philosophy of science call conventional hypothetico-deductive processes into question (Becker. p. Näätänen & Summala. It is also the first attempt to examine closely the effects of the psychological construct of hopelessness on driver behaviour. There is a growing sentiment that. 6 . 2004. 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. 1997. Utzelmann. 2000). 2001. 2005. 1974). The present research offers a perspective on this divergence of viewpoints by discussing how empirically-based models of behavioural processes can be strengthened through a priori integration with broader theoretical precepts. Some authors have suggested that. 94). 2004. “models that focus on specific aspects of road user behaviour seem capable of providing useful frameworks for organising and interpreting data … but experience suggests that such models are more likely to be useful if they are based on the consideration of empirical data rather than being derived from theoretical issues” (Grayson. road safety measures and public policy. an area that some authors have argued is overlooked in the current literature (Keskinen. they also have implications for a broader “theory versus model” debate in traffic psychology. all of which have been noted as purposes for traffic psychology (Brown & Noy. Despite considerable popular attention to the problem of motor vehicle crashes and fatalities in the developing countries of Southeast Asia. 2004). Katila & Peräaho. Laapotti. Hatakka. 1997). the development and adaptation of in-vehicle safety devices or intelligent transportation systems and the construction of models to foster additional research.Of particular interest may be variables related to driver affect. Rothengatter. Moreover. Findings of the present research have implications for driver selection and training.
this research draws on principles from a wide range of disciplines. may be limiting the development of effective public policy and intervention measures. Certain methodological considerations add to the professional significance of this research. 2001). Che Ali. attitude theory. A multi-disciplinary approach has been generally considered one of the hallmarks of the new field of traffic psychology (Rothengatter.. although adding additional layers of variables and complexity to the analysis. in turn. 1.. Radin Umar. cultural anthropology and applied psychology. and is appropriate for this examination of psychosocial features of the Malaysian driver. 2001). incorporating cognitive ergonomics.Notwithstanding a handful of well-founded reviews of statistical trends and risk factors (e. and on the manner in which those factors interact to affect safety outcomes on the roadway. which deals with methodology. Selection of alternate structural equation models is also discussed.g. very little research has been focused on the psychological and social features of the motoring population in Malaysia. 2005) and attempts to link driver performance to road engineering (e. This broader perspective. The present research contributes a new perspective by offering initial empirical observations on several psychosocial factors that could be important in understanding why Malaysian drivers behave as they do in traffic. human motivation. goes some distance in differentiating the present study from other more narrowly-defined examinations of driver behaviour. This has left the door open for largely unsupported speculation about the character of Malaysian drivers and. It is useful. with emphasis on the importance of model comprehensiveness as a factor in addition to goodness-of-fit.5 Overview of the Methodology Questions about how the study was conducted and the choice of research methods are answered fully in chapter 3. In doing so. 7 . this work represents the first instance in which Baron & Kenny’s (1986) widely-cited procedure for establishing mediation has been performed using logistic regression. To the author’s knowledge.g.
however. These equations depict all of the relationships among constructs (the dependent and independent variables) involved in the analysis” (Hair. in their capacity to predict outcomes and. This model drew on the similar conceptual theory used by Sümer (2003) in the construction of his earlier contextualmediated model. In each successive study. similar to a series of multiple regression equations. variables (Sekaran. different combinations of variables were added to the respective structured equation model and the level of complexity was examined. 711). p. Black. aggression. first. cultural background). but where differences which already existed between subject groups on independent measures were evaluated to determine their naturally-occurring influence on dependent. gender. was a multi-dimensional path analysis depicting causal. hopelessness. access to vehicle) and psychological (locus of control. Structural equation models were also used to explain the relationships between these variables. Maruyama (1998) has argued that the two prominent reasons why researchers use structural equation modelling techniques lie. The present research consisted of three studies: Study 1. 1B and 1C). 2006. The final result. hostile automatic thoughts) on four self-reported measures of behaviour in traffic (usurpation of right-of-way. destination-oriented activity) and two self-reported measures of accidentrelated (crash occurrence and injury occurrence) outcomes were assessed. at the conclusion of Study 1C. Anderson & Tatham. In Study 1. driving experience. Study 2 and Study 3. The present research applied an ex post facto research design. three separate phases were carried out (Study 1A. Babin. In this case. 2003). Structural equation modelling is a family of statistical methods that “examines the structure of interrelationships expressed in a series of equations. externally-focused frustration. moderating and mediating relationships between variables. to include in this first chapter a general statement of the method used in order to round out the introductory picture presented. in their capacity to explain which specific predictors 8 . second. or outcome. the effects of selected demographic (age. in which there was no direct manipulation of independent variables in the laboratory or field setting. each entailing data collection from a different sample. freeway urgency. driving (experience.
are most important in predicting. Generalisability of the present study may be constrained by the single-setting of the subject pool and the limitations of the particular methods selected.6 Delimitations All research is confined by the boundaries of its scope and design. leaving room for questions about the generalisability of findings to populations within and outside Malaysia. After the initial model-building had been completed. in fact. Again. behavioural inventories and personal profile questionnaires. 1. representative of the characteristics of high-risk Malaysian drivers. Student participants sampled for two of the three studies were selected from an undergraduate population at a single university.to 45-minute trips. where it is argued that the “convenience sample” used in the model-building phases was. a third model was constructed. data were collected through classroom-based group administration of research instruments. These are discussed in detail in chapter 5 of the thesis but relevant issues are introduced here. A team of researchers flagged down taxi drivers at random and. In Study 2. this time sampling professional taxicab drivers in the Kuala Lumpur area. 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. 9 . This issue is discussed at some length in chapter 5 of the thesis. verbally administered psychometric instruments. a model was constructed using a sample of undergraduate participants for whom motorcycles were the primary mode of transport. In Study 3. Such predictive capabilities were considered to be of importance in any examination of the dynamics leading to risks of roadway crashes and fatalities. over the course of 30. with resulting variable relationships compared to the model that had been built from the responses of automobile users in Study 1.
af Wählberg (2003) outlined three significant methodological deficiencies that have plagued the study of traffic accident predictors. In a meta-review of traffic safety research. lapses and violations as differing behavioural responses underlying the crash event (Reason. However. as well. much of the recent driving safety literature has distinguished between errors. accident histories and behavioural trends reported by participants really valid? Or are they prone to the influences of confabulation. 2001) and others down-playing them (Hattaka. social desirability or response set biases? Indeed. Keskinen. Katila & Laapotti. Are the attitudes. 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. and (c) culpability for crash outcomes. Violations are deliberate deviations from those practices believed to be necessary to safely operate a vehicle and include such behaviours as speeding. Stradling.Concerns with research of this nature also frequently centre around the question of self-reported data. 2002. including: (a) test-retest reliability of predictors. The prevalence of self-report measures in traffic safety research. (b) time-period for calculating accident frequency. Lapses involve problems with attention and memory and include such things as switching on one thing when meaning to switch on something else. against the first two and these are covered in chapter 2. with some authors emphasizing methodological risks (af Wählberg. did not specifically compare these driving patterns within the context of participants’ self-reported behaviour in traffic. Baxter & Campbell. Errors are a type of driving mistake involving failures of observation and misjudgement. The present research. Manstead. is discussed in chapter 5 of the thesis. while recognising the distinction. 1990). such as failing to check the rear-view mirror before pulling out or changing lanes. close following or taking aggressive actions against another driver or vehicle. there has been a vigorous debate about the utility of self-report measures in safety research for several years. Finally. 1997). along with its implications for the validity of results and potential alternative methodologies. The relationship between the manner 10 . The present research included procedural elements to mitigate. Boyce & Geller. at least to a certain extent.
11 .in which behaviour in traffic was measured in this research and the dimensions offered by Reason et al is discussed in chapter 5.
“bullies” and “selfish”. “laid-back” and “considerate”. In newspaper reports. there were 341. 1989). “peaceful”. 2006).1 Human Factors and the Motor Vehicle Safety Problem in Malaysia Roadway Crashes in Malaysia and Public Perceptions of Causality In 2006. to a rapid increase 12 . “ugly motorists” (“Rude Drivers”. 2005). inconsiderate and aggressive. “friendly”. The high rate of roadway accidents and deaths has been described in scholarly and popular print or internet media in extreme terms. A developing country in Southeast Asia. “reckless”. 2003).1 2. “discourteous” (Davin Arul. Downe and Loke (2004) reported that. These are thought to have contributed. Recently. 2007).CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 2. “selfish” (“Our Roads are Filled”. “obnoxious” and “cowardly” (“Cowardly Malaysian Drivers”. the Minister of Health characterised Malaysian roads as “worse than a war zone”. or as “negligent” (“Malaysia Records Highest Single-Day Death Toll”. pointing out that annual fatalities exceed the total deaths among American combat personnel over four years of fighting in Iraq (Zolkepli. 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. in order of frequency. and as a “major public health problem” (Subramaniam.000 fatalities were recorded (Ministry of Transport Malaysia. when asked to provide five adjectives which would “describe what Malaysians are like”. Over 6.252 motor vehicle accidents in Malaysia. as a social “menace”(Abdul Kareem. “impatient”. 2005). they indicated “angry”. economic expansion. Malaysian drivers have been consistently characterized as “confrontational”. 2007). in aggregate.1. but when asked to “describe what Malaysian drivers are like”. industrialisation and motorisation. 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. “patient”. often labelled as “tragic” (Koh. 2005). Nation-wide statistics seem to underscore the popular concern over safety issues. 2007). a sample of 348 first-year university students indicated. 2007).
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. & Wong.109 in 1996 to a total of 341.287 9. 2005). Generally.417 47.in the number of road traffic crashes (Abdul Kareem.891 8.645 54. 2005).20 deaths per 10. 2003. In Malaysia.091 37.253 source: Royal Malaysian Police (2007) The road accident death rate in Malaysia dropped from 8. 2005).040 2004 6. Table 2. the number of crashes has increased 80% over the past ten years.552 37.012 19.264 2006 341. higher than any other age grouping or combination of consecutive age groupings. in Malaysia.000 vehicles (Law.741 38. one- third of all crashes in Malaysia involve automobile users or motorcyclists within the 16.286 9.1: Malaysian Roadway Crashes and Casualties. 2002-2006 Motor Vehicle Crashes 2002 Total 279.415 52.252 Motor Vehicle Casualties 2002 Fatalities Severe Injuries Minor Injuries Total 35. 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. Studies 13 . Radin Umar.1 summarises the five-year incidence of crashes and injuries.7111 2003 298.to 25-year-old age group (see table 2.236 49. The number of road fatalities has decreased slightly from 6.287 in 2006. 2007).218 2005 6. from 189.395 2006 6.815 2005 328. but still lags behind frequencies in developed countries which generally fall below 3 deaths per 10.425 2003 6.000 vehicles in 2006.000 vehicles in 1996 to 3.425 5.200 9.304 in 1994 to 6.252 in 2006 (Ministry of Transport Malaysia. This suggests that studies. Subramaniam & Law. Abdul Rahman.98 deaths per 10.653 2004 326.228 9. Table 2.885 35.2). Mohd Zulkiflee.
31 3.08 1.45 30 0. has resulted in considerable economic loss for the country.72 554 2. 2001. general insurers paid RM1.921 100 20.709 8. with one road accident victim admitted to hospital every six minutes (Bernama.82 1.10 3.329 100 source:Royal Malaysian Police (2000.803 9.08 541 2.27 458 2.05 1. 2005).48 105 0.97 1.953 17.67 206 0.50 979 4.7 billion.2: Numbers of Automobile Drivers and Motorcyclists Involved in Road Crashes by Age Group 2000 2001 2002 2003 Number % Number % Number % Number % 37 0. 2003).315 17. Recent international analyses have placed the total economic burden at around RM7 billion yearly.47 280 1.41 302 1. Some Ministry of Health estimates of medical costs alone have been as high as RM5.67 billion. Morrison & Ryan.21 3. and particularly among younger drivers.086 9. Table 2.06 608 3. in 1999 alone.448 17. or about 2.81 1.71 543 2.15 43 0.05 2. 14 .997 14.025 9.85 2.110 10.15 572 2. It has been reported that.389 6.92 2.216 10.023 5.54 708 3.15 3.99 164 0. 2001).61 99 0.65 2.049 15.49 450 2.431 7.76 22. 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. or an average of RM4.91 984 4.08 585 2.07 2.81 3.469 15.967 100 19.620 7.85 147 0.29 2.038 13.63 160 0.68 3.16 90 0.005 15.418 100 19.341 12.94 2.56 3.205 11.11 2.034 4.77 3.48 323 1.309 10.29 708 3.64 135 0.08 2. Palamara.551 12.22 150 0.26 463 2.23 2.07 2.65 121 0.94 1.84 1. 2006).416 6.94 625 3. 2002.40 1.178 15.80 203 0.378 11.of university-aged drivers are critical to understanding behavioural and situational factors that predict the most commonly occurring class of crashes (Stevenson.05 2.68 128 0.820 13.180 10.4 billion to RM5.90 159 0.6 million a day on motor claims (Abdul Kareem.593 11.92 1.81 2.4% of the Gross Domestic Product (Asian Development Bank.37 337 1.947 10.
But it is nothing compared to bringing down the number of road deaths. The loss of potential income of the dead and maimed in turn dwarfs those medical outlays (Bakri Musa. physician and journalist has commented that: The human toll is unquantifiable. traffic congestion. which is actually a nightmare. Some seven years later. and that alone justifies making concerted efforts to address the issue … The economic costs in property damages are huge. 2006). but miniscule compared to the expenses of medical care and rehabilitation. The economic consequences can be estimated. economic figures and accident statistics provide only partial indications of the impact of the highway safety problem on Malaysian society. lane definition. 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. (Bernama. 2005). What else can we do. controversy swirled over a reportedly cynical comment by the Transportation Minister of the day that: We have done what others have been doing around the world. or the pain of the maimed. Public interest and political frustration has given rise to extensive speculation over the possible causes of the problem. 1999). In 1999. In spite of numerous road safety campaigns the number of accident cases have been increasing.Yet. if people want to die? (Lim. signs and lighting have been levied in certain quarters 15 . Criticisms of road configuration. the same frustration was apparent when his Cabinet successor told a group of assembled journalists that: When I became Transport Minister two-and-a-half years ago I thought the biggest challenge was to build ports and airports. There is no way to A popular measure the grief of those who have lost their loved ones.
serious injury and death (Per and Al Haji. Maybe these drivers just never realised how simple it is to avoid accidents (Looi. what they do – virtually all facets of the Malaysian driving population have come under increasing public scrutiny in an effort to further a better 16 . 2007). senior policy-makers and politicians alike are shining the spotlight on the way in which Malaysian drivers’ traits and states may be contributing to the incidence of roadway accidents. as compared with 1. newspaper columnists. unlike in other countries. for instance. most accounts have come around to commenting on driver demographic and behavioural characteristics as significant factors in motor vehicle crashes (Che Ali. In a recent newspaper interview. Krishnan & Radin Umar. 1997). 2006). 2007). is often mentioned as a factor. Who they are. They don’t even stop to look left and right or look in the rear view mirror. 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. though. 2005). 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. Those countries have had a motoring culture for nearly a century but our road-users are relatively newer to motoring (Sadiq.(Abdul Rahman et al.693 deaths among motorcycle operators and pillion riders. approximately 45 per cent of all registered vehicles in 2006 (Road Transport Department Malaysia. In 2006.215 deaths among motorcar drivers and passengers. how they think. They are also bad in giving ample time to others and this is an example of non-defensive driving. 2001. The relatively high population of motorcycle riders. Researchers. 2005). Generally. the Royal Malaysian Police (2007) reported 3. given greater risks of accident.
2 Studies of Causal Factors in Malaysian Roadway Crashes Notwithstanding this public outcry. risky behaviour (Chang & Yeh. Musa. conspicuity and excessive speeding. since studies in other parts of the world have found that individual differences play a significant role in determining rider training outcomes. or else on the evaluation of specific safety interventions. 2. Radin Umar. 2007). with a 27% and 38% drop in the rate of motorcycle casualties and motorcycle fatalities. causal factors underlying crash and injury rates on Malaysian roadways have remained largely understudied. due to fewer trips and reduced traffic exposures as a result of slower economic activity. injuries and fatalities. Conducting time-series regression analyses of police data. respectively. For instance. In a separate study. Law. This is.general understanding of the causes and potential prevention strategies related to the country’s traffic safety problem. reasons and social contexts of motorcycle use (Reeder. Law et al. perhaps. The research that has been undertaken has tended to focus largely on the contribution of broader economic and social variables. Chalmers & Langley. Mohd Nasir.1. 17 . rather than personality factors. Ahmad Hariza. Ward. (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. 2007) and crash Type And liability (Clarke. a needed focus in the analysis of programme effects. Radin Umar and Kulanthayan (1999) found that the same MSP had significantly improved motorcycle riders’ perception and understanding of safety issues. Bartle & Truman. they reported that the Asian-wide economic recession significantly contributed to a reduction in traffic fatalities. however. In the same study. was personality or demographic factors of motorcyclist samples investigated. MSP interventions had been aimed at modifying motorcycle riders’ awareness and attitudes of safety issues related to helmet use. 1996). In none of the studies of the MSP.
1996). The very monotony of the road surface. This. According to Williamson. 18 . Describing the expressway as a “stunning infrastructural achievement” (p. the factor that made the high speeds possible. road engineers devoted their efforts to creating a public artery in which speed and limited stoppage were design priorities. 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. a capacity that makes them distinct as a society” (p. including speeding and falling asleep at the wheel (“N-S Highway”.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. since 1994. 110).122). 121-122). He argued that. resulted in a myriad of problems. has linked peninsular communities. generalising to all driving environments and situations. “many Malaysians claim that as drivers. he argued that national leadership intended it to be both a symbol of progress. they are accident prone. however. 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. motivated largely by the government’s fear of unregulated public assembly. these conflicting aims of speed and safety seemed to exacerbate them. 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. 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.
1991). personality and behavioural characteristics of drivers has not been exclusive to the Malaysian scene. The majority of accidents are not caused by problems of the vehicle.2 2. experiential. Human factors are far more important than engineering factors. Among engineering factors. levels of driving experience and. bad road conditions. 1993. This has included the examination of age and gender. Åberg. 1993). the largest opportunities for harm reduction: A clear hierarchy of factors can be specified. Christ.2.2. “human behaviour makes a direct contribution to crash risk through the extent of knowledge and understanding of traffic systems. particularly. 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. 62). roadway engineering has a much greater influence than automotive engineering (p. Among human factors. driver behaviour (what the driver chooses to do) has much greater influence on safety than driver performance (what the driver can do). Panosch and Bukasa (2004) argued that: Road safety is less a technical but rather a human factors problem. etc. According to the Commission for Global Road Safety (2006). Evans (1996) further argued that changes in driver behaviour offer. 784). Because at least one driver is involved in every traffic crash. by far. driver experience and skill and the relationship between risk and factors such as speed choice and alcohol consumption” (p. West and French. 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. personality characteristics (Elander.1 The Professional Background Human Factors in Roadway Crashes: A Vexing Research Challenge Attention to the demographic. but rather 19 .
to a large degree. While the system-centered approach aims at creating those road conditions that reduce the chance of accidents in advance. conflicting or of relatively little importance (Iversen & Rundmo. Ranney. 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. The lack of progress in trying to identify psychological factors that cause. 2004). and (c) the failure to differentiate between culpable and non-culpable crashes. or at least predict. 2002. empirical findings to date about the relationship between driver characteristics. unclear. However. 1997. weak. 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. He conducted a meta-analysis of some 136 previous studies researching the effects of at least one psychological predictor of 20 . 2005). in reviewing early findings on human factors in this field. prior accident experience (Lin et al. the individual-centered approach directly focuses on traffic relevant performance and personality aspects. 2004) and other contextual variables. 377).by the behaviour of drivers. 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. organisational climate (Caird & Kline. (b) the choice of time periods for calculating the frequency of crash-related outcomes. 1994). as well as on the attitudes and behaviour of single drivers (p. psychological factors may play different roles according to driver age (Dumais et al. 641). personality and traffic safety have been regarded by many as debatable. Further. Lajunen & Summala. 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.
the use of inconsistent crash definitions. 1993). 482). 2003). 21 . 2. Other methodological factors that may cloud the relationship between psycho-social variables.2. 1965) but did not really gain momentum until the 1980s (Risser. there has been an interest in driver personality. It would seem that very few of the studies on accident predictors are actually possible to interpret in any straightforward way. psychologists have given scant attention to this topic. and the influence of car and driver stereotypes on attributions of crash blameworthiness (Davies & Patel.2 The Emergence of Traffic Psychology as a Scientific Discipline 2. 2003).2. Novaco (2000) argued that: The field of transportation has always had a rich potential for psychology. the lack of replication of many studies. 1961. Underwood & Milton. Nevertheless. 2005). 321). especially considering the salience of transportation in the routines of daily life. Preston & Harris.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.1 An Applied Perspective Ever since Tillman and Hobbs (1949) stated that “a man drives as he lives” (p. the picture that emerges is indeed grave. Wagenaar & van Koppen. 1996. the extent of exposure of drivers to the driving task (af Wahlberg. The need for a more specialised focus by applied psychologists and ergonomists on driving-related research problems and roadway safety was raised throughout the 1960s (Cozan. accuracy of witness recall of crash details (Crombag. 2002. information processing. driving behaviour and crash-related outcomes include: the use of self-reported crash data. and we are left with a very vague knowledge of what psychological variables can actually predict accidents (p.2. motivation and behavioural performance as potential underlying causal factors in driver behaviour (Jonah. 1997a).
Groeger (2002) argued that there is “no psychology which is specific to. To wit. 2.) The Traffic and Transportation Psychology Division of the International Association of Applied Psychology was established in 1994 and there has been a steady growth in publications. “the task of traffic psychology is to understand. or the psychological support for intervention. psychology. ergonomics. attitudes about the origin and destination of the trip and resources for choosing alternative travel modes and schedules. integrative and international viewpoint based on application in order to address changing situations and objectives” (p.2 A Multidisciplinary Approach From the outset. This includes the research that serves this purpose” (p. 246). eoncompassing engineering. 4) and describes it as an “interdisciplinary. medicine. in a Spanish survey. in the field of traffic. 3). Ochando. traffic psychology has drawn from multidisciplinary perspectives.2. predict and provide measures to modify road user behaviour at the levels identified with. Temes and Hermida (2001) found. anthropology and sociology.2. conferences and coordination of professional affiliations ever since (Groeger. but that complex traffic 22 . These interrelationshps provide a vast terrain for psychological research (pp. or peculiar to.” (p.654-655. as a general objective to minimise the harmful effects of traffic participation” (p.Transportation systems shape the structure of our communities and impact the well-being of individuals … People’s reactions to the inconvenience and discomfort of a particular journey depend on many intertwined psychological processes including personality disposition. traffic and transportation. 4). that individuals tend to combine their interests in traffic psychology with some other area of specialisation such as educational psychology. Indeed. transportation planning. According to Rothengatter (2001). Huguenin (2005) defines traffic psychology as “the psychological intervention. 2002).
24). 2002). the study of cognitive processes. and that “ergonomics has much to offer in the design of driver education and training programmes. Odero. 2007. the design of vehicle automation and a deeper understanding of why drivers behave as they do” (p. the design of driver interfaces and driver assistance systems with motor vehicles. Parker (2004) pointed to the role played by social psychology in the area of road safety. It also includes the rules of the highway code Saad (2002) governing the use of the road infrastructure and interactions with other users. emphasising the primacy of attitudes and attributions. 2004. Ergonomics has made a contribution. there have been 103 papers published in the Ergonomics journal alone. ergonomics is concerned with identifying and designing technical and organisational means for facilitating the driver’s interaction with the road environment. Spielberger and Frank (1992) made similar comments with regard to the contribution of health psychology through the use of public health models and methodologies. Wilson. both by providing a better understanding of human-machine interaction. over the past ten years. and of cognitive control over vehicle and highway systems involved (Bridger. In a recent special edition.behaviour is a very important and worthwhile test-bed for psychology and psychological theory and. 2000). in particular. which are sometimes expressed in road markings and road signs (p. 1995. Much of the ergonomic research carried out to date has been focused on adapting motor vehicle conveyances. Garner and Zwi. Peden & Hyder. In the broadest sense. Johnston. the road infrastructure and other road users. 1158). Hyder & Peden. which she described as the two main planks of social cognition. as well. 2003. surrounding environments and 23 . Stanton (2007) noted that. a paradigm that has been applied increasingly to driving safety questions in developing countries (Dharmaratne & Ameratunga. 1997. commented that: From the perspective of the driver. the road environment comprises the vehicle.
Noy.3. 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. predict and modify road user behaviour. 2006. This involves the coherent grouping of general propositions for use as principles in explaining various classes of driving phenomena. 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. a paradigm that Boff (2006) described as “Generation One” ergonomics. 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. “This school of though. Increasingly. These applications are consistent with the paradigms Boff (2006) has described as “Generation Two” ergonomics. which assumes a necessary communication between person and machine led to a dialogue between the various designers of car interiors. in which the goal is to manage automation and dynamic function allocations. According to Barjonet & Tortosa (2001). the most significant contribution of ergonomics was that it introduced the idea that motor vehicle operation was a task and therefore brought to traffic psychology the broad range of concepts and methods operating in industrial psychology and work-related accidents.3 2. error and cognitive modelling. Neerincx & Schriebers. particularly the notions of mental load.tasks to human capabilities and limitations. Jannssen. and “Generation Three” ergonomics. Theories and Models In attempting to understand. 26). 2. Walker. 2004). Stanton & Young. 2001). 1997. though.1 Theories of Driving Behaviour Concepts. which focuses on symbiotic technologies that amplify human physical and cognitive capabilities. traffic psychologists frequently engage in theory-building. Concepts are the building blocks for theory and may be defined as: 24 .
A-18) Often. often providing a category for the classification of phenomena (Theodorson & Theodorson. or both. Concepts can be linked together to form a theory. 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. in traffic psychology. which is then followed by a process of generalisation (Schneider. p. In traffic psychology. but for the purposes of this thesis. Concepts are formed by a process of mental abstraction.. there is no generally accepted theory which elucidates principles from which a broad. 2000. Ranney (1994) pointed out that it has never been clear. 1969). On the other hand. 2005. 2005). Reasons for this are likely several. or accident-causing behaviours. Healy. 1995).3.2 Traffic Psychology: Slow Progress in Theory-Building Theory development in traffic psychology has not progressed well (Summala. the latter is defined more narrowly as “a set of assumptions or postulates. many models have been proposed. 1985). whether theories should explain everyday driving. generalisable understanding of the driving process can be deduced. p.A word or set of words that expresses a general idea concerning the nature of something or the relations between things. “theory” is a term used interchangeably with the word “model”. 8) Any set of systematically interrelated concepts or hypotheses that purports to explain and predict phenomena (Robbins. Many of the theories that have been proposed have failed to generate testable hypotheses. each ordering driving reality from its own particular set of empirical observations. To a degree. Ericsson & Bourne Jr. which attempts to provide a generalised working construct that can account for empirical data or relationships” (Chaplin. often in mathematical form. 2. this may be due to 25 .
risk adaptation theories. Rothengatter.. minimise delay and driving time. I believe it is but one of the goals a driver has. 2. or ever had sufficient knowledge of possible outcomes on which to base a deliberate action (p. Groeger and Rothengatter (1998) argued that. feel in control. avoid obstacles. 189). 2004. For over ninety years. five areas of theory attempt to explain and predict driving behaviour. it does not mean that the driver had safety as a primary goal. attitudes. perceptions.the imprecise definition of concepts. 2002). 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.3. Notwithstanding these difficulties. taskcapability frameworks and attitude-behaviour models (Keskinen et al. not all people act exactly alike and this is a function of their differing values. motives and personalities (Robbins. 2005).3 The Individual Differences Approach Placed in similar situations. but it is also a reflection that the driving task is a highly sophisticated multi-factorial process involving perceptual. and most of the time is not especially influential. 26 . etc. Instead. cognitive. social. … Just because we as investigators have an understanding of safety as a goal. These may be classified as: theories of individual differences. it is highly improbable that a single theoretical stance is likely to be sufficient to account for behaviour in traffic. enjoy driving. researchers have been trying to determine individual differences that lead to disparities in crash occurrence and outcomes and the literature associated with differential road-crash involvement is extensive. and emotional determinants. given the complexity of human behaviour. the driver’s aspirations are to reach destinations. hierarchical theories of driver adaptation.
1995. without driving violations had lower scores on measures of risk-taking behaviour. 2000). the first of which was characterised by low levels of altruism and anxiety and high levels of sensation-seeking. anxiety and driving anger. but not occupational accidents. thrill and adventure seeking and tended to avoid socially stimulating situations when compared with violators. conscientiousness. However. the search for individual differences relevant to crash involvement continues to yield a large body of literature. “these findings have yet to be embodied in a general theory of differential crash risk. irresponsibility and driving related aggression. Of the five factors examined – extraversion. 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). 1990). Drawing from a large pool of data that included personality measures and both traffic and work-related statistics for 34 nations. found that a sample of young Canadian automobile drivers. 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. 1979). There have been theories of crash causation that have focused on particular groups of 27 . Lajunen (2001) reported that countries with high extraversion scores had more traffic fatalities than those with moderate or low extraversion scores. 1980) and other safety outcomes. In a large number of studies of specific samples from various countries. neuroticism. Similar studies of driver risk-taking and other individual differences have been largely absent with Asian populations and non-existent in Malaysia. crash frequency (Pestonjee & Singh. McRae &Costa. the extraversion variable has been associated with a higher frequency of traffic offences (Renner & Anderle. According to Rothengatter (2002). aged 16 to 29 years. Ulleberg (2001) found two high-risk groups. while the second high-risk group reported high sensation-seking. or “Big Five” personality model (Costa & McRae. In an attempt to identify subtypes of young Norwegian drivers.Trimpop and Kirkcaldy (1997). poorer perception of traffic signs (Loo. extraversion was found to predict traffic accidents. for instance. aggression.
1 Accident Proneness One concept that sought to integrate individual differences within a predictive theory relates to the “accident-prone personality”. differed from person to person (Greenwood & Yule. If each individual has a unique λ-value. and that this is due to some characteristic or summation of characteristics associated with corporeal dexterity. but persists today. 2. occupational and otherwise. The difficulty was that no one knew how to determine its value for a given individual. 1984). 1920). it should be a reasonably simple matter to find 28 . In 1917. that individual is more likely at all times to incur an accident than his colleagues even though exposed to equal risk. found first that the frequency of accidents. 290). the British government established the British Industrial Fatigue Research Board. West & French. the average number of accidents. 1993. 1962.3.3. sensori-motor skill. in response to concern over the number of accidental deaths and injuries in World War I production industries (Blackler & Shimmin. weight and perhaps even intelligence. It provided a challenge to the psychology profession to devise a way to measure it. The individual values of each worker’s λ became known as the degree of accident proneness. but none have attempted a more general integration” (Elander. his or her accident proneness. just as one can meaure height. or higher conative or cognitive function” (Cresswell & Froggat. could be modelled almost exactly by the Poisson distribution but then that. p. The designation of a high-λ individual as “accident prone” implied that. in certain cases. Research by board statisticians. According to Haight (2004). “irrespective of environment.152).finding. λ. personality. ‘Accident proneness’ had a nice ring to it. p. during and following the war years. an idea that has had an uneven level of acceptance by ergonomists and traffic psychologists through the years.
by devising clever tests. 1997). with extensive critiques that concluded statistical analyses were almost all invalid. that high-λ group would be comprised of the same individuals or of an entirely new cohort (Haight. in traffic or when playing 29 . a certain percentage would experience a higher accident frequency than would other groups year after year. with shorter periods giving sharper contrasts (Moore. The accident-prone concept. Scores on the λ dimension. at home. 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. Early work on the concept attempted to do just that. produced a positive. Farmer and Chambers (1926. with a series of tests constructed by Greenwood and Woods (1919). A study by Salminen and Heiskanen (1997) provided empirical support for this position. it was pointed out are highly sensitive to the length of the survey period. but did not take into consideration whether. replicable result that correlated substantially with the accident experience of individuals (Haight. but very low correlations between accident frequency at work. 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. 1929. however. in a Finnish telephone survey. in any sample. 195). The theory of the accident-prone individual also came under attack on a conceptual basis. noting that. 1991. in successive years. “Because crashes are so infrequent. p. 422). Arbous and Kerrich (1951) and much later McKenna (1983) systematically destroyed the supportive literature. 1939) and many others. motivated largely by a desire to select lorry drivers in Europe who were less likely to become involved in costly roadway crashes (Barjonet & Tortosa. 2004). perhaps physiological. as well.out what that value is. 294). None of the experiments. 2004). 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. made an assumption that. inappropriate. inadequate or irrelevant. Johnson (1946). more probably psychological (p. 1956). subjects reported significant.
Despite the low repute in which many have regarded the accident proneness concept. It is seen as preferable to earlier formulations because it places more emphasis on contributing factors outside the person.3.3. So. it is still generating research and controversy (Vavrik. moving away from the main conceptual criticism of traditional 30 . therefore. 1980. the consensus position became that: Accident proneness as a concept has little use in practical accident prevention. Neeleman and Rosmalen (2007) have published a meta-review of 79 studies.. 8-9). 1993). sports and family settings. no stable personality characteristics that can be identified with accident-proneness have been discovered. The concept itself is ill-defined.05. Alternative explanations must be found for persons experiencing multiple accidents (Lindsey. screened for operational and prevalence rates related to accident proneness within work. Only 15% of the studies included in their analysis had been conducted on road user crash experience. because individuals can experience multiple accidents because of chance alone and also because of a higher exposure to risk independent of personal factors” (p. Stolk. Visser. it denotes an area of study rather than a theory.2 Differential Accident Involvement McKenna (1983) suggested that the accident proneness concept should be replaced by the less historically loaded term “differential accident involvement”.sports. While their stated conclusion was that an accident prone group definitely existed. in no case did correlations between traffic crashes and other types of accidents exceed r =. “it is still difficult to identify the accident prone individuals that compose this group. 1998). Pijl. nothing can be done to identify individuals who may be accident-prone in order to treat them or to remove them from areas of greatest risk. Ultimately. pp. but the authors reported that the heterogeneous nature of sub-groups did not permit comparisons. and assumes that individuals may vary along a continuum with regard to factors that affect their risk of crash (Elander et al. 562). 2. roadway. This concept does not prejudge the issue of causation.
albeit not crash occurrence. substantially. crash barriers. people strive to maintain a target level of risk all the time and. The introduction of divided highways. suddenly confronted with uneven pavement. 2000). 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.accident proneness (Chmiel. Elander et al. However. 2. 1988) proposed that a control mechanism operates to keep overall risk per unit time constant. That is. 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. researchers began to turn their attention to not-so-easy measures for changing driver behaviour. in a study of driving on icy roads. they adjust their behaviour to eliminate the discrepancy. following their review of the literature. concluded that differential crash risk is not readily accounted for by previous crash rates. 2.3. Wilde (1982. Dewar (2002b) noted that the notion of differential liability allows for the observation that some individuals do.4.. and that transient factors probably interact with stable traits of the individual in their causation.3. After the relatively easy engineering measures were implemented to reduce the seriousness of the consequences of driver behaviour.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. in fact. experience more accidents than others. when they perceive a discrepancy between the observed level of risk and the desired target level of risk. A driver who enters a construction zone. compulsory seatbelts and vehicle design improvements reduced motor vehicle crash fatalities. For example. but avoids the assumption of a stable phenomenon that accounts for more accidents in all situations.1 Risk Homeostasis Theory (RHT) In an attempt to explain these findings. large earth-moving 31 .
2008. reduced the predicted safety benefits of such systems (Wilde. flat. 2002) and that driver education programmes need to be extensively revamped (Wilde. When others (Haight. observers posing as passengers rated German taxicab drivers in vehicles equipped with anti-lock braking systems (ABS) as driving more aggressively. 1988. In two separate studies. according to the theory. 1994) argued that this made the theory essentially untestable. Wilde’s theory was couched at a societal level. Collectively. 14). Initially. 1997). Huguenin (2001) noted that RHT has spawned a considerable number of studies. 2005). 1986. in turn. many of which have attempted to observe and comment on individual behavioural change after the risk variable is manipulated. 1989. p. Ranney. Fosser & Sætermo. The central implication of RHT is that safety interventions need to be values-oriented and aimed at lowering the level of 32 . according to the theory. Conversely. a driver motoring along a wide. 2002). McHugh & Pender. Wilde (1994) reframed the concept of target risk as an individual variable based on four perceived utilities. is if the level of target risk is reduced. 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. 1994. Michon. performing more dangerous manouevers and driving with significantly shorter headway distances than those driving without ABS (Aschenbrenner & Biehl. Sagberg. “the aggregate target risk in a community is what produces the accident toll and the only way in which this toll can be reduced. given that human behaviour will continue to be motivated by internal homeostatic processes. would perceive a level of risk above his target and would tend to reduce speed and increase vigilance. RHT research of this nature has been used to argue that most engineering interventions and roadway regulations have little or no benefit (Smiley. and not on the specific measures taken in other sectors of the control system. RHT proponents argued that drivers were adapting behaviourally to the effects of ABS by driving less safely and that this. for example.” (Fuller. at least until the target risk level was reached.vehicles and warning flags. That is. postulating that the number of accidents in any given country would only depend on the accident rate which the population is willing to tolerate. 2001. Wilde.
1989. To the contrary. 2008. Evans 33 . 2001.” (Vaa. the notion of target risk implies that drivers are constant “comparers”. (p. however. Corrigan & Coombs. The notion that people have a constant point of acceptable risk. Also. a tenet for which no convincing support has been yet generated (Michon. Wilde’s RHT has generated controversy and opposition (Keskinen et al. 1977). 2002). 53). p. In a review of research offered as support of the RHT. or the nation” (Brown & Noy. “The extent of risk taking with respect to safety and health in a given society ultimately depends on values that prevail in that society. p. 1994. and not on the available technology” (Wilde.. 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. Slovic. 2004). the community. General consensus is that behavioural adaptation to vehicle and environmental conditions often does occur (Rothengatter. “Costs and benefits are central to the model. 223). 2004). 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. Fischoff. psychologically weighing at every moment the perceived and targeted risk levels inherent in every environment. Considerable criticism revolves around the imprecise nature of the theory itself.target risk that people are willing to tolerate. 2002). Robertson and Pless (2002) made the case forcefully that: … some drivers may sometimes slow down in rain. “It is unclear whether risk homeostasis occurs at the level of the individual. but that the RHT neither adequately explains nor predicts the circumstances under which it does. 1151). Criticisms have been aimed at Wilde’s theory on empirical as well as conceptual grounds. 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. pay sufficient attention to risk.. Lichtenstein. Rothengatter. but they are not defined in psychological terms.
3. drivers compare the distance from hazards or time-tocollision to a subjective safety margin threshold and take action only when the threshold is exceeded. is a very basic human skill that can be carried out in the absence of extensive conscious processing. 1987. 26). they experience uncomfortable feelings of fear and abruptly change behaviour. 81). for example. While overcoming many of the criticisms levied at RHT with regard to the concepts of target risk and the risk discrepancy comparative process. or expecting. In other words. 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. 92). In addition. increasing safety margins” (Brown & Noy. Rather. zero-risk theory still retains some of its conceptual shortcomings. 2004. 2. Rothengatter (2002) has questioned how drivers can determine that a threshold has been exceeded if they do not constantly assess risk. O’Neill and Williams (1998). after a similar review. some degree of risk during the performance of this task. Summala. Only when the subjective risk reaches a level that was not anticipated will the drivers change their behaviour.(1986) concluded that “risk homeostasis theory should be rejected because there is no convincing evidence supporting it and much evidence refuting it” (p. Fuller (2005) has argued that the theory’s premise that safe margins are learned creates an implausible requirement to recognise. Michon (1989) noted that most studies attempting to support the RHT deal with data only at the aggregate level. Summala (1986) suggested that estimating time-to-collision. At this point. 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. experience ‘zero-risk’) when they drive by anticipating. p.2 Zero Risk Theory Another risk-based theory.4. 1988) proposed that drivers do not constantly assess risk while driving. Summala’s zero-risk model of driver behaviour (Summala & Näätänen. and 34 . a necessary and highly controversial assumption in Wilde’s theory. drivers avoid ‘feeling fear’ (hence.
much of which arises from personality. their behaviour becomes less adaptive to prevailing circumstances (Delhomme & Meyer. 2002. used to explain drivers’ tendencies to approach as closely as possible to the risk threshold. what is a virtually infinite number of roads and traffic scenarios. Summala argued that behavioural adaptation. 1997) refined his earlier theory into a hierarchical model of driver behavioural adaptation. A large number of studies show that external motives. level of psychological processing and a functional taxonomy of driving actions (see Figure 2. as a result. 1999). for instance. would vary depending on the combination of factors from the three dimensions. such as time pressure. A major element in the zero risk theory was the influence of motivation. pre-meditated decision not to wear seatbelts. 35 . Meijman & Roghengatter.3. In an attempt to deal with this and to expand on the role of extrinsic and intrinsic motivators. do appear to affect drivers’ willingness to accept risk levels that approach thresholds and. Hataaka. very little if any research has been carried out with respect to intrinsic motivation. 2. and specific driver actions. The cube presented three dimensions of driver behaviour: a functional hierarchy. in which he introduced a “task cube” to explain the driving process. age and social variables.learn how to respond safety to.1).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. Gregersen. Reeder et al. and when confronted with various environmental conditions or psychological processes. If behavioural adaptation were to take place in response to the presence of a supplementary restraint system (SRS). Summala (1996. Keskinen. it may not manifest itself as a less cautious speed or headway choice but rather as a conscious. 1998. On the other hand. Glad & Hernetkoskis. Van der Hulst. 1996.
15). Headway control Obstacle avoidance Crossing management Passing and other maneuvers FUNCTIONAL TAXONOMY Figure 2. 1996) Keskinen et al. 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 36 . at the same time.MOBILITY NEEDS LEVEL OF PSYCHOLOGICAL PROCESSING Decision making Supervisory monitoring FUNCTIONAL HIERARCHY Vehicle choice Trip decisions MOTIVATIONAL MODULE: MOTIVES EMOTIONS Attention control Perceptual-motor Control (constant mapping. for example. pointing out that a task hierarchy assumes that successful completion of the task at a lower level is required for successful performance of a higher-level task. criticised the model for being overly complicated and resembling “more a description or a list of important variables than a solid model” (p. this does not necessarily imply a hierarchy as this is as much true for “lower” level as for “higher” level tasks … Drivers do perform tasks such as route finding and manoeuvring. Automated) Navigation Speed and time control Guidance Vehicle control Lane keeping etc. seemingly concurrently. a property absent within the task cube concept. (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.1: Task Cube (from Summala.
Safety Compensatory action by others Crash! Capability (C) Loss of control C>D Control C<D Task Demands (D) Safety Figure 2.6 Task Capability Interface (TCI) Theory In perhaps the most ambitious of the leading driving behaviour theories. 2005) integrated competing components of the RHT (Wilde. Fuller argued that loss of control occurs when task demands exceed drivers’ capabilities. unexpected changes in task demand (decreased visibility. high speeds. 1982. Most of the time.sufficient reason to presume they are two distinct levels of the same task rather than two different tasks (p. drivers are able to manage the interface between demands and capabilities (see Figure 2. 1988) and the zero risk theory (Näätänen & Summala. However.3. 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. Loss of control occurs at the point where capability is less than that required to carry out the task safely.. 252).1).2: Task-Capability Theory (after Fuller.g. Fuller (2000. affective states). either by modifying task demand or by altering their capability. 1976) by proposing that drivers attempt to match task demands with their capability to maintain control. 2000) 37 . 2. this becomes more difficult when factors external to the driving task (e.
6. Two limitations have been noted. and Keskinen et al. 2004. Intention is determined by the summed effects of: (a) attitudes toward the behaviour.3.7 Attitude-behaviour Theories 2. however. been regarded as potentially more productive than earlier risk-based theories. 1985.Fuller’s theory has. generally referring to a positive or negative 38 . simply because it is more straightforward to establish the parameters that drivers use to assess their competence than it is to measure target or subjective risk. institutions or issues (Chaplin. 1975) and the subsequent theory of planned behaviour (TPB: Ajzen. people’s behaviour is determined by their intention to perform the behaviour.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. neither of which was originally intended as a way of explaining driver behaviour. Intention is the cognitive representation of an individual’s readiness to engage in a given behaviour. (2004) have argued that it is deserving of more attention than it has received to date. According to the TRA. Fishbein & Ajzen. such that it is not capability but perceived capability that interfaces with task demand. 40). objects. largely due to the focus that has been provided by the theory of reasoned action (TRA. 126). for the most part. time pressure). 1985. Langdridge (2004) describes the theory of reasoned action as one of the most important theories in attitude-behaviour research. subjective norms and behavioural intentions can be used to predict behaviour. It generally refers to the thoughts and feelings that impel us to behave in one way and not in another” (Parker. p. 2.3. 1991). Since 1985. the notion of matching competence with task demand promises to be very useful in understanding driver behaviour. emotional state. p. Rothengatter (2002) has stressed that the perception of capability is often influenced by external factors (impairment. Generally. providing an account of the way in which attitudes. and is considered to be the immediate antecedent of behaviour. Brown & Noy have pointed out that TCI theory is limited in its ability to explain all of the decision points and responses that occur during a more complex driving scenario such as over-taking. traffic psychology has seen a resurgence of interest in the role played by attitudes.
” (Azjen. and perceived control (“do I really believe that I can do this?”).7.2). Hartwick and Warshaw (1988) found that the theory had strong predictive utility. 2007). are sometimes subject to the influence of factors beyond one’s control.2 Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) Complications hindered the application of the TRA in circumstances where behaviours were not fully under volitional control. behavioural intention is the result of attitudes (“do I feel like this is a good thing to do?”). This extended framework was introduced as the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB. 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”). According to the TPB. which can usually be performed (or not performed) at will. 39 . 1985. p. and a meta-analysis carried out by Sheppard. 24). “Even very mundane activities. he incorporated the concept of “perceived behavioural control” (PBC). subjective norms (“do others feel this is a good thing for me to do?”).3. Ajzen and Fishbein (2000) argued that intention is the best predictor of behaviour. such that every intended behaviour is a goal whose attainment is subject to some degree of uncertainty. To deal with this uncertainty. 2.judgement with respect to behavioural performance (“accelerating to pass through a cross-junction against an amber light is bad/good”). then. see Figure 2. denoting the subjective degree of control which individuals perceive themselves having over the performance of a behaviour.
40 . Its inclusion as a predictor of behaviour is premised on the notion that. 2002. Further. it will directly influence behaviour (Armitage & Christian. PBC is considered a determinant of both the individual’s intentions and the individual’s behaviour. A belief that the described violations were not all that serious (attitudes). 253). In one study. to the extent to which PBC reflects an individual’s level of actual control. 2003).3: Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen. stronger feelings that “I can do it”) will heighten an individual’s confidence level. p. creating a proxy effect that increases the likelihood that behaviour will be successfully performed.. The TPB has spawned a huge body of research. speed on a major road or overtake dangerously.Behavioural beliefs and outcome evaluations Attitude toward the behaviour Normative beliefs and motivation to comply Subjective norm Intention Behaviour Control beliefs and perceived facilitation Perceived behavioural control Figure 2. or sense of self-efficacy. when intention is held constant. on the performance of a wide range of behaviours. 1989) Within the theory. including driving and “it has to be admitted that the theory of planned behaviour has stood up well. 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. 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. 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.e. greater perceived control (i.
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.In another study. vehicles. (2005) in their Malaysian study (see sect. A large number of studies have reported epidemiological characteristics of drivers.4 2. to predict weather-related crashes in England and Wales. Wállen Warner and Åberg (2006) used structural equation modelling to predict drivers’ everyday speeding behaviour using the TPB as a frame of reference.1. Similar to later findings by Law et al.4. roadway configuration and crossing design were weighted.1 Descriptive Models of Driver Behaviour Statistical Models If traffic psychology lacks a general unified theory of driving behaviour. Gross Domestic Product per capita and alcohol consumption. pedestrians and road environments in a range of 41 . while Rautela and Pant (2007) modelled crash risk on mountain roads in India using geographical information system (GIS) data. there has been no shortage of empirically-based models that show statistical relationships between specific variables related to given situations. 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. 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. Austin and Carson (2002).2). Edwards (1996) developed a spatial model. but after controlling for distance travelled. This might be seen as evidence of the proxy effect earlier described by Armitage and Christian (2002). Scuffham (2003) used a different approach to model the changes in seasonal patterns of fatal crashes in New Zealand according to unemployment rate. it was not significant (Scuffham & Langley. Attitude toward speeding. subjective norms and PBC were all significant determinants of self-reported speeding. 2002).2. 2. based on data extracted from police record forms. for instance. they found that real GDP per capita was related to the number of crashes.
1994). R.4.4). 1997) 42 . 2000). 1999). however. Seow & Lim.2. 2. E and especially H factors. Koonchote & Tantiratna. This model has been instrumental in stimulating research designs and accident interventions for the last thirty yeasrs (Williams. 1997.4: The Haddon Matrix (Noy. Haddon (1970) proposed a framework in which each of these elements could be examined as part of an analytical matrix (see Figure 2. Richardson & Downe.2 Process Models 2.locations and settings (e. within specific situational contexts. One way of accomplishing this may be through the creation of models that stress the mediational role played by certain V.4. some researchers have argued that the Haddon Matrix is limited by the way it considers each element independently. Swaddiwudhipong.g.. Nguntra. PRE-CRASH CRASH POST-CRASH BASIC ELEMENTS OF A HIGHWAY EVENT Human (H) Vehicle (V) Road (R) Environment (E) Figure 2. concealing the interactions that underlie the behaviour of real traffic systems (Noy. Law.1 The Haddon Matrix Traditional studies of human factors in road safety have tended to view transportation as a system with four major component elements: the human (H). 1998. the road (R) and the environment (E). More recently. and have proposed expanding the matrix to better provide for the analysis of inter-relationships between each of the four basic elements. Mahasakpan. the vehicle (V).
on the other hand.4. it may happen to correlate with some other factor that influences crash risk but play no role itself. vehicle and environmental conditions related to accident causation but a range of driver demographic (e.g. gender. arguing that: Correlational studies suffer from the inescapable problem that causality cannot be established. as well. there are four possible explanations: the behavioural measure may directly influence crash risk. 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. sensation seeking. 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. (1993) discussed the problem of choosing predictor variables in studies of behavioural and personality influences on road-traffic crash risk. age. driving experience) and psychological characteristics (e.2.g. Personality factors within the 43 . relevant factors are grouped as occurring within either the distal context or the proximal context of the accident (see Figure 2. it may influence crash risk through some other. Within the generic model. are affected by specific or collective factors from the distal context and.2. contribute directly to crash outcomes. when one observes a correlation between a behavioural measure and crash risk.. substance abuse) that.. 283). extraversion.5).2 A Contextual Mediated Model of Personality and Behavioural Predictors of Motor Vehicle Crashes Elander et al. the proximal context is made up of driver behaviours and attitudes (e. Factors within the distal context include not only road. aggression). more proximal variable. Therefore. on one hand.g. By contrast.. or crash risk may influence the behavioural measure (p. speeding. reckless lane transitions or overtaking.
Sümer examined the effect of three distal elements – sensation seeking.g.g. it would be expected that relationships between the distal and proximal contexts would be stronger than those between the proximal context and crash outcomes. 2003) 44 .5: Contextual Mediated Model of Personality. choice of preferred speed and dysfunctional drinking habits – and on the frequency of self-reported accidents. depression. Variables within the distal context would be expected to affect accident frequency indirectly and through their relationships with measures of proximal behaviour factors. sensation seeking. with results generally supporting the notion that factors in the distal context contributed to accident causation and predicted accidents via their effects on proximal factors. Behavioural Predictors and Motor Vehicle Crashes (from Sümer. PROXIMAL CONTEXT Safety skills Aberrant driving behaviors Violations Errors Speeding Drinking and driving Dysfunctional drinking e. hostility and psychoticism) – both on three proximal elements – aberrant driving behaviour. cultural driving habits and beliefs Relatively stable personality characteristics. risk taking. e. psychological symptoms. such that direct effects of distal factors would be most likely insignificant or weak. aggression Attributions regarding CRASH OUTCOMES accidents Fatalism Enforcement Figure 2. aggression and psychological symptoms (anxiety. DISTAL CONTEXT Road and vehicle condition Demographic characteristics Culture-specific factors.distal context were assumed to be capable of creating generalized tendencies that increased risks of accidents within behavioural variables measured within the proximal context. As such.
driver propensities to commit errors or violations. Tix and Barron. moderating or mediating effects. which in turn exerts an effect on Y through path b (Baron & Kenny. while path a represents the effect of X on some mediator variable. the variable X is called the initial or predictor variable and it causes the variable Y. proximal variables (including safety skill levels. 2003). 2006). 45 . Heppner & Mallinckrodt. In Sümer’s (2003) generic contextual mediated model. In the case where X no longer affects Y after M has been controlled. then it can be concluded that complete mediation occurs.2. M. drivers’ safety skills were a mediator of the effects of personality or cultural background on crash frequency. 2004) and a distinction can be drawn between partial mediation and complete mediation (Wei. In Figure 2. 2004). mediators are variables that represent constructs proposed to explain the association between two variables (Hoyle & Robinson. called the outcome.6(i). Partial mediation is the case in which the path from X to Y is reduced in absolute size but is still different from zero when M has been controlled (Kenny. driver impairment and so on) were hypothesised to mediate the effect of distal variables on the frequency or likelihood of crash outcomes. such that path c′ is zero.2. Mediation can be said to occur when some mechanism.6(ii) illustrates the basic causal chain involved in mediation. then the significance level of path c would be reduced to insignificance or a less significant level (path c’).3 Core Concepts in the Contextual Mediated Model: Moderation and Mediation Inter-variable relationships within the contextual mediated model can have direct. in which there are two causal paths feeding into the outcome variable: path c′ depicts the direct effect of X on Y.4. for instance. 1986). Regression analyses can be used to test these causal paths to the outcome variable. Also termed intervening variables. Figure 2. process or transformation exists through which one variable influences another (Frazier. If.
6: Inter-variable Relationships in Mediation Models In contrast. there are three causal paths that can effect the outcome. Only if the interaction (path c) is significant. these are not directly relevant conceptually to testing the moderator hypothesis. or testing the moderating effect. 1986). or dependent. and the interaction or product of these two (path c).(i) X Predictor Variable (Distal Variable) c′ c Y Outcome Variable (Crash Outcomes) (ii) X Predictor Variable (Distal Variable) a M Mediator Variable (Proximal Variable) b Y Outcome Variable (Crash Outcomes) Figure 2. or independent variable (path a). the impact of a moderator (path b). a moderating variable is one that has a strong contingent effect on the relationship between independent and dependent variable (Sekaran.7): the impact of a predictor. 2003). variable (see Figure 2. can the moderator hypothesis be concluded as supported (Baron & Kenny. Baron and Kenny have further added that although the predictor and moderator can have significant effects on the outcome variable. 46 .
7: Inter-variable Relationships in Moderation Model 2. errors). a proximal variable significantly mediated the relationship between the three distal variables and the frequency of crashes.2. He examined their effects on three proximal variables: aberrant driving behaviour (violations. he found that. dangerous drinking). sensationseeking and risk-taking (novelty.Predictor Variable X a Moderator Z b Y Outcome Variable c Predictor X Moderator Figure 2. hostility. anger). Further.4.4 Studies of Driving Behaviour Using the Contextual Mediated Model In his initial study. Sümer (2003) identified three classes of distal variables: psychological symptoms (depression. choice of speed and alcohol use (antisocial drinking. mostly from taxi and heavy trucking. hostility. verbal aggression. while psychological factors did not predict speed choice. A number of questions may be raised about Sümer’s (2003) analysis. given wide 47 . anxiety. psychoticism). However. In turn. they did have a significant association with both dysfunctional alcohol use and aberrant driving behaviours. Sümer also find that aberrant driving behaviour. and non-professional students who were mostly students. the effects of the proximal variables on the number of crashes experienced within a three-year period was examined. No attempt was made to differentiate between these two groups. more relevant to the model he proposed. intensity) and aggression (physical aggression. His sample of 321 participants combined both professional drivers. Using structured equation modelling.
1990) to a similar analysis. Edward. Watson.. Tubré & Tubré. a negative-binomial distribution (Greenwood & Woods. sensation seeking patterns. including the three-year time-frame over which drivers were asked to report crash occurrence. the distal factors were: neuroticism (a tendency to experience negative affect and anxiety). sensation seeking). lapses. 1920). Lajunen and Özkan (2005). 2005. Bell. trust). al. for high-λ individuals. 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. tends to fit a Poisson distribution or. In a subsequent study. responsibility. as recommended by Elander et al. agreeableness (helpfulness. while it has been accepted since the early accident proneness studies of the IFRB that crash frequency. McRae &Costa. Elander et. broad-mindedness). or “Big Five”. Sümer. personality model (Costa & McRae. in that the standard multivariate correlation methods applied as part of his LISREL analysis assumed a normal distribution of crash frequency scores. it was somewhat surprising that no attempt was made to control for differing levels of traffic exposure. Finally. self-discipline) and openness (adventurousness. Sümer’s model construction might also be questioned. 1998). Greenwood & Yule. Here. The proximal factor was again aberrant driving behaviour (errors. extraversion (interpersonal warmth.739). Sümer’s decision to use self-report data is subject to the usual validity considerations raised by several authors (af Wahlberg. (1993) and others.variation in the number of kilometres driven annually by participants (SD = 14. conscientiousness (dependability. Day. in most cases. 1995. It is questionable whether crash details can be recalled accurately for up to 36 months and requires the assumption that the psychological characteristics. 2002. applied the five factor. Notwithstanding these methodological considerations. Results indicated that all five of the personality factors had indirect effects on crash risk through their effects on 48 . 1919. violations) and the outcome measure was expanded to include the self-reported number of crashes and traffic offences committed over a three-year period. 1993). 2003. Arthur. 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.
yielding support for the contextual mediated model.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. phobia. 49 . air force and gendarmerie. 2. Although no other studies of driving behaviour. The authors recommended that “the contextual model should be refined considering other potential mediators. Berument and Gunes (2005). using a similar research design. Bilgic. hostility. Karanci. Both studies were concluded to have demonstrated support for the use of the contextual mediated model. Sümer. sensation seeking and normlessness (all of which which might be classified as distal.2. for instance used the concept to examine predictors of psychological distress following the 1999 earthquake in Turkey. moderators and bidirectional associations between personality and accident involvement to better understand the underlying mechanisms” (p. optimism.aberrant driving behaviours. psychotic tendencies and psychosomatic complaints among a large sample of noncommissioned officers in the Turkish army. within Sümer’s contextual mediated model) had direct effects on measures of more proximal risky driving tendencies. reported that driver anger. Iverson and Rundmo (2002). self esteem. material loss. Sümer. have acted on those recommendations. anxiety. In another study. Sümer and Erol (2005) found that a contextual mediated model was successful in showing relationships between distal and proximal predictors of depression. They found that the effect of proximal variables. but weaker significant effects on self-reported accident involvement. including perceived control. navy. for instance. In other words. perceived threat and gender on distress levels were partially or fully mediated by individuals’ feelings of coping self-efficacy. 225).4. some researchers have worked with models that are conceptually consistent with the contextual mediated model. prior to the present one. while the risky driving variables had strong and significant effects on accident involvement.
. Type A. Campbell & Williams. aggression) Safe Work Practices hazard identification and reporting risk avoidance procedural compliance use of safety devices and equipment occupational hygiene help-seeking and teamwork behaviour Experiential safety awareness domain-specific skill years of work experience prior accident experience Figure 2. Retting.Downe (2007).1 Age Young drivers are significantly over-represented among those injured or killed in road traffic crashes (Ballesteros & Dischinger. Yet.8: Proposed Contextual Mediated Model for Safety Research in Agriculture (from Downe.1. 2003). they have been less well studied than other groups and the general understanding of age effects is not clear. 1997. 2003. proposed the use of a contextual mediated model for further research on agricultural safety (see Figure 2... Williams & Shabanova.8). 2002. Not only are they the most likely age group to be involved in crashes.g. 1995).5.5.g. heterogeneity in group composition: Part of this may be due to 50 . Odero et al.5 2. 2007) 2. uncertainty avoidance) temperamental factors (e. in a study of safety training methods and personality factors in Malaysian rubber and palm oil plantations. but young drivers are more likely to sustain crash-related injuries and to die in vehicular crashes (Massie.1 Distal Variables in the Present Study Demographic Variables 2. Weinstein & Solomon. Distal factors Safety interventions knowledge transfer ergonomic design safety audits Proximal factors Safety climate worker attitude toward safe work perceived management priority employee empowerment and control over safety post-injury administration return-to-work policies operating policies & procedures Outcomes Organisational Impacts lower injury rates and lost time relative to labour input and output reduced accident severity reduced risk assessment standards compliance increased worker satisfaction Psychosocial variables locus of control risk acceptance/aversion impulsivity cultural factors (e.
specifically more likely to drive too fast. drive while fatigued. less emotionally mature. this is a reflection of lifestyle. and by high levels of sensation-seeking. 2007). Jehle. Bina. Matthews & Moran. Harré. less experienced with the use of alcohol and has different social and motivational needs that may contribute to risk taking on the road. McDonald (1994) reported 51 . The factors of driving style and driving skill may account. follow too closely.. 2001. not all young new drivers are alike (Dewar. Jonah. for these difficulties. Billittier. in many cases. This was consistent with many other studies in which young drivers tended to overestimate their own skills and under-estimate crash risk (Dewar. tobacco smoking. The problems encountered by novice drivers are often attributed to age and inexperience together. the contrary appears to be true. are more likely to engage in alcohol use when driving and are less likely to use seatbelts when compared to other drivers (Lerner. In fact. 1997b. 1986). 2002a. Younger drivers tend to have a riskier driving style than others. Several reasons have been proposed for high age-related crash risk levels. Moscati. overtake dangerously. Foster and O’Neill (2005) studied self-rated driving attributes of 16. at least in part. Connery & Stiller.to 29-year old drivers in New Zealand and found a marked crash-risk optimism. p.The “young” category typically ranges from 16 to 25. comfort eating and time spent in non-organised activities with friends. However. 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. Graziano and Bonino (2006) have argued that. 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. but there are a great many differences between a 17-year-old and a 23-year-old driver. in which they believed that they were better drivers and luckier in avoiding crashes. 221). irresponsibility and driving related aggression. 2002a. Vassallo et al.
and that young drivers. it was hypothesised in the present study that. Justification of age-related hypotheses. In a nation-wide survey of American teens. risky driving and crash frequency (Lourens. 2007). and 55 per cent had seen them exhibit behaviour described as “road rage” (Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and State Farm Insurance. managing velocity and regulating acceleration. (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. age was hypothesized to interact with emotional states such as hopelessness and aggression. behaviour in traffic would become less safe and crash occurrence would be more likely.that young drivers are less skilful in vehicle control tasks than older drivers. Since previous research had highlighted the association between age. so they have little spare attentional capacity” (p. 76 per cent had seen peers drive while very upset stressed. as age decreased. particularly under conditions of heightened emotionality. Stevenson et al. Since many of the violations commonly committed by younger drivers – speeding. and have poor information processing and attention-switching skills. 74 per cent had seen tem drive while very happy or excited (strong positive emotions). since safe driving among younger drivers has been shown to be more prone to the effects of emotional states. they have cognitive schemata that are inaccurate and relatively undetailed.39). capable of distracting attention from driving and increasing crash occurrence. age was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. 52 . 1999. on crash and injury occurrence. are like to perceive the driving task with overconfidence and inadequate attention to risk. indirectly. angry or sad (strong negative emotions). Ulleberg. Vissers & Jessurun. This means that “young drivers must devote a greater proportion of their attentional resources to conscious decision making and monitoring their driving. Similarly. Young drivers may also be more prone to drive under the influence of strong emotional states. In the present study. 2002). They have generally lower skill levels in acquiring and integrating information. particularly with respect to controlling deviations.
Elliott. more often at hazardous times (e. reported that crash incidence for men in the United States was nearly double that of women. it 53 . Hasselberg and Laflamme (2006) analysed Swedish police records and found the same ratio.failure to use seat-belts. it was also hypothesised that.g.5. p. Waller. as well. Williams and Shabanova (2003) found that young American males were significantly more likely than young females to be responsible for crash deaths. Tavris.1. 129). MacGregor.2 Gender A large number of studies have found differences between males and females. However. 2.. Shope. self-reported injury would also increase. Monárrez-Espino. men have been shown to have a higher rate of crashes than women. without exception. that males were significantly more likely to be involved in a loss-of-control accident. as age decreased. There appear to be differences in the types of crashes experienced. found that men had twice as high a risk as women of being involved in a motor vehicle crash during the late night hours. rush hour) and in hazardous conditions (e. Åkerstedt and Kecklund (2001). Marked differences also occur between the genders in terms of the number of fatalities. Kuhn and Layde (2001) found. 2004.. male drivers incur their first crash earlier in their driving careers and are more likely to be held to blame for the incident. darkness)” (p. with respect to both driving behaviour and to crash involvement. 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. in addition to having a higher number of crashes. for instance. Smiley and Lee-Gosselin (1992).g. Chipman. and behaviours predictive of fatalities. for instance. and so on – were associated with greater risk of injury. for instance. Dewar (2002b) stated that “some of the reasons for this are obvious – men drive greater distances.4). “In all studies and analyses. but is also evident among older drivers” (Social Issues Research Centre [SIRC]. Laapotti and Keskinen (1998) showed that when male drivers lost control of their motorcar. This gender difference is most marked in the population under 25 years. Raghunathan and Little (2001) noted that.
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. and (c) female drivers are involved in more motor vehicle crashes than ever before. Neighbors and Donovan (2007). At the same time. While there is much of value in such an approach. 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. Lonczak. state of Washington. Male drivers drove too fast and under the influence of alcohol more often in loss-of-control crashes. Female drivers’ loss-of-control crashes usually took place under slippery road conditions and were more likely due to deficient vehicle handling skills. found that while male drivers. worldwide. to date. 525526). Laapotti and Keskinen (2004a) indicated that. Dobson. (a) the number of female drivers is increasing. 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. but for female drivers the loss of control usually resulted in a collision with another car. Woodcock. 2001).usually led to a single-vehicle crash. in a sample taken in the U.S. as marked changes in the roles of women in society have profound implications for the design of transportation systems (Waller. 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. This is important. Ball. Welsh. Brown. Lenard. for instance. 1997. Flyte & Garner. (b) females drive increasingly more. they did not differ from female drivers in reported driving 54 . reported more traffic citations and injuries.
In a study of male and female drivers in Finland. had proportionally more crashes connected to inadequate vehicle manoeuvring. Justification of gender-related hypotheses. In a study of Dutch drivers. Linderholm and Järmark (1998) reviewed studies dating from 1970 to 1984 and compared them to results obtained between 1985 and 1997. Laapotti. Female drivers. crash frequency and risky or aggressive driving behaviour (Monárrez-Espino. In the present study. (1998) and Laapotti and Keskinen (2004). showing that male drivers were. it was hypothesised that males and females would differ on measures of behaviour in traffic. commenting that “despite the fact that there has been a massive shift in the population of women drivers. 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. evaluated their driving skill lower. 11). though. indirectly. In a subsequent report.anger. 55 . 2003). committed fewer traffic offences and had a more positive attitude toward traffic safety and rules than males. Consistent with the findings of McKenna et al. et al. gender was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. were less frequently involved in crash situations. Keskinen and Rajalin (2003) reported that Finnish females in 2001 drove less than males. Since previous research had highlighted the association between males. on the other hand. as per the traditional pattern. 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. control of traffic situations. on crash and injury occurrence. Forward. Laapotti and Keskinen (2004b) provided evidence in support of this view. Turner & McClure. (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. In other research. Waylen and Burke (1998) disagreed. 2006. alcohol consumption and for risky driving. involved in proportionally more crashes connected to speeding. Lourens et al. just as they had in 1978. there is little evidence that the sex difference in the pattern of accident involvement is changing over the years” (p. McKenna. and loss-of-control incidents..
3 Ethnicity A growing number of studies have examined the effect of ethnic differences on driving behaviour and crash outcomes. Despite the fact that countries’ regulatory frameworks were becoming increasingly similar. Hauswald (1999) studied the incidence of covert non-compliance with seat belt regulations among Malaysian taxi drivers. Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS). Being a non-wealthy Catholic country was associated with higher fatality rates than being a wealthy Catholic country.1. White and Hispanic drivers regarding red light violations. Summala and Hartley (1998). this has been the result of a change in reporting protocols within the U. finding that the former group had higher fatality rates. Haliburton.5. Marine. Tippetts and Voas (2005) found no differences between African-American. Melinder (2007) compared 15 Western European countries with regard to the relation between different sociocultural factors. more frequent histories of speeding offences and more extreme alcohol use. he found that 60% of drivers had positioned belts or shoulder straps in a manner that appeared to 56 . that expanded the standards for collection of data on race and ethnicity in 1999 (Briggs. being a wealthy Catholic country was associated with more traffic fatalities than were wealthy. But. 2005). traffic safety regulations and traffic fatalities. On the other hand. A few studies have endeavoured to compare national driving cultures in terms of crash risk. Schlundt. Lezotte and Lowenstein (2000) compared Hispanic and non-Hispanic white motorists in the state of Colorado. Melinder concluded that the type of religion and wealth were important distal factors. Levine. Lajunen. for instance. lower rates of safety belt use. Harper. Romano. Conducting curb-side inspections of taxicabs in Kuala Lumpur. differences in fatalities persisted. To a large degree. Corry.2. nonCatholic countries. In one of the few studies reported.S. reported few differences between Australians and Finns. Very little cross-cultural research related to traffic safety has been carried out in Southeast Asia. Garrett. Goldweig and Warren.
They concluded that there were. religion. Abdullah and Peterson (2003) have outlined value orientations for each ethnic group (see Table 2. piety. 2000. Strong relationship orientation. peace. few significant value differences between ethnic groups. However. In the present study. 1999). courtesy. cultural differences can be more subtle. face saving. family honour. regional distribution and socioeconomic status differs considerably between the three groups (Gomez. Indian-Malaysian Pre-determination. Roman et al. dependence on family for direction in social and career decisions. Fatalistic. Indirect communication. 2005). Malay Differences have not always been consistent. on crash and injury occurrence.3: Key Value Clusters for Each Malaysian Ethnic Group Key Value Orientations Man’s relationship with God. Family centeredness. it was hypothesised that ethnicity would have a significant effect on 57 .. there was no statistical differences between ethnic groups in the frequency of this practice. brotherhood/sisterhood. respect for knowledge. respect for elders. The Malaysian population is comprised of three distinct ethnic groups: Malay. filial piety. humility.. Education. respect for elders. hierarchical. polite behaviour. prosperity and integrity. While religious affiliation. Spirituality. Table 2. Karma. In a study of 324 employees sampled from a cross-section of Malaysian industries. indirectly. ethnic-Chinese and ethnic-Indian (Williamson. gender was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. Justification of ethnic difference hypotheses. Based on studies that have demonstrated ethnic differences in driving behaviour (Harper et al.2). family ties. cooperation. harmony with nature. in fact. respect for elders. 1999). Fontaine and Richardson (2005) found that 82% of values were shared by all three ethnic groups. prosperity. Strong relationship orientation.have them restrained but had not fastened the latch. shame-driven. Chinese-Malaysian Pre-determined future. hard work. Conscious of what other people say about us.
journey lengths. A useful way of conceptualising the experience effect is to draw on a cognitive framework proposed by Mikkonen and Keskinen (1983) and later extended 58 . with different weather conditions. 166). Laapotti. the motorist is less likely to encounter situations very different from those they have encountered before (p. Groeger (2000) reviewed the reasons for this: … the weight of practice more experienced drivers have makes much of what they do routine. they are less likely to make errors and commit violations that result in crashes (e. inexperienced drivers may (a) not know the correct manoeuvre so they try a different manoeuvre which turns out to be unsafe.5. and indicating that those recording higher mileage per year have fewer accidents per mile (Pelz & Schuman. A large number of studies have shown that.. Lajunen & Summala. in a given road and traffic scenario. 1971). directionality of the effect was not predicted.behaviour in traffic. etc. (b) not know how to carry out a particular manoeuvre correctly. 2002).g. (c) not have had enough practice in carrying out the manoeuvre correctly. such as driving at different times of the day or days of the week. Allied to this. 2. Hatakka and Katila. and as such. implies the driver has had a broader variety of driving experiences. 2001).1 Experience Driver experience makes a difference in crash risk. increased experience usually. 1995. Keskinen. passenger distractions different vehicles.5. as drivers become more experienced.2. As experience grows. or (d) not have had enough experience of dealing safety with the effects of human factors on their performance (Fuller. On the other hand. Given the absence of relevant prior research on Malaysian cultural groups.2 Driver Characteristics 2. allows many otherwise incompatible tasks to be performed together. although not always.
2001). When drivers tap into models at the base of cognitive hierarchy. 2000) The effects of driving experience and age are closely linked. When using those at the top of the hierarchy. in many studies of age and gender differences. as individuals acquire experience. Hatakka. Internal models have connections to motivational and emotional systems of the driver. 2004).9). including start and destination point and corresponding visual scenes.9: Hierarchical Levels of Driving Behaviour (after Keskinen.by Keskinen. Hataaka and Katila (1992). environment. 1996. Yet. as well as knowledge of risk elements and a cognitive map of control equipment in the vehicle and how it behaves. and can be organised in a hierarchy that reflects the key purposes. 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. 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. experience effects have not been controlled (Rothengatter. as young drivers generally have less experience than their older counterparts. they tend to priortise conscious control of the vehicle over other elements of the driving experience. 59 . and sometimes confounded by gender differences. they take actions based on whether they are perceived to reflect lifestyle priorities and values. Internal models contain knowledge of route. social context company MASTERING TRAFFIC SITUATIONS Adapting to the demands of the present situation VEHICLE MANOEUVRING Controlling speed. direction and position Figure 2. or most important facets of driving at different levels (see Figure 2. It assumes that. Experience can be gained through personal participation in traffic as a driver and through observing the behaviour of others.
all of which were seen to reflect deficient self-control and lifestyle management abilities. Peltzer and Renner (2003). Driving experience was considered a distal variable that would have an 60 . 2004). They found that young drivers failed in applying both lower and higher models of the hierarchy than did middle-aged drivers. and especially young male drivers. 2007). Studies of crash predictors among professional drivers have been undertaken for over fifty years (e. Ghiselli & Brown. 1954). taking risks and consuming alcohol or drugs. found that risk taking within a sample of 130 drivers of minibus taxis in the Pietersburg area of the Republic of South Africa. 1949. Brown & Ghiselli. the number of years since a driving licence was first obtained. on the other hand.g. and that taxicab drivers are more likely to regard low. explained because adult identity is still under construction so life goals and living skills are still under development.Laapotti et al. Burns and Wilde (1995) found no relationship between collision history and personality when they studied sampled male taxi drivers in a small Canadian city. was used in this study. such as problems in vehicle handling skills. Young novice drivers. for instance. Female novice drivers. was inversely correlated with driving experience and numbers of accidents witnessed. showed more problems than males connected to the lower cognitive levels of the driving hierarchy. One way to understand experience effects is to study occupations for which driving is an important work component. frequently showing that they are lest frequently involved in motor vehicle crashes than other classes of drivers. age and gender on motor vehicle crash risk. 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. (2001) used the cognitive framework to explain the differing effects of experience. many studies have focused on the effects of experience. Mintz.. Justification of driver experience hypotheses. While motivational and differing skill levels are also important predictors of professional drivers’ crash risk.and medium-severity traffic violation penalties as unjust than are non-professional drivers (Rosenbloom & Shahar. A simple measure of driving experience. showed more problems connected to showing off driving skills to peers. 1948.
Elander et al. (1993) noted that: People vary in the time they spend on the road. 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.. it is accepted that the more one travels. with greater experience associated with safer self-reported behaviour. Duncan & Brown. All of these will affect the likelihood of crash involvement. there may be considerable random or systematic error in subjective reports about distance travelled (Elander et al.effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. for instance. and the problem of taking adequate account of individuals’ exposure to risk is only beginning to be properly addressed (p. the concept is much less well developed. and type of route where. the more one is going to be exposed to traffic situations in which a crash could occur. 1993). First. it was hypothesised that driving experience would have a significant effect on behaviour in traffic scores. Based on research indicating that more experienced drivers tend to have fewer crashes (Lajunen & Summala. Rothengatter. 1971).5.2 Driving Frequency and Traffic Exposure Many authors have discussed the effect of traffic exposure on crash risk and outcomes (Evans. crash risk is affected greatly by the time of day when. on crash and injury occurrence. 2002a). Wilde. Generally. technical or legal changes relating to road safety. indirectly. Pelz & Schuman. 2001. In individual differences research. showed that the risk of crash involvement is five to ten times higher during late night 61 . 1984. 1991). but measuring exposure is not always as simple a matter as computing asking for an estimate of distance travelled per unit time (Evans. Åkerstedt and Kecklund (2001). driving occurs (Dewar. 1995. and the traffic conditions to which they are exposed. McKenna. the miles they drive. 1986. Second. 282). 1984). 2.2.
Because of earlier trends reported by Evans (1984) and McKenna et al.. it was hypothesised that higher levels of driving frequency would result in less risky behaviour in traffic. Yet. This was taken to be representative of traffic exposure.. without correcting for annual mileage.. a simple measure of driving frequency was used as a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. Teoh & MCartt. (1993). with the highest incidence being between 6:00 pm and midnight. 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. In the present study. Bina et al. however. Mercer (1989) showed that. (1986). young male drivers were strongly over-presented in terms of both crash frequency and traffic-related fines. nor are there valid category weightings that would allow the prediction of risk. 2007). Christie. Evans (1991) and others. female drivers came out higher in number of crashes and in some types of traffic violations. Towner and Ward. as defined by Elander et al. (1999) have argued that. Odero et al. in countries like the USA. 2007. In keeping with recommendations made by Elander et al. 2007. Williams & Shabanova. and found that approximately one-third of all traffic injuries occurred during the night.g. although much research does not (e. the resulting ‘driver records’ in combination with exposure data turn out to be the best predictors of future crashes.hours than during the forenoon. Canada and Germany where a legal penalty point system is in place to track drivers’ violations and involvement in road crashes. on crash and injury occurrence. there is little evidence that drivers are capable of reporting different categories of time or route conditions. 2003). 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. Justification of exposure hypotheses. Lourens et al. Cairns. indirectly. After correcting for the number of kilometres driven. 62 . 2006. (1997) reviewed published and unpublished reports on roadway crashes in developing countries from 1966 to 1994. Ferguson.
1975.1 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. bipolar continuum along which individuals could be placed. Originally conceptualised by Rotter (1966. 15).5. she assumed that the three resulting dimensions were conceptually independent.3. according to the strength of their tendencies toward making attributions of internal or external control. one to reflect the influence of fate or chance (C) and the second to reflect the influence of powerful others (P). She 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. or externals . 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. 63 . and second. 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.. Levenson (1975.5. 1991. she separated the externality dimension into two.1 Locus of Control 2. Stanley & Burrows. 1990).3 Psychological Variables 2. such that it could be possible for an individual to score high on all three (see Figure 2. Levenson constructed a scale has been used widely in studies of locus of control (e. believe that very few events are outside the realm of human influence and that even cataclysmic situations may be altered through human action.1.2. Hyman. or internals.5. view most events as dependent on chance or controlled by powers beyond human reach.g.10). people who attribute behaviour to an internal locus of control. 1999).3. Based on this multidimensional conceptualisation. 1981) extended this concept in two ways: first. 2006. people are thought to vary on a continuum between the two extremes of external and internal locus of control. Rotter’s (1966) original I-E conceptualisation of the locus of control construct viewed it as a unidimensional. In contrast. Holder & Levi.
They also tended to bet more on safe outcomes than did the more externally oriented subjects.10: Contrast between Rotter’s Unidimensional and Levenson’s Multidimensional Conceptualisations of Locus of Control 2.1. luck. Sinha & Watson. 2007) and has given rise to a number of other instruments measuring multi-dimensional locus of control. 64 .Luckner. According to Phares (1976). They found that subjects with high internal control seemed to prefer intermediate probability bets or extremely safe bets over so-called long shots. Liverant and Scodel (1960) studied betting preferences using a simple dice-throwing task.3. 1989. a deity or higher power or other external circumstances Internalizers Individuals believe that what happens is the result of their own personal decisions and efforts.Chance High Low Externality – Powerful Others High Figure 2. these results supported the idea that internals would be more cautious in their control efforts while externals would engage in riskier behaviour. Multidimensional Model Low Internality High Low Externality .2 Locus of Control and Driving Behaviour Very early studies examined a link between locus of control and risk taking. E Unidimensional Model I Externalizers Individuals believe that what happens is determined by fate.5.
believing that fate will achieve its goals no matter what the individual does (p. Serious methodological problems may have plagued this study. On the other hand. 1999). A great many studies have investigated the effects of locus of control on driving behaviour. 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. which focused heavily on situational scenarios. however.More recent studies have examined the relationship between an external locus of control and risky behaviour within driving or workplace behaviour. only partially represented the original locus of control concept. Attitudes toward fate have been shown to be instrumental in determining the level of risk that persons will take with regard to delaying treatment for illness (Chung. Dixey (1999) found relationships between road crashes and fatalist attitudes in Nigeria. Other authors explained an apparent link between external locus of control and crash risk on a motivational basis (Montag & Comrey. however. In a subsequent study. those who see themselves as playing little or no part in the unfolding of evens will act in a less cautious manner. 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. 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. Guastello and Guastello (1986) used the Rotter (1966) locus of control scale and their own transitional instrument in a study of American college students. 1987). 65 . Iversen and Rundmo (2002) also failed to find an association with risky driving or crash involvement. If an individual views herself or himself as being responsible for both positive and negative outcomes. French & Chan. 39). s/he will be more likely to take precautionary measures such as wearing a seat belt and being vigilant to roadway cues. but results have been inconsistent.
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. it may not be of sufficient magnitude to be of value. Gidron. In a meta-analysis of information-processing. offences. leading the authors to conclude that “if a relationship exists. (1991) argued that these equivocal results were due to overly simple research designs which tended to investigate direct effects of locus of control. although scores on externality dimensions did not relate significantly to any of those dependent variables. aggressive and ordinary traffic violations and driving errors. Hoyt (1973) reported that internals reported wearing seat belts more often and experienced highway travel as more interesting and involving. (p. In a similar study investigating personality attributes and driving behaviour. That is. driving skills were negatively correlated with externality scores. They found that. rather than examining its interaction with other predictors. it strongly moderated the relationship between hostility and DDB. This study provided support for the view that the effects of personality traits on driving 66 . In an important study. Arthur et al. cognitive. hostility was associated with worse DDB to a greater extent among drivers scoring low on internality than among drivers scoring high on internality. 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). Özkan and Lajunen (2005) found that internals reported a higher number of total crashes. although internality was unrelated to DDB.Although externals reported more risk taking this trend was not significant. In a much earlier study. when Lajunen and Summala (1995) gave Finnish university students a series of questionnaires that assessed driving abilities and personality. 1260). personality and demographic/biographical predictors of vehicular involvement. an internal locus of control was found to be associated with lower levels of crash involvement and with higher levels of cognitive ability. The same driving skill scores were positively correlated with an internal locus of control. On the other hand.
Noting that Chinese culture. moderating and mediating relationships are investigated. indicated that. Parsons and Schneider (1974) administered Rotter’s (1969) I-E scale to 120 male and female students in Canada. as hypothesised. (1991). Japanese students had significantly higher external scores than in all other countries. which is considered to be full of ambiguity. chance and fate are taken for granted in life. US-born Chinese and Caucasian Americans). In very early research. reinforcement and sociocultural processes created fertile ground for cross-cultural studies using the locus of control construct. Japan. 2. complexity and unpredictability. Crittendon (1991) found that female university students in Taiwan were more 67 . Richardson and Downe (2000) and others.3 Locus of Control and Ethnicity Dyal (1984) argued that post-War geopolitical expansion and a growing interest in the role of attributions. Shybut and Lotsof (1969) sampled three groups of high school students (Hong Kong Chinese. whereas Americans scored high on internal control and Chinese-Americans were somewhere in-between.1. Noy (1997). and the USA. Their results. India. More recent research has continued to find differences in locus of control between cultures and between sub-groups within cultures. Life situations may be viewed as being largely determined by circumstances outside personal control (p. is based on the notion that … luck. France.5. Germany. while externality scores for Indian students were significantly lower than those in France. Canada and Japan.behaviour can be better understood by adopting a more holistic approach in which interactions. Hong Kong Chinese students were more externally controlled on Rotter’s (1969) I-E scale. This point had also been argued earlier by Arthur et al. with situation-centred Confucian foundations. Israel. Italy. 122).3. after correction for differences in socioeconomic status. Hsieh.
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. only Cheung. Chinese of Malay extraction. At the same time.externally-controlled and more self-effacing than either American females or Taiwanese males. 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. skill and ability. This was very true for the locus of control variable. Using an English version of the Cross-Cultural Chinese Personality Assessment Inventory (CPAI-2). due largely to high scores on items measuring political ideology and social system control. Chinese and Indian ethnic groups were found. 68 . He attributed this to the belief that dealing with widespread nepotism. Indian students were more external than Canadians on personal control factors. where no significant differences were found between those of Indian. although there were no differences in internality nor externality involving powerful others. Chinese and Indian populations. but all three groups differed from the sample drawn in China. To the author’s knowledge. and this was provided as part of a larger study comparing Singaporean ethnic groups to a Chinese normative sample from the People’s Republic of China. Howard and Lim (2006) have offered research evidence related to cross-cultural differences in locus of control within Malay. all internal characteristics. Cheung. a finding Carment interpreted as reflecting greater dependency on and conformity within the somewhat indulgent and closely-connected Indian family structure. No published accounts of research conducted in Malaysia with regard to locus of control differences among members of Malay. ingratiation and bribery found in India requires effort. 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. In very early research.
1975. et al.Justification of hypotheses about locus of control. Özkan & Lajunen. First. 1995. it was hypothesised that locus of control would moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic. Träskman-Bendz & Alsén. Hopelessness has not been previously studied as a predictor either of driving behaviour or of crash risk. given the large number of studies indicating ethnic differences in locus of control (Crittendon. 1997. Montag & Comrey. 2007). without objective basis. on crash and injury occurrence. 2. 1991. (2003). In the present study. locus of control was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. but there are two conceptual arguments for doing so. Cases usually 69 . Weissman. indirectly.2 Hopelessness Rothengatter (2002) and Groeger (1997) have both noted the paucity of research on affect and driver behaviour. anticipate a negative outcome to any attempts that may be made to attain the individual’s major objectives or goals (Beck. Given the strong research evidence suggesting an association between internal locus of control and less risky driving behaviour (Lajunen & Summala. it was hypothesised that internality would have a negative association with unsafe behaviour in traffic. hopelessness has been consistently shown to be a predictor of suicidal intent (Beck. 1975). Sinha & Watson. Personality traits closely aligned with given mood states might well be expected to have an impact on the performance on driving tasks. 1987. Gilbody. while the two dimensions of externality would have positive associations. it was hypothesised that Chinese participants would tend toward higher externality scores while Indian participants would tend toward higher internality. Niméus. 2007. Kovacs and Weissman. 2005). Based on the findings reported by Gidron et al. Pentilla and Lonnqvist (1997) studied all fatal car crashes in Finland from 1987 to 1991 and found that 5.5. Finally. Fox & Klerman.9% could be classified as having an intentional suicidal component. 1973). 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. McMillan. Beresford & Neilly. Ohberg.3.
. 1974). 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. hopelessness has been associated with personality and behavioural factors that have been shown to be good predictors of driver behaviour and crash risk. 1997. 1998. and crash risk (Ohberg et al. finding that persons who perceived reinforcements to be a function of powerful others. Henderson. assertiveness and positive emotion. Prociuk. Second. have proposed that potentially self-destructive behaviours. found that the most commonly reported mental state among Finnish drivers dying in crashes classified as suicidal had been “depression” and “hopeless”. mental disorders and alcohol misuse. Selzer & Payne. and negatively predicted by extraversion. in fact. 1962). 1990. hopelessness was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. They also classified a group of drivers whose highly negligent actions. Justification of hopelessness hypotheses.involved head-on collisions between two vehicles with a large weight disparity and victims had often suffered from life-event stress. usually when impaired by alcohol or drug use. on crash and injury occurrence. including risky driving. Several authors. for instance. can be placed along a continuum between high hope for the future at the positive pole and a sense of hopelessness at the negative pole (Aylott. chance or fate not only expressed greater pessimism about the future but were more likely to report depressive states. Firestone & Seiden. luck. in which hopelessness plays a significant part. Hernetkoski and Keskinen (1998). Mendel. Chioqueta and Stiles (2005) showed that hopelessness in Norwegian university students was positively predicted by high scores in neuroticism and depression. Based on earlier findings about the relationship between depressive-suicidal states. 1962). indirectly. whose crashes had resulted from extreme risks. Very early on. Breen and Lussier (1976). investigated the relationship between hopelessness. in a more detailed study. In the present study. 1976. locus of control and depression with university students in western Canada. it was 70 .
Barton and Malta. Richards.hypothesised that participants scoring high on a measure of hopelessness would be likely to engage in behaviour in traffic that was less cautious. sparked by a number of highly publicised accounts of road rage and improved techniques for measuring anger and aggression in drivers. Deffenbacher. 1999. learned disinhibitory cues. there is no shortage of evidence to suggest a consistent and reliable association between aggressive driving and motor vehicle crashes (Blanchard. While media reports and some authors (James & Nahl. Wells-Parker et al. this concept became the basis for what is now known as the frustration-aggression hypothesis of aggressive driving. Filetti. including subjective feelings of stress. learned cognitive scripts. 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. 2. 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. Tzamalouka. 2000. physiological arousal. 2003. In a largely unrelated study. Chliaoutaks. 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. 2000. Malta & Blanchard. Bakou. Novaco (1991) proposed that driver aggression is produced when environmental triggers interact with a variety of predisposing factors. Koumaki.5. which acts to counter the influence of normative moral codes and to increase people’s impulsive responses to stimuli as one such disinhibitory cue. and deindividuation. Lynch & Oetting. Although uncertainty persists as to whether road aggression is actually increasing. Demakakos.3. Chapman. Underwood. Mizell. 2002. attention to the issue of aggressive driving has grown exponentially.. 2002). Wright & Crundall. 71 . O’Connell (2002) has described the use of alcohol. It was hypothesised here that hopelessness would moderate the manner in which locus of control affected behaviour in traffic. 1999) have argued that there has been a marked increase in the frequency of aggressive incidents and anger-related crashes. 2006).3 Aggression Since the 1980s. & Darviri.
which creates a sense of anonymity and diminished personal responsibility. Kurylo and Poirier (1997) created the Hostile Automatic Thoughts Scale to reflect the frequency 72 . cultural driving norms and situational conditions. but needed to be expanded to account for the influence of personality factors such as Type A personality behaviour (TAPB). 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. 1962). does indeed have all the ingredients that might give rise to increased levels of anger and hostility. Groeger (2000). rather than a cause of. such as TAPB. Bettencourt. as another. angry thinking and trait anger influenced aggressive behaviour only under conditions in which the individual was provoked. though. and frustration of goals that comprises the driving task in the modern world. Crowson. (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. Meichenbaum (1977) pioneered the use of cognitive restructuring. threat to own safety and self-eesteem. through the use of self-statements. Ellis. to better cope with stress and achieve behavioural change. 1976. However. lack of control over events. Talley. the display of aggression (p. Shinar (1998) argued that the frustration-aggression hypothesis provided an appropriate model for aggressive driving. They reported that trait aggressiveness and trait irritability influenced aggressive behaviour under both provoking and neutral conditions but that other personality variables. raised the point that: It seems to me possible that the peculiar cocktail of personal challenge. it may equally be that the people involved would be aggressive in situations beyond driving – with driving being an opportunity for. Schwebel et al. stress induced by time pressure. 163). Benjamin and Valentine (2006) conducted a meta-analysis of studies assessing personality variables and aggressive behaviour. Houston. More recently. Snyder.
Undén. Magnavita. McKee. impatience. on crash and injury occurrence. al. 1981. aggression was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and.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. 2. 1998. aggression. Dewar (2002b) noted that TAPB has been one of the variables most consistently linked to driving performance. and specific content. 1985). 2000. Blumenthal. 2006). Kumashiro & Kume. Lynch. Sato. 2001). TAPB is characterised by a sense of time urgency. Narda.6. Kamada. Elofsson & Krakau. Thurman. Petrilli. Later still. It was also hypothesised. it was hypothesised that aggression would have a negative effect on behaviour in traffic.6 2. Based on the extensive research on the association between aggression and unsafe driving behaviour (Galovski et.with which individuals make cognitive statements reflecting aggressive sentiments. James & Nahl. competitiveness. insecurity about status. Deffenbacher. 2002. Carbone. Bettencourt et al. Originally identified by Friedman and Rosenman (1974). of hostile automatic thought would moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic. They found that perjorative labelling and vengeful or retaliatory thoughts correlated highly with self-reported aggressive driving. In the present study. indirectly. Karlberg. Oetting and Swaim (2003) used the same approach to examine angry cognitions made by drivers under varying conditions of provocation. 1999. 1999). Rice. 73 . Miyake. consistent with earlier research by Deffenbacher et al. Frueh & Snyder. Justification of aggression-related hypotheses. hostility and difficulty achieving states of relaxation (Ben-Zur. that the total amount. Sani. (2003).. Williams & Haney. 2006. Those authors used the instrument to assess hostility and negative affect within a population of veterans diagnosed with combat-related posttraumatic stress disorder (Crowson. 1999.
age. traffic exposure or driver gender controlled as variables. Other authors have examined which of the behavioural dimensions of TAPB has the strongest impact on driving outcomes. where Type A drivers were 4. Lafont and Lagarde (2005). 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. Although there is some evidence as to the long-term stability of TAPB (Keltikangas-Jarninen. 1990). however. 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. Although their research design accounted for the influence of potential confounds.2 times more likely to have an accident than others. Raikkonen. studied police officers in Italy.DeLorenzo and Sacco (1997). but not with accident risk. Elander and French (1993) found that TAPB had a strong association with excessive driving speed. Chastang. was driving frequency. for instance. In a correlational study of British drivers. Chiron. violations and self-reported driving impatience in a sample of 54 American students. and drivers’ attitudes toward traffic regulations – when examining the association between motor vehicle crashes and Type A scores in a prospective study of 20. They found a robust association between scores on a measure of TAPB and later serious crashes. the Jenkins Activity Survey (Jenkins. driving style. socio-professional category. did control for the effects of a range of potential confounding variables – annual mileage. Nabi. similarly. it may have been flawed by methodological deficiencies discussed by af Wählberg (2003) and by Elander et al. gender. tested drivers on a TABP questionnaire in 1993 and then tracked their driving behaviour to record crash history from 1994 to 2001. Perry (1986) fond significant simple correations between scores on a commonly used measure of TAPB. Karlberg et al. however. 1989. Nabi et al. (2003) with respect to data collection time periods. (1998). alcohol consumption.000 employees of a French oil and gas company. focused on the time urgency component 74 . Consoli. particularly in driving situations that require prudence. 1979) and number of accidents. West. In none of these studies. category of vehicle. Zzanski & Rosenman.
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. If all four BIT factors contribute to accident proneness. Gender. then use of the Type A/B 75 . Papacostas and Synodinos (1988) reported several further analyses of their original data. At the same time. emphasising the four individual dimensions of behaviour in traffic rather than the composite BIT total score. all four BIT factors significantly predicted participants’ self-reported driving characteristics. Papacostas and Synodinos concluded that: Type A/B behaviour is consistently related to only one of the four driving factors obtained by the BIT. only externally-focused frustration was consistently correlated with Type A behaviour.of TAPB that had the most significant influence on driving risks. 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. with higher BIT scores reflecting a stronger Type A orientation. 1977). Glass. freeway urgency (excessive speed choice). ethnicity. 2. they examined the influence of TAPB on a number of driving outcomes.6. specifically measuring the effects of drivers’ usurpation of right-of-way (lane violations and reluctance to yield). on the other hand. In a subsequent study. The BIT scale was positively correlated with the student version of the Jenkins Activity Survey (SJAS. driving exposure and the place where they had learned to drive all had direct effects on Type A results. 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). Of the four BIT factors. Miles and Johnson (2003). Using an instrument with items at extreme ends of the Type A/B continuum. namely “externally-focused frustration”.
Justification of BIT-related hypotheses. locus of control. hopelessness. At the present time.construct as the basis of further investigation into the question of highway safety will provide only an incomplete picture. In neither of their studies. 13). “freeway urgency’’ which manifests itself in speeding and frequent lane changing. driving experience. on the other hand. thought to be critical in the relationship between TAPB and motor vehicle crashes. To the author’s knowledge. Specifically. ethnicity. that are measured by the BIT scale. 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. including gender. it will not be sensitive to “usurpation of right-of-way” which is related to aggressive driving. though. would be influenced by drivers’ psycho-social characteristics. They argued that it would be preferable. 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. no further use of BIT scale has been reported in studies of driving safety. gender and other demographic factors were shown to affect BIT subscales. aggression and the amount and content of 76 . although ethnicity. 1988) attempt to relate scores on their BIT scale to crash frequency or injury. participants’ behaviour in traffic was considered a proximal variable that. did Papacostas and Synodinos (1985. and “destination-activity orientation” which is possibly a cause of inattentive driving (p. the extent to which other personality factors influence the four components comprising behaviour in traffic was not investigated. Similarly. In the present study. on one hand would have an effect on crash and injury occurrence and.
Many studies have suggested that drivers’ TABP is a factor in motor vehicle crashes (Perry. 2003. externally-focused frustration. since Papacostas and Synodinos (1988) found that all four component factors of BIT were related to driving characteristics. Further. 1985).. West et al. it was hypothesised here that BIT total scores would have a positive effect on both crash and injury occurrence. 1993) and. since the composite BIT score has been shown to be an accurate reflection of over-all Type A behaviour (Synodinos & Papacostas. 77 .hostile automatic thought. Miles & Johnson. 1986. Nabi et al. it was hypothesised that drivers’ scores on measures of usurpation of right-of-way. 2005. freeway urgency and destination-activity orientation would each have positive effects on both crash and injury occurrence..
CHAPTER 3 METHOD OF INVESTIGATION 3.1 Conceptualisation and the Research Framework Based on the discussion in the previous chapter. using automobile drivers as the units of analysis. with the addition of a fourth psychological variable. through their action on proximal variables (behaviour in traffic). with the addition of a third psychological variable. 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. Study 1A investigated the effects of demographic (driver age. Then.2). 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. aggression (see Figure 3. each of which sought to replicate and expand the previous one. driving and psychological variables were linked to each other and to self-reported driving behaviour. 1B and 1C. hostile automatic thoughts (see Figure 3. the present research attempted to support the notion that variables in the distal context (psychological factors) contributed to crashes and injuries. the research model was developed and tested in studies 1A. The research model was developed and tested over the course of three separate studies: Study 1: Units of analysis consisted of only automobile drivers Study 2: Units of analysis consisted of only motorcycle drivers Study 3: Units of analysis consisted of only taxicab drivers In Study 1.3). 78 . In Study 1B. 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. each study explored the extent to which demographic. In Study 1C.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
2. While Beck (1999) and others have reserved the term anger for the feeling that accompanies such an internal state. 3. For the purposes of the present research. such that an individual might simultaneously believe that oneself and powerful others control an outcome.4 Hopelessness Hopelessness has been defined as a cognitive or motivational state characterised by negative expectancies. a thought process that expects nothing. overlapping and ambiguous. 1994). For each of the five studies undertaken. 25). Weissman. and a behavioural process in which the person attempts little or takes inappropriate action (p. anger was defined as a negative internal state of physiological arousal and cognition that involves interactions between physiological. hostility and aggression are often inconsistent. Lester and Trexler (1974). cognitive. affective. In the present research. aggression is regarded here as referring to the hostile behaviour that occurs as a result of it.each of these dimensions independently and at the same time. 1988) and tends to manifest itself under antagonistic conditions (Novaco.2.5 Aggression Spielberger et al (1995). 3. Galovski et al (2006) and others have noted that the definitions of anger. According to Farran et al (1995): Hopelessness constitutes an essential experience of the human condition. It functions as a feeling of despair and discouragement. hopelessness was measured as a unidimensional construct. motoric and verbal components (Sharkin. but not chance. 1999). It has been accepted for a long time that aggression finds its 85 . externality related to chance (C) and externality related to the influence of powerful others (P) was obtained. consistent with the way the variable has been described by Beck (1987a) and Beck. a separate score for internality (I). a future directed information-processing bias or schema which functions to distort individuals’ subjective experience of external reality (Velting.
2. 1957. taken as a sum of measures of each of the foregoing. but it has only relatively recently been considered in light of driving aggression (Deffenbacher et al. 2003. (d) hostility – including attitudes of bitterness. Ellis (1962) and Meichenbaum (1977). hitting or interpersonal violence. 2005). In the present research. (c) overt anger – the tendency to experience high levels of emotional arousal and a perceived loss of control.expression in a range of behavioural manifestations (Buss & Durkee. Bergeron & Vallerand. the three forms of hostile automatic thoughts were defined as: 86 . the following variables were examined: (a) physical aggression – the tendency to use physical force when expressing anger or aggression. 3. Oetting. Lynch & Morris.6 Hostile Automatic Thoughts While the role of cognitive self-talk in directing behavioural responses has been accepted since the early work of Beck (1976). emotional lability and temperamental gesturing. and. The present research examined the effects of a set of cognitive statements – described as hostile automatic thoughts (Snyder et al. 1996). (b) verbal aggression – the tendency to be unduly argumentative and to use quarrelsome and hostile speech in dealing with others in antagonistic situations. Vallières. (e) indirect aggression – the tendency to express aggressive impulses in actions that avoid direct confrontation. Specifically. through fighting. were also investigated. frustration. social alienation and paranoia. 1997) – on the behaviour in traffic of drivers in Study 1C. The effects of participants’ total aggression. expressed through the presence of irritability. generally to the point where the needs or feelings of others cannot be taken into consideration. Deffenbacher.
1998). hit or kill another individual. 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. and an expressed preference for operating powerful vehicles.(a) physical aggression – cognitive self-talk that contained content indicating an intent or desire to violently attack. driving consistently in the fast lane and travelling above the speed limit. the BIT score. (c) externally-focused frustration – consisting of emotional reactions to the actions of other drivers on the road (e.. (c) revenge – cognitive self-talk that contained content indicating an intent or desire to take some action against another individual to get even for a perceived wrong.. and. competitiveness.2.7 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.g. frequent lane changing. not allowing others to merge or overtake. being irritated by slow drivers) and of directive behaviours toward 87 . (b) derogation of others – cognitive self-talk that contained content which belittled. characterised by excessive impatience. 3. degraded or wished to be rid of another individual. (b) freeway urgency – including an expressed preference for freeway driving. was defined as indicative of Type A Behaviour Pattern (TABP). A global measure of selfreported driving tendencies. hostility and time pressure (Karlberg et al. motorcyclists and taxicab drivers sampled in the five successive studies undertaken.
3. (d) destination-activity orientation – defined as a preoccupation on the part of drivers with reaching their destinations on time and with the tasks to be performed there. In the resulting measure of this variable.. and. 3. to contemporaneous roadway and traffic 3.3 3. Then.1 Research Design of the Study Study 1A Specifically.them (e. while driving. a “1” was scored if the participant reported a crash and a “0” was scored if the participant did not report a crash.2. to the extent of inattention conditions. the influence of driving experience. urging others to move faster or out of the way by sounding the horn). 88 .8 Crash Occurrence Participants reported whether or not they had experienced a motor vehicle crash. 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. Then. the interrelationships between the demographic variables. within the preceding twelve months and provided details about the nature of the crash. 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. travel frequency. 3. in Study 1A. three demographic variables (driver age.2.9 Injury Occurrence Participants also indicated whether they had been forced to seek medical treatment for an injury incurred during the reported crash. In the resulting measure of this variable. gender and ethnicity) and two psychological variables (locus of control and hopelessness) on BIT was tested.g.
2 illustrates the research design for Study 1B. Finally. the interrelationships between the demographic variables. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) on BIT was tested. Figure 3. and (b) the moderating effect of locus of control on the relation between aggression and BIT. the mediating effect of BIT on the relationship between psychological factors and crash occurrence and injury occurrence was tested. Then. gender and ethnicity) and four psychological variables (locus of control. (b) the moderating effect of locus 89 . Figure 3.psychological variables (locus of control and hopelessness) and BIT were examined. 3.3. the psychological variables and BIT were examined. hopelessness and aggression) on BIT was tested.2 Study 1B While again controlling the effects of driving experience and drivers’ self- reported travel frequency.1 illustrates the research design for Study 1A. the influence of driving characteristics. travel frequency. three demographic variables (driver age.3. In Study 1B. gender and ethnicity) and three psychological variables (locus of control. three moderating effects were measured: (a) the moderating effect of hopelessness on the relationship between locus of control and BIT. travel frequency. Finally. In this study.3 Study 1C In Study 1C. Then. In this study. 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. two moderating effects were tested: (a) the moderating effects of hopelessness on the relationship between locus of control and BIT. the interrelationships between the demographic variables. the mediating effect of the BIT on the relations between psychological variables and crash occurrence and injury occurrence was tested. the psychological variables and BIT were examined. the extent to which self-reported BIT predicted crash and injury occurrence in automobile drivers was assessed. the moderating effect of hopelessness on the relationship between locus of control and BIT was tested. Then. 3. the influence of driving characteristics. hopelessness. Then. three demographic variables (driver age.
First. 90 . the effects of both measures of experience were controlled and the extent to which self-reported BIT predicted crash and injury occurrence in automobile drivers was assessed. 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. Finally.4 illustrates the research design for Study 3. 3. the moderating effect of locus of control on the relationship between aggression and BIT was assessed.of control on the relationship between aggression and BIT. In Study 3. the interrelationships between the demographic variables. Finally. Figure 3.3 illustrates the research design for Study 1C.1 illustrates the research design for Study 2.5 Study 3 The final study used a sample of on-duty taxicab drivers.3. It should be noted that certain of the variables examined with the automobile drivers in Study 1 and with the motorcycle drivers in Study 2 were not included when taxicab drivers were sampled in Study 3. Two measures of experience were included: (a) driving experience. using a sample that indicated motorcycles as their primary mode of transportation. the influence of experience. Figure 3. This was justified for three reasons. Then. and (c) the moderating effect of hostile automatic thoughts on the relationship between aggression and BIT. Figure 3. the mediating effect of the BIT on the relations between psychological variables and crash occurrence and injury occurrence was tested. and (b) taxi experience. Then. Variables and analyses in Study 2 were the same as those carried out in Study 1A. or the length of time they had been licensed to operate a taxicab. three demographic variables (driver age and ethnicity) and two psychological variables (locus of control and aggression) on BIT was tested. In Study 3.3. or the length of time they had held a valid automobile operator’s licence.4 Study 2 The research design for Study 1A was replicated. 3.
limitations were imposed on administration time by driver willingness to participate and by research cost considerations.1: Driver experience will have a negative influence on total BIT score H2.3: Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.1: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.1. Gender was not included as a demographic variable in Study 3 because all taxicab drivers in the sample were male. 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.2: Travel frequency will have a negative influence on total BIT score H2. Third. the following fifteen hypotheses and sixty sub-hypotheses were formulated: Table 3.1.4:Destination-Activity orientation will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1. potentially raising questions of reliability and validity.2. 3.1: Research Hypotheses STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 H1: Behaviour in traffic will have a positive influence on motor vehicle crash outcomes H1.given that data were collected during in situ interview and testing sessions with drivers during a rolling trip from point to point through Kuala Lumpur streets.2: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1. instruments employed to measure hopelessness and hostile automatic thoughts used language and response formats not conducive to verbal administration procedures.2 :Freeway urgency will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.2: Freeway urgency 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.4 Formulation of Hypotheses Based on the conceptualisation and research framework.1: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.1: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1. Second.2.1.3: Taxicab experience will have a negative influence on total BIT score 91 .3:Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.2.4: Destination-Activity orientation will have a positive influence on injury occurrence Y Y Y Y Y 3 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y H2: Driver characteristics will influence behaviour in traffic H2.1.2.
1: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Usurpation of Right-of Way H7.2: Hopelessness will moderate the Externality(Chance)-BIT relationship H9.3: Ethnicity will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H4.1: Aggression will have a positive influence on Usurpation of Right-of Way H11.2: Ethnicity will influence Hopelessness H5.2: Aggression will have a positive influence on Freeway Urgency H11.2.3: Age will have a negative influence on Hopelessness H6.3: Hopelessness will moderate the Externality(Powerful-Other)-BIT relationship H10: Demographic variables will influence aggression H10.2: Ethnicity will influence total BIT score H3.4: Aggression will have a positive influence on Destination-Activity Orientation 92 .1: Age will influence Locus of Control: Internality H4.2: Gender will influences Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.1.1: Gender will influence Hopelessness H5.3: 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 have a positive influence on Externally-focused Frustration H7.2: Externality-Chance will have a positive influence on Hopelessness H6.3: Age will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others Y Y Y Y Y Y H5: Demographic variables will influence hopelessness H5.3: Aggression will have a positive influence on Externally-focused Frustration H11.3: Age will have a negative influence Aggression Y Y Y Y Y Y H11: Aggression will have a positive influence on behaviour in traffic H11.1: Internality will have a negative influence on total BIT score H8.4: Hopelessness will have positive influence on Destination-Activity Orientation H8: Locus of Control will influence behaviour in traffic H188.8.131.52: Externality-Chance will have a positive influence on total BIT score H8.3: Age will have a negative influence on total BIT score Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y H4: Demographic variables will influence locus of control H4.1: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Internality H4.3.2: Age will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.3.1 (continued) STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 3 H3: Demographic variables will influence behaviour in traffic H3.2: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Freeway Urgency H7.3: Externality-Powerful-Others will have a positive influence on Hopelessness H7: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on behaviour in traffic H7.1: Ethnicity will influence Locus of Control: Internality H4.3.3: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H4.2: Ethnicity will influence Aggression H10.2.1: Gender will influence total BIT score H3.1: Gender will influence Aggression H10.2: Ethnicity will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.1: Internality will have a negative influence on Hopelessness H6.2.Table 3.1: Hopelessness will moderate the Internality-BIT relationship H9.
Data were collected during three consecutive trimesters.2: Externality(Chance) will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12.2: Ethnicity will influence hostile automatic thoughts H13.3: Age will have a negative influence on hostile automatic thoughts H14: Hostile automatic thoughts will have a positive influence on Behaviour in Traffic H14.2: Thoughts of the Derogation of Others will have a positive influence on BIT H14.1: Thoughts of Physical Aggression will have a positive influence on total BIT H14.5 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. All participants had a valid driving licence but had indicated that a motorcycle was the mode of transportation most of the 93 .2: Thoughts of Derogation-of-Others will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation H15.1: Internality will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12. within a 14-month period. Participants from the first round of data collection were included in Study 1A.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 H15.3: Thoughts of Revenge will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation Note: Y=YES 3. Participants in Study 2 were undergraduate students at the same private university.1 Methods of Data Collection and Analysis The Sample Participants in Study 1 were undergraduate students at a private university in peninsular Malaysia. with psychological tests and inventories administered to groups of students during lecture sessions.5.Table 3. those from the second round of data collection were included in Study 1B. using the same procedures as in Study 1.1: Thoughts of Physical aggression will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation H15. and those from the third round of data collection were included in Study 1C.1: Gender will have a positive influence on hostile automatic thoughts H13.1 (continued) STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 3 Y Y Y H12: Locus of control will moderate the aggression-BIT relationship H12. registered in a freshman course offered within the Faculty of Management.
Participants in Studies 1 and 2 were not remunerated. with one of the items in each pair written to measure a TABP response and the other a contradictory statement (e. 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. Stokols. Drawing from the earlier Driving Habits Questionnaire (DHQ. during a point to point trip.2. 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. consistent with of a Type A Behaviour Pattern (TAPB) when driving (see Appendix A). 1978). In all cases. Participants were provided with an opportunity to receive a debriefing report about the results of the study by e-mail and/or. Synodinos and Papacostas (1985) developed 26 pairs of two-alternative items.time when they travelled. participation was voluntary and confidentiality was assured. by postal mail.5. I try to urge its driver to move 94 .1 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) Scale This 52-item measures time-urgent behaviour. Data collection took place within the taxicab. Participants in Study 3 received the meter or negotiated fare for the trip. This sample was combined from all three rounds of classroom data collection.. all of whom possessed a valid driving licence and a commercial permit for the operation of a taxicab.g. Participants in Study 3 were taxicab drivers in the Kuala Lumpur area. in the case of Study 3 participants. Stokals & Campbell.2 Research Instruments 3. while participants were driving. Participants were recruited during a curb-side introduction of the study by one of a group of four research assistants. 3. Novaco. although results were used to demonstrate teaching points related to the syllabus at a point later in the trimester.5. “ When a traffic light turns green and the car in front of me doesn’t get going immediately. For inclusion in the study.
” “I often blow my horn at someone as a way of expressing my frustration. of items 24 Sample items “When I am in a traffic jam and the lane next to mine starts to move. Papacostas and Synodinos (1988) provided additional psychometric parameters of the BIT scale.2.” II. In a later study. I usually think about what I have to do when I get there.2: Dimensions of the BIT scale Factor I. On each form. then the item of the pair representing the opposite end of the continuum was placed in Form B and vice versa. Externally-focused frustration 6 IV. Destination-activity orientation 8 Total 52 95 . Their analysis revealed four dimensions.91) were found to be internally consistent. I try to move that lane as soon as possible. to school or to an appointment with someone. with a coefficient alpha of . I usually feel like pushing them off the road.” “I get extremely irritated when I am travelling behind a slow moving vehicle.” “I often find myself checking the time while driving to work. Usurpation of right-ofway No. Items in Form A and Form B are presented in random order. as indicated in table 3.80.” “While travelling to work (or to school). such that if the TABP alternative of an item pair was placed in Form A. Items were presented in two alternate forms (Form A and Form B).” “On a clear highway. Freeway urgency 14 III. Six of the items are answered on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree”.” “I usually get upset at drivers who do not signal their driving intentions. Synodinos and Papacostas reported that Form A and Form B (which correlated . I just wait for a while until it moves”) for a total of 52 item stems. based on a principal components analysis of earlier-reported data. 20 items are answered on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from “most like me” to “least like me”.” “When a motor vehicle cuts in front of me. I usually drive a few kilometres above the speed limit. Table 3.on” versus “When a traffic light turns green and the car in front of me doesn’t get going immediately.
References to the faster. High scores on the externality-powerful-others (P) scale indicate that respondents expect that powerful others exert a high degree of control over their lives. 96 .2. 3.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. High scores on the internality (I) scale indicate that respondents expect to have a high degree of control over their own lives. it’s usually because I worked hard for it”. References to “miles per hour” were changed to “kilometres per hour”.2 Levenson Locus of Control Scale This widely-used questionnaire is based on Levenson’s (1981) multidimensional view of locus of control. References to the “gas pedal” were replaced by “accelerator”.5. ranging from +3 (“agree strongly”) to –3 (“disagree strongly”). The phrase “cross-junction” was added to items pertaining to behaviour at intersections. A sample item is “Although I might have good ability. 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. 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. It contains three 8-item sub-scales that measure perceptions about the level of control exercised over the events and circumstances in their lives. passing lane were changed from “left lane” to “right lane” and the word “pass” was replaced with “overtake”. I will not be given leadership responsibility without appealing to those in positions of power”. A sample item is “I have often found that what is going to happen will happen”.
3). Each of the 20 statements is scored 1.” “When people annoy me.5. anger.3 Beck Hopelessness Scale (BHS) This 20-item scale contains true-false statements that assess the extent of negative expectancies about the immediate and long-range future (Beck & Steer. 5 = “completely like me”) that best represent how well the item describe them.” “I let my anger show when I do not get what I want. 2005.” “If I’m angry enough. 1996). I may mess up someone’s work. or 0. of items 8 5 7 8 6 34 Sample Items: “At times I can’t control the urge to hit someone.” “I sometimes feel that people are laughing at me behind my back.3: The Five Subscales of the Aggression Questionnaire Subscale Physical Aggression (PHY) Verbal Aggression (VER) Anger (ANG) Hostility (HOS) Indirect Aggression (IND) Total No. I might give him or her the silent treatment.2. Tanaka et al.” “At times I feel like a bomb ready to explode. Beck et al. a sample item of which is “I look forward to the future with hope and enthusiasm”.2. if endorsed. Of the 20 true-false statements.” “When someone really irritates me. Eleven items are keyed true to indicate pessimism about the future. 1993. if not.3. 1974). Table 3.4 Aggression Questionnaire (AQ) This questionnaire is a 34-item scale measuring constructs related to the expression of aggression. 9 are keyed false to indicate optimism about the future.” “At times I feel I have gotten a raw deal out of life.” “I often find myself disagreeing with people. A total aggression score can be calculated from summed item responses. I may tell them what I think of them. Item scores are summed to yield a total score ranging from 0 to 20. High internal consistency has been reported across a range of samples (Benzein & Berg. hostility and indirect aggression (see Table 3. and five subscales measure physical aggression. 1982. 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”.” 97 . verbal aggression. Participants indicate a response on a five-point Likert-type scale (1 = “not at all like me”. High scores are taken to indicate a generally pessimistic view of the future and a high degree of hopelessness. Durham. 3.5.” “I get into fights more than most people.
5. Three factors – physical aggression.2.88 for the five subscales (Buss & Warren.4).4: The Three Subscales of the Hostile Automatic Thoughts (HAT) Scale Factor Physical aggression Derogation of others Revenge Total No. derogation of others and revenge – were identified and are included as subscales (see table 3. I’d kill this person!” “I’d like to knock his/her teeth out” “What an idiot!” “This person is a loser. (1997) reported high internal consistency for all three sub-scales. 1997. Snyder et al. ethnicity and history of motor vehicle crashes and injuries. Table 3.High internal consistency has been reported with a coefficient alpha of . age. with coefficient alpha values of . Boyd. derogation of others and revenge respectively.91 for physical aggression.” 3.6 Personal Information Form (PIF) Participants also completed a 4-page questionnaire recording personal information.” “I want to get back at this person.” “I just want to hurt this person as bad as s/he hurt me. 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.88 and . 2000). 1996). 5 = “all the time”). Questions included details about the participant’s licensing and driving background. Cascardi & Pythress.5 Hostile Automatic Thoughts (HAT) This 30-item self-report index measures the frequency of recurring hostile thoughts. gender. Williams. of Items 11 10 9 30 Sample Items “If I could get away with it.94 for the total aggression scores and ranging from . 3.71 to .” Participants responded on a 5point Likert-type scale (1 = “not at all”. Shapiro. High scores on a sub-scale indicated that type of hostile thinking had occurred to the participant frequently. 98 . 2000) and discriminant validity (Archer & Haigh.5. Previous studies have established high levels of concurrent validity (Harris. 1997. .92.2.
Participants were informed about the study and invited to participate on a voluntary basis. (d) the remaining instruments used in that particular study were presented. AQ and HAT. 99 . with an e-mail summary of results. (e) put down the first response that came into their mind. and (f) not spend too much time on any one answer. After the briefing period. Levenson. Study 1C: PIF. (b) the second instrument was either Form A or Form B of the BIT scale. BHS. BHS. A brief written description of the purpose of the research and general instructions (see Appendix B) was distributed. in random order. upon request. BHS.6 3. (b) give honest answers that described themselves rather than putting the “best things to say”. Levenson. BIT scale. Levenson and BIT scale.3. (d) read instructions for each questionnaire very carefully and complete them in the order they were distributed. the instruments were presented in the following order: (a) the PIF was the first one in the package.6. In studies 1 and 2. packages of research instruments were distributed as follows: Study 1A: PIF. Participants were provided with up to 60 minutes to complete the scales but in no cases did the average administration time exceed 45 minutes. Study 1B: PIF. (c) the last instrument in the package was the opposite for of the BIT from the one presented second. BIT scale and AQ. Instructions advised the participants to (a) answer all questions on each questionnaire.1 Procedure Studies 1 and 2 Data collection took place within a classroom or lecture hall during a regularly- scheduled class periods. (c) not discuss answers with others as they were completing the questionnaires. Participants were assured of confidentiality and were de-briefed. between the two forms of the BIT.
At initial contact. the research assistant informed the taxicab driver about the study. Reliability coefficients of all instruments were calculated using SPSS. Single-word substitutions in items were made in English or the driver’s first language if comprehension difficulties arose. aged 22 to 24 years.5. each research assistant hired a taxicab to drive to some location elsewhere in the Kuala Lumpur area. Over the course of the trip. with the remaining instruments administered in random order. provided assurance of confidentiality and secured participation. data collection was confined to times between 8:00 am and 9:00 pm. rel. All four research assistants spoke fluent English and Bahasa Malaysia. Structural equation models and path analyses were estimated using the same version of LISREL. 13. with the team of research assistants meeting regularly three times each week to calibrate administration procedures. linear and multiple regression analyses and logistic regression analyses were used to test the hypotheses. 3. AQ and Levenson scales. Independent-sample t-tests. 8.5. 100 . Data collection took place in taxicabs. 2002). research assistants verbally administered the PIF. as well as at least two additional Malaysian languages. rel. BIT. Confirmatory Factor Analyses (CFA) were performed on the BIT.6. This section provides a brief example of each one and details its use in the present research. AQ and HAT to determine validity using LInear Structural RElations software (LISREL. The PIF was always administered first. approached at a taxi stand or booked over the telephone.2 Study 3 For study 3. with prior research experience were retained to assist in the study. Two to four times daily. Specific statistical tests have been summarised in Table 3. Taxis were flagged down at roadside. Levenson Locus of Control scale. 2004). For safety reasons. as well. four female final-year undergraduate students.0.3.7 Analysis of the Data Data collected were entered and processed using Statistical Package for the Social Science (SPSS for Windows. analyses of variance (ANOVA).
4: Hopelessness influence the level of Destination-activity Orientation Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression 101 .1: Internality is negatively related to hopelessness H6.3: Externality (Powerful-Other) is positively related to Hopelessness Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression The Direct Effect of Hopelessness on BIT H7.2: The level of BIT influence the crash injury Logistic Regression Logistic Regression The Direct Effect of Driving characteristics on BIT H2.3: 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: The level of BIT influence the crash occurrence H1.3: “Access to a motor vehicle” influence the level of BIT Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance The Direct Effect of Demographic Factors on BIT H3.2: Hopelessness influence the level of Freeway Urgency H7.1: Gender influence the level of Hopelessness H5.3: Age influence the level of Hopelessness Independent Sample t-Test Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance The Direct Effect of Locus of Control on Hopelessness H6.Table 3.2: “Frequency of traveling” influence the level of BIT H2.1: Gender influence the Locus of Control H4.2: Ethnicity background influence the level of BIT H3.2: Externality (Chance) is positively related to Hopelessness H6.3: Age influence the level of BIT Independent Sample t-Test Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance The Direct Effect of Demographic Factors on Locus of Control H4.2: Ethnicity influence the Locus of Control H4.5: Statistical Methods for Hypothesis Testing Data Analysis Methods The Direct Effect of BIT on Accident Involvement H1.1: Hopelessness influence the level of Usurpation of Right-of Way H7.3: Hopelessness influence the level of Externally-focused Frustration H7.1: “Length of having driving licence” influence the level of BIT H2.1: Gender influence the level of BIT H3.2: Ethnicity background influence the level of Hopelessness H5.
2: Ethnicity influences hostile automatic thoughts H13.5 (continued) Data Analysis Methods The Direct Effect of Locus of Control on BIT H8.2: Externality(Chance) moderates the Aggression-BIT relation H12. the higher the BIT level Additional Analysis: Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression GLM Univariate Analysis of Variance The Interaction Effect of Ethnicity and Locus of Control on BIT The Moderating Effect of Hopelessness on Locus of ControlBIT Relation Multiple Linear Regression H9.1: Internality moderates the Aggression-BIT relation H12.3: The higher Externality (Powerful-Other).2: Hopelessness moderates the Externality(Chance)-BIT relation H9.3: Age has a negative influence on hostile automatic thoughts Independent Sample t-Test Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance 102 .1: Gender has a positive influence on hostile automatic thoughts H13.1: Aggression influence the level of Usurpation of Right-of Way H11.3: 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 H13.3: Aggression influence the level of Externally-focused Frustration H11.Table 3.2: Ethnicity background influences the level of Aggression H10.2: The higher Externality (Chance).1: Hopelessness moderates the Internality-BIT relation Multiple Linear Regression H9.1: The higher the Internality.3: Age influences the level of Aggression Independent Sample t-Test Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance The Direct Effect of Aggression on BIT H11.1: Gender influences the level of Aggression H10.4: Aggression influence the level of Destination-activity Orientation Additional Analysis: Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression The Interaction Effect of Ethnicity and Aggression on BIT GLM Univariate Analysis of Variance The Moderating Effect of Locus of Control on AggressionBIT Relation H12. the higher the BIT level H8.3: Hopelessness moderates the Externality (Powerful-Other)-BIT relation Multiple Linear Regression The Direct Effect of Demographic Factors on Aggression H10.2: Aggression influence the level of Freeway Urgency H11. the lower the BIT level H8.
3: Thoughts of Revenge have a positive influence on BIT Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression The Moderating Effect of HAT on the Aggression-BIT Relation H15. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) differed for male and female drivers. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) differed for drivers with different ethnic backgrounds. t-tests are used to compare the means of two groups. In the present study.1 Independent-sample t-tests Generally. post hoc analyses were carried out using the Scheffé method (Klockars & Hancock. hopelessness.2: Thoughts of Derogation-of-Others have a positive influence on BIT H14.7.2 One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) ANOVA is used to compare means for more than two groups. 2000). In the present research. t-tests were used to determine whether participants’ scores on psychological variables (BIT.Table 3.1: Thoughts of Physical Aggression will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation H15. locus of control. When significant differences were observed. 103 . 3.5 (continued) Data Analysis Methods The Direct Effect of HAT on BIT H14.7. hopelessness.1: Thoughts of Physical Aggression have a positive influence on BIT H14. locus of control. ANOVA was used to determine whether participants’ scores on psychological variables (BIT.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.
the direction of the relationship (positive or negative).7. GLM univariate analysis of variance was used to determine whether there was an interaction effect between ethnic background and psychological factors (locus of control. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) and behaviour in traffic (BIT). Application of multiple regression analysis involves more than one single independent variable. In the present research. to test whether hopelessness moderated the P-BIT relationship. the moderating effects of the variables were tested using hierarchical regression methods. the products of P x hopelessness scores were added into the regression equation. Also. if so.4 Linear Regression Analysis This analysis is used to determine if a relationship exists between a dependent variable and an independent variable and. In the present research. R-square and coefficient values were then estimated to determine the significance of the moderating effect of hopelessness.7. first P scores were entered into the regression equation. It is useful for analysis of variance models with one or more factor variables or covariates and a single dependent variable.5 Multiple Regression Analysis This analysis aims to examine if there is a relationship between the dependent variable and independent variables.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. 104 .7. 3. For instance. second. 3. linear regression was applied to examine the relationship between psychological variables (locus of control.3. multiple regression analysis was used to test whether internality (I). aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) on behaviour in traffic (BIT). hopelessness. hopelessness. In the present research. externality-chance (C) and externalitypowerful-others (P) have an effect on hopelessness.
Since driver experience and travel frequency were expected to have an influence on the outcome variables. logistic regression. “1” was scored if a crash injury had occurred and “0” if no crash injury had occurred. In the present research. 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. The validity of this measurement model was dependent on its goodness-of-fit and on the construct validity of its component variables.7.6 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. Goodness-of-fit indicates how 105 . 3. on the other hand. In the present research. to (a) assess the validity of the instruments.7. 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. SEM was carried out. as well as between several latent constructs” (p. using LISREL. The result was a measurement model described as a contextual-mediated model. 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). Linear or multiple regression seek to measure the degree of influence that variables will have on a dependent variable. Path coefficients were calculated to demonstrate correlates of unsafe driving according to their contextual proximity to crash and injury occurrence.3. each of the two outcome variables (crash occurrence and injury occurrence) was framed as a binary variable.7 Structural Equation Modelling. 710). these variables were controlled as covariates in the logistic regression equation. “1” was scored if a crash had occurred and “0” if no crash had occurred. That is. seeks to determine the odds that an event will or will not occur.
According to Marsh et al. If a researcher’s theory were perfect. The fundamental measure of fit is the chi-square (χ2) statistic (Byrne. the absolute fit measures included the χ2 statistic. including: (1) two absolute indexes. these can be classified as absolute fit indexes and relative or incremental fit indexes. For Study 1C. in fact. the better the model is said to fit. Once a researcher’s theory is used to specify a model from which the parameters are estimated. the model fit compares the theory to reality as represented by the data. In the present research. the estimated covariance matrix is compared mathematically to the actual observed covariance matrix to provide an estimate of model fit.well the measurement model reproduces the covariance matrix among indicator items That is. p. 745). the adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI) and the expected cross- 106 . Thus. additional measures were used to compare the relative fit of two models under consideration. 2006. Absolute fit measures are a direct measure of how well the model specified by the researcher reproduces the researcher’s data. Incremental fit measures assess how well a specified model fits relative to some alternative baseline model. 1998). than anyone would want to report” (Maryuma. the estimated covariance matrix (∑k) and the actual covariance matrix (S) would be the same. (Hair et al. Incremental fit measures included the comparative fit index (CFI). the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) and the root mean square residual (RMR). the χ2/df ratio the goodness-of-fit index (GFI). but a wide array of tests of the overall fit of SEM models – “more. (1988).. 1998) – presently exists. The closer the values of these two matrices are to each other.
The probability value associated with χ2 indicates the likelihood of obtaining a χ2 value that exceeds the χ2 value when null hypothesis (specific matrices for the model under study is valid) is true (Byrne.7. 3. 3.7.. fit the population covariance matrix if it were available” (Byrne. Thus. the normed fit index (NFI).7. pp. 2006).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. when the ratio of χ2 to df yields a value of less than 3.10 indicate poor fit. 1998.7. the closer the fit between the hypothesized model (established under the null hypothesis). with unknown but optimally chosen parameter values.7.0. (2006) have highlighted that for sample size greater than 250 (with a number of observed variables less than 12). 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. 3.3 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. one incremental index. an insignificant p-value is expected. the higher the probability associated with χ2. 112).00 in which values greater than .validation index (ECVI).1 Chi-Square (χ2). 107 . and a measure of parsimony fit. Carmines and McIver (1981) have noted that.7. For a sample size less than 250 (and with number of observed variables that is less than 12). 1998). RMSEA values can range from zero to 1. 2006). Hair et al. the ratio indicates a good fit. the parsimony goodness-of-fit index (PGFI). an insignificant p-value can result in good fit. However.
Bentler & Bonnet. The AGFI penalises more complex models and favours those with a minimum number of free paths. it is known as one of the most widely used indices (Hair et al. an RMR greater than .6 Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index (AGFI) An adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI. 1985) accounts for differing degrees of model complexity by adjusting the GFI by a ratio of the degrees of freedom used in a model to the total degrees of freedom available. 108 .7.4 Normed Fit Index (NFI) One of the original incremental measures of fit.90 is usually associated with a model that fits well.7.7.00 being indicative of good fit. Thus. CFI is an improved version of the normed fit index. The index ranges between zero and 1. 3. the normed fit index (NFI.00 with value more than . and a model with perfect fit would produce an NFI of 1. 3.00.00 with value closes to 1.7. Tanaka & Huba.10 usually suggests a poor fit of the data for the model. 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.Root mean square residual (RMR) is another badness-of-fit measure. 3. but AGFI values are typically lower than GFI values in proportion to model complexity. The index can range from zero to 1. Values range from zero to 1.. 2006). with higher values indicating better fit.7.00. Since the CFI is insensitive to model complexity.7.5 Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) and Comparative Fit Index (CFI) The GFI can range from zero to 1.00.
James. 1982) uses the parsimony ratio to adjust the GFI in order to compare two models.7. In such cases. 1994).3. in this case. means a model with fewer estimated parameter paths (Hair et al. 109 . 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.8 Parsimony Goodness-of-Fit Index (PGFI) A third class of measures is sometimes recognised as the parsimony indices.00.7 Expected Cross-Validation Index (ECVI) The expected cross-validation index (ECVI. A parsimony fit measure is improved by a better fit and/or a simpler model which.7. 750).. p.00.. Browne & Cudeck. 3. 1989) is an approximation of goodness-of-fit that the estimated model would achieve in another sample of the same size Based on the sample covariance matrix. Although values range from zero to 1. a PGFI value is meant only to be used in comparing it to another model’s PGFI value” (Hair et al. Mulaik & Brett. The ECVI also takes into account the number of estimated parameters for a given model. It should be noted that.7. 2006). based on the combination of fit and parsimony represented by the index. Values range between zero and 1. the model with the higher ECVI value is generally regarded as presenting a better fit.7. 2006. designed specifically to provide information about which model among a competing set of models is best. The parsimony goodness-of-fit index (PGFI. Like other parsimony fit indices. and the model with the higher PGFI is considered preferable. it is most commonly used when comparing the performance of one model to another. “a PGFI taken alone is not a useful indicator of a single model’s fit. it takes into account the actual sample size and the difference that could be expected in another sample.
in this case. 1976. Many parametric statistics assume that variables are distributed approximately normally and SPSS calculates values for skewness and kurtosis to assist in determing 110 . 3. When p-values for the Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic are greater than our α=. It determines whether the scores in the sample can reasonably thought to have come from a population having the theoretical distribution (Siegel.05.3. and platykurtic if it is less peaked. 1976). which means that it falls between leptokurtic and platykurtic distributions” (Ferguson. In this case. If a distribution is assymetrical and the larger frequencies tend to be concentrated toward the low end of the variable and the smaller frequencies toward the high end.7. Kurtosis refers to the flatness or peakedness of one distribution in relation to another. it is said to be positively skewed. If the opposite holds.9 Skewness and Kurtosis Skewness refers to the symmetry or asymmetry of a frequency distribution. the larger frequencies being concentrated toward the high end of the variable and the smaller frequencies toward the low end. the distribution is said to be negatively skewed (Ferguson. p. the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to assess whether there was a significant departure from normality in the distribution of variable scores.7. 37). then it is possible to conclude the the data do not violate the normality assumption (Carver & Nash. the distribution of test scores to the normal distribution. 2000). 1956). “It is conventional to speak of a distribution as leptokurtic if is more peaked than … the normal distribution.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 normal distribution is spoken of as mesokurtic.
2005. 111 . if skewness and kurtosis less than ±1. A commonly used guideline is that. the variable is at least approximately normal (Leech. 1997).normality of variable distributions. Barrett & Morgan. Marcoulides & Hershberger.
1% 121 22. The contextual mediated model was tested using (1) regression analysis (SPPS) and (2) structural equation modelling (LISREL).5% Ethnicity MalaysianChinese 229 51.9% Total 441 100% 45.9% 977 100% 100% Female Total 112 . Thirteen of the participants did not complete all the questionnaires and two participants completing questionnaires reported that they did not have driving licences. descriptive statistics are presented and the results of hypothesis testing are reported.4% 146 14.9% 14.1% 536 100% 54.CHAPTER 4 ANALYSIS OF THE DATA This chapter presents the results of the research.3% 8.6% 82 15.4% 269 27. There were 855 participants for whom the primary mode of transportation was the automobile and 133 for whom the motorcycle was the primary mode of transportation (see Table 4.1 Description of the Samples Age.1). with a mean age of 20.1: 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 33.5% 6. with results of these tests reported in this chapter. Gender and Ethnicity Participants were 992 undergraduate students at an English-language Malaysian university. Thus 977 participants were included in the analysis.9% 23.5% 57. 4.6% 15.6% 12.55). It begins with a discussion of reliability and validity tests of the instruments.1% 34.5% MalaysianIndian 64 14. Ages of participants ranged from 18 to 29 years. A contextual mediated model showing interrelationships between variables is introduced.5% 27.1 4. Then.1% 562 57.4% 333 62.1. Table 4.13 years (SD = 1.
53.68.25 years (SD = 1. followed by Malay (27. Thus. with a mean age of 20.35.43 years (SD = 1.63.5 per cent) and Malaysian-Indian (14. 302 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode of transportation to be the automobile comprised the sample. 113 . 149 taxicab drivers participated. In Study 3. 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 20.89 years (SD = 1.1) showed that most of the drivers were female Malaysian-Chinese.01 years (SD = 1. In Study 2. 252 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode of transportation to be the automobile comprised the sample. In Study 1B. In Study 1A. 301 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode of transportation to be the automobile comprised the sample. range from 18 to 25).Female participants (approximately 55 per cent) slightly out-numbered males. with a mean age of 19. range of 18 to 26). Malaysian-Chinese represented the highest number of participants (57. with a mean age of 20. In Study 1C. A crosstabulation between gender and ethnicity (see Table 4. 122 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode of transportation to be the motorcycle comprised the sample. range from 18 to 27).9 per cent). range from 18 to 29).5 per cent).
19 S.43 19. Participants who had received their driving licenses in Selangor. Table 4. they hailed from across the country (see table 4.63 11.5 114 .2. 2 and 3 Gender STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 3 N 301 302 252 122 133 Mean Age 20.D.89 20. range from 23 to 73).3% of the sample.2: Age.01 20.1 6. Descriptive data for each sample are provided in Table 4.9 2. Gender and Ethnicity of Participants in Studies 1. Johor or Perak made up 53. Participants from East Malaysia comprised 5.2 7.1. The mean age was 43.2 Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 1 Although participants in Studies 1A.7 4.53 1.3: 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. 1B and 1C were all students at a single Malaysian university.68 1.5 8. SD = standard deviation 4.65 Male Female Malay Ethnicity MalaysianChinese MalaysianIndian 105 175 88 73 133 196 127 164 49 0 68 87 81 33 55 202 166 128 66 52 31 49 43 23 26 Note: N=sample size .3 11. Kuala Lumpur. 1. Table 4.19 years (SD = 11.35 1.25 43.3).responses from 133 taxicab drivers were included in data analysis.65.4% of the sample.
7 11.5 1.4: States from Which Study 2 Participants Had Acquired Their Original Motorcyclists’ Licenses N Johor Kedah Kelantan Kuala Lumpur Melaka Negeri Sembilan Pahang Penang Perak Perlis Sabah Sarawak Selangor Terengganu 17 9 1 11 9 5 11 13 14 2 2 3 18 7 122 % 13.5 14.0 10.8 5.4 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.2 2.1.6 100 4. As the sample was 115 .9% of the sample.4 4.9 7. Perak or Penang made up 50. Table 4.7 3.1 9.8 11. but again they held licenses from various states (see table 4.Penang Perak Perlis Sabah Sarawak Selangor Terengganu 67 102 6 27 19 147 31 855 7.1% of the sample.1.6 1.6 2.3 Geographic Distribution of the Sample in Study 2 Participants in Study 2 were all students at a single Malaysian university.7 100 4. Participants from East Malaysia comprised 4. Participants who had received their driving licenses in Selangor.0 7.9 0.4 0.2 17.2 3.4).8 9.
intended to be representative of Kuala Lumpur taxicab drivers. the higher is the internal consistency of the measure. Sekaran (2000) offered a similar definition in which the reliability of a measure indicates the stability and consistency with which the instrument measures a concept and helps to assess the “goodness” of the measure. 4.2. In the present research.5).2 4. This statistic reflects the consistency of respondents’ answers compared to all the items in a measure (Sekaran. 116 . 1978). The reliability of the measures used in this research was calculated for each of the three studies and values for Cronbach’s Alpha in all cases were found to be satisfactory (see Table 4. reliability was measured using Cronbach’s coefficient alpha. 2000). no attempt was made to determine the geographic location in which drivers had originally received noncommercial drivers’ licenses. A Cronbach’s Alpha of . 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.70 or greater is generally considered acceptable (Nunnally. The closer Cronbach’s Alpha is to 1.1 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.
808 .734 .701 .726 Not Applicable Not Applicable α .720 .740 .824 . of Item α Study 2 (N=122) Motorcycle Drivers (student sample) Study 3 (N=133) Taxicab Drivers α .735 .718 .727 .808 .783 .810 .715 .715 .749 .739 .881 α .741 .742 .Table 4.714 .827 .5: Summary of Internal Reliability Coefficient Results Study 1A (N=301) Study 1B (N=302) Automobile Drivers (student sample) Study 1C (N=252) Variables No.768 Not Applicable Not Applicable .811 .711 .730 .747 .702 .707 .910 .733 .788 .783 .774 .887 .904 .890 .737 .738 Behaviour In Traffic (BIT) Usurpation of right-of-way Freeway Urgency Externally-Focused Frustration Destination-Activity Orientation Locus of Control Internality Externality (Chance) Externality (Powerful Other Aggression (AQ) Physical Aggression Verbal Aggression Anger Hostility Indirect Aggression Hopelessness (BHS) Hostile Automatic Thought (HAT) Physical Aggression Derogation of Others Revenge 26 11 8 3 4 8 8 8 8 5 7 8 6 20 11 10 9 .786 .727 .906 .782 .720 .772 α .754 .830 .782 .784 .738 .781 .817 .798 .756 .701 Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable 117 .740 .703 .
it was also possible to measure reliability as a coefficient of correlation between Form A and Form B (Synodinos &Papacostas.807 Study 1B . values ranging from .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 .857 .804 . 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.08 to .80 or above).806 . with minimal error variance caused by wording. ordering or other test construction factors” (p. depending on which is used (Byrne.10 indicate poor fit (MacCallum et al.4. confirmatory factor analyses using LISREL (Jöreskog & Sörbom.916 . 1998).2.802 4. 1998). 118 .2 Parallel-Form Reliability In the case of the BIT scale. 1985).811 . fits the population correlation matrix or covariance matrix.803 .801 . Sekaran (2003) notes that “if two comparable forms are highly correlated (. Reliability coefficients in all studies where both forms were used are acceptable since Form A and Form B were highly correlated.807 . The root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) index measures the error of approximation in the population and determines whether the model.6. Byrne. more than .903 .876 . and those greater than . In Study 3. The results of parallel-form reliability for the BIT instrument in different studies are shown in Table 4.800 . we may be fairly certain that the measures are reasonably reliable.05 indicate good fit.80. 1998).953 . 1998.808 Study 2 . with unknown but optimally chosen parameter values.929 . only Form A was used. Table 4. 2002) was used to establish evidence of construct validity for various measures.2.805 .3 Validity Test Results In the present research.10 indicate a mediocre fit.958 .804 Study 1C . 205).804 . RMSEA values less than .
98 .074 .000 .97 1.96 . A third statistic.97 1. CFI= Comparative Fit Index 119 .00 .048 .097 .024 .00. although the GFI index ranges from zero to 1. the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) is estimated to indicate whether complete covariation in the data is achieved. This reflects that the model fits worse than no model at all. GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index. the higher the goodness-of-fit).047 . it is possible to have negative GFI.00 1.98 1.00 1.97 . and destination-activity orientation.000 .Jöreskog and Sörbom (1993) reported that.00 Study 2 RMSEA Study 3 CFI RMSEA GFI GFI CFI Behaviour In Traffic (BIT) Usurpation of right-of-way Freeway Urgency Externally-Focused Frustration Destination-Activity Orientation . parameter values for all four of these factors were within acceptable ranges.00 1.91 .00 1.000 .99 .00 1.000 .1 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the BIT Scale In the present research.96 1. externally-focused frustration.92 1.90.3.054 . and both GFI and CFI were more than .90.00 . As shown in Table 4.098 . Table 4.00 1.000 .95 1.93 .00 1. 4.000 . 1992).00 .000 .98 .00 1. RMSEA values in each case were less than .99 . freeway urgency.00 .99 .7: Validity of BIT scales – Summary of Confirmatory Factor Analyses Study 1A RMSEA Study 1B CFI RMSEA Study 1C CFI RMSEA GFI GFI GFI CFI Behaviour In Traffic (BIT) Usurpation of right-of-way Freeway Urgency Externally-Focused Frustration Destination-Activity Orientation .00 (the closer to 1.96 .061 .98 Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation.00 1. drivers’ behaviour in traffic was measured by the four component factors of the BIT scale: usurpation of right-of-way.92 .98 1.00 .7. indicating good fits. If the value of CFI exceeds .96 .089 .097 .99 .99 .91 .92 .000 .00 .070 . it is generally considered an acceptable fit to the data (Bentler.2.100.077 .
081 .93 .3.98 . indicating good fits (See Table 4. Five component factors of aggression were measured: physical aggression (PHY).100.96 .059 .98 Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation.92 . GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index.2.4.93 .99 .00 .93 .030 .98 .91 .058 .083 . RMSEA values were less than .071 .97 .2. hostility (HOS) and indirect aggression 120 .96 .93 . C and P scales were all within acceptable ranges.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).90.95 .91 . externality-chance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P).93 .91 .052 .073 .92 .93 .085 .000 .99 .096 .8.085 . and both GFI and CFI were more than .92 . CFA revealed that parameter values for I.98 .98 Study 2 RMSEA Study 3 CFI RMSEA GFI GFI CFI Locus of Control Internality Externality (Chance) Externality (Powerful-Other) .95 .091 .97 .93 . verbal aggression (VER).2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Levenson Locus of Control Scale Locus of control was measured across three dimensions: internality (I).96 .081 .063 .3. Table 4. CFI= Comparative Fit Index 4.8: Validity of the Levenson Locus of Control Scale – Summary of Confirmatory Factor Analysis Study 1A RMSEA Study 1B CFI RMSEA Study 1C RMSEA GFI GFI CFI GFI CFI Locus of Control Internality Externality (Chance) Externality (Powerful-Other) . under the assumption that locus of control is a multidimensional phenomenon. anger (ANG).96 . Each component of the locus of control was measured separately.
058 . indicating good fits (See Table 4.97 . CFI= Comparative Fit Index 4.10: Summary of LISREL Results on Validity for HAT (Study 1C) RMSEA Hostile Automatic Thought (HAT) Physical Aggression Derogation of Others Revenge GFI CFI .96 .10).92 .98 .088 .95 . 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).3. GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index.98 .081 . and both GFI and CFI were more than .070 .98 .97 .92 . A total aggression score was arrived at by summing the five subscale scores. and both GFI and CFI were more than .047 .94 . CFA revealed that parameter values for all three measurement scales were within acceptable ranges.97 . indicating good fit (see Table 4.94 .97 .92 .100.098 .088 . CFI= Comparative Fit Index 121 .9).97 .98 .98 .098 . Table 4.97 Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation.090 .055 .081 .(IND).070 . RMSEA values were less than .98 . Three classes of hostile automatic thoughts were measured: physical aggression.96 Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation.93 .096 . GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index.98 .073 .99 .97 .96 .90.98 .9: Validity of the AQ scales – Summary of Confirmatory Factor Analysis Study 1B RMSEA Study 1C CFI RMSEA Study 3 CFI RMSEA GFI GFI GFI CFI Aggression (AQ) Physical Aggression Verbal Aggression Anger Hostility Indirect Aggression .98 .100.97 .98 .025 .98 .095 .97 .97 . Table 4.95 .2.083 . CFA revealed that parameter values for all five aggression subscales were within acceptable ranges. RMSEA values were less than .98 .089 .90.97 .96 .
140) .154(.962 (.099(.280) .409(.11 indicates that variable distribution fell within these limits.280) .107 (.140) .064) 1.094 (.409(.179(.022 (.356 (. Table 4.085) 1.192(.280) .140) .280) -.082 (. 2006).297 (.403(.280) .11: Normality Tests.331(.323 (..102) 1.05).219 (.120) 1.034 (.204(.064(.099(.297(.105 (.188(.085) 1.080(.875(.239 (.246(.146(.280) .140) -.140) -.140) -.126(.183) 1.582(.453(.280) . Marcoulides & Hershberger.351 (.140) -.. indicating that the distribution of scores did not depart from normality.192) 1. Normality can also be assessed by examining sknewness and kurtosis values (Hair et al.140) -.241(.140) .280) -.379(.069) 1.280) -. Skewness and Kurtosis Data were studied to determine whether they were normally distributed and therefore capable of satisfying parametric assumptions. Kurtosis and Skewness Statistics KolmogorovSmirnov Z (Significance Level) Skewness Kurtosis Statistic Statistic (Standard (Standard Error) Error) Study 1A Internality Externality (Chance) Externality (Powerful Other) Hopelessness BIT Usurpation right-of-way Freeway Urgency Externally Focused Frustration Destination-activity Orientation 1.126(.020 (.280) -.656(.260) .280) -.3 Normality. Skewness and kurtosis values of ± 1 are acceptable (Leech et al.140) .140) .140) -.140) -.064(.140) -. but with a non-signficant platykurtic tendency for the locus of control data.099) 1.099) 1.057) 1.4.140) .140) -.226 (.511(.353(.280) .037(. In all cases.297(.183) 1.091(.719(.186) 1.140) -.280) .560(. 2005.140) .091) 1.280) .408(.191) 1.140) .278(.140) Study 1B Internality Externality (Chance) Externality (Powerful Other) Hopelessness BIT Usurpation right-of-way Freeway Urgency Externally Focused Frustration Destination-activity Orientation AQ Physical Aggression Verbal Aggression Anger Hostility Indirect Aggression 122 .256 (. values for the Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic were non-significant (p>.085 (.085 (.280) .428) . Table 4. 1997).410(.280) .190) 1.091(.280) -.106) 1.203(.805(.920(.280) -.179(.052) 1.010 (.107) 1.195 (.280) -.280) -.278(.140) -.560(.332 (.280) .
417) -.219) -.053(.629(.153) .392(.084) 1.219) .106 (.435) -.306) -.360) .256(.153) -.847 (.306) -.417) -.417) .266 (.219) .359 (.099) 1.113 (.366(.210) Study 2 Internality Externality (Chance) Externality (Powerful Other) Hopelessness BIT Usurpation right-of-way Freeway Urgency Externally Focused Frustration Destination-activity Orientation Study 3 Internality Externality (Chance) Externality (Powerful Other) BIT Usurpation right-of-way Freeway Urgency Externally Focused Frustration Destination-activity Orientation AQ Physical Aggression Verbal Aggression Anger Hostility Indirect Aggression 123 .106(.236(.051) 1.306) -.973(306) .417) .219) -.147(.209(.223 (.915(.715(.007(.11 (continued) KolmogorovSmirnov Z (Significance Level) Kurtosis Statistic (Standard Error) Skewness Statistic (Standard Error) Study 1C Internality Externality (Chance) Externality (Powerful Other) Hopelessness BIT Usurpation right-of-way Freeway Urgency Externally Focused Frustration Destination-activity Orientation AQ Physical Aggression Verbal Aggression Anger Hostility Indirect Aggression HAT Physical Aggression Degrerotion Revenge 1.210) -.293 (.003 (.210) -.994(.940(.359 (.451(.210) .219) .497(.101) 1.567(.640(.153) .366) 1.247) .719(.276 (.153) .098) 1.153) .160 (.088 (.102) .153) .153) -.469) 1.259) .306) .011 (.247) 1.435) -.153) .360) .297 (.153) .503(.142(.120(.157) .219) .354 (.443(.884(.052) 1.952(.153) .852(.128 (.324(.478(.978(.822 (.435) -.186(.070 (.567(.244(.110 (.417) -.306) .306) -.533) .417) .435) -.962 (.198(.264) .104) 1.841(.959 (.265) 1.130(.100) .210) .210) .271(.147(.414(.306) -.135) 1.919 (.024 (.467(.713(.106(.128) .805 (.098) 1.001 (.051) .317) 1.540(.210) -.153) .799(.057) 1.006(.270) 1.807 (.979(.153) .681(.279 (.370(.153) .426) .022 (.417) .022 (.159(.417) -.Table 4.138(.276(.306) .210) .435) -.295(.375) 1.423(.300(.417) -.435) -.417) -.306) .327 (.154) -.852(.210) .062(.210) .131(.962(.360) .210) .510) 1.277(.306) -.064) 1.138) 1.214) 1.463(.338 (.048(.052) 1.024 (.913 (.195 (.267) .501(.417) -.153) .362(.948(.153) 983(.417) -.435) -.210) .219) -.156(.972(.187) 1.435) .053(.360) -.812(.537(.913(.911 (305) 1.219) .321) 1.030(.306) .986 (.
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 b).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. injury occurrence was much higher. (3) injuries requiring hospitalisation (see Table 4. males were more than twice as likely to report involvement in two or three automobile crashes. column c). if so. (2) injuries severe enough to require out-patient treatment at a medical clinic (see Table 4.3 per cent being hospitalised. For motorcycle drivers. whether the accident had resulted in (1) no injuries or injuries insufficiently severe to seek medical attention (see Table 4.4.4 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. 124 . column a).12. However. with 44. 1B and 1C selfreported that they had been involved in at least one motor vehicle crash over the preceding year (see Table 4.13).12.12. Male and female automobile drivers reported involvement in one crash with almost the same frequency.
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 21 125 . Gender and Ethnicity in Study 1 (N=855) Automobile Drivers Ethnicity No. Gender and Ethnicity in Study 2 (N=122) Motorcycle drivers Ethnicity No. involved in one crash Total Ethnicity No.14) Regardless of ethnic background.13: Crash Occurrence Frequency. male motorcycle drivers reported higher crash occurrence than female motorcycle drivers. involved in two crash Total Ethnicity No.14: Crash Occurrence Frequency. Table 4. involved in one crash Total Ethnicity No. involved in three crashes Total Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Gender Male Female 80 57 119 103 33 44 232 204 24 9 19 7 7 2 50 18 12 5 9 3 1 2 22 10 Total 137 222 77 436 33 26 9 68 17 12 3 32 More than half of the motorcycle drivers sampled in Study 2 reported that they had been involved in at least one motor vehicle crash over the preceding year (see Table 4. involved in two crashes Total Ethnicity No.
standard deviations and relationships between distal. freeway urgency. 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. proximal and outcome variables within the sample of automobile drivers. BHS was not significantly correlated with verbal aggression (VER). All these correlations were significant (p<.05). Study 1C. externally-focused frustration. Hopelessness (BHS) was the only independent variable that was not significantly correlated with crash occurrence and injury occurrence.05).5 4.16 shows means. Study 1B. and destination-activity orientation. All distal and proximal variables were positively correlated except internality (I) which was negatively corrected with other variables.5. Table 4. it was not correlated with injury occurrence.1 Distal and Proximal Variable Data Results of Study 1 Study 1A. standard deviations and relationships between distal. I was significantly correlated with all variables except with VER and hostility. proximal and outcome variables within the sample of automobile drivers. 126 . Also.17 shows means. Although VER was significantly correlated with crash occurrence. However.15 shows means. proximal and outcome variables within the sample of automobile drivers. 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. in Study 1B. All distal and proximal variables were positively correlated except I which was negatively corrected with other variables.05).4. All distal and proximal variables were positively correlated except I which was negatively corrected with other variables. Most of these correlations were significant (p<. Table 4. Table 4. Most of these correlations were significant (p<. standard deviations and relationships between distal. crash occurrence and crash injury.
376** .749** .562** -.05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .818** 1 .23 2.405** .482** .381** .331** 1 * Correlation is significant at .04 26.97 43.57 4. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 9.88 7.339** .316** .435** .5 5.218** .027 1 .306** .201** .376** .96 19.246** .434** .147* .64 7.44 4.15: Means.22 3.716** .566** 1 -.036 .442 1 -.625** .155** .553** -.D.416** 1 .340** .544** -.129* .191** .78 .211** .45 6.662** 1 .476 .247** .08 2.901** .186** .471** .Table 4.239** .147* -.209** 1 .3455 .278** .69 24.388** .342** -.371** .513** .942** 1 .2691 6.58 .396** .00 165.804** .52 34.152** .280** .202** . 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.516** 1 -.345** 1 -.391** -.533** .76 3.01 level (2-tailed) 127 .231** .
343** .338** .140* .45 5 87.847** .376** .816** .407** 1 -.213** .9 28.48 5.173* .162** .411** .363** .355** .278** 1 -.440**.555** .298** .272** .067 -.60 10 16.520** .816** .69 8.84 7.355** .195** .D.463** .445** . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Distal Variables1 1 9.342** .586** .55 9 21.4960 17 .148* .378** .762** .43 12.294** 1 .337** .178** .331** .448** . Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1B (n=302) Mean S.172** .335** .167** .403** .491** .84 5.491** .515** .763** .438** 1 .97 Outcome Variables2 16 .66 3.05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .408** .82 7 13.372** .071 .200** .334** .147** .602** 1 .319** .509** .97 4 4.382** 1 -.25 8 18.099 .414** .028 .039 .964** 1 .213** .366** .254** .312** 1 -.697** 1 .9 13 46.462** .353** .430** .921** .41 3.731** .443** .343** .688**.386** .275** .587** 1 -.157** .400** .324** .176* .48 3.418** .452** .254** .01 level (2-tailed) 128 .505** .271** .53 19.051 .779** 1 -.444** .103 -.5 6 17.225** .013 1 .16: Means.00 14 19.276** .341** .842** 1 .06 3 2.401** .91 15 27.331** .268** .434** .380** .159 -.369** .855** .028 -.279** .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 .50 5.172** .213** .542** .358** .514** .461** .516** .65 Proximal Variables1 11 170.153** .393** .380** .14 4.531** .540** .481** .496** .240** .236** .286* .518** .669** 1 -.347** 1 -.103 -.355** .550** .5695 .85 9.003 .86 6.523** .22 4.584** -.150** .089 -.Table 4.489**.254** .4624 1 -.310** .56 2 4.9 12 71.3079 .521** .
119* 1 21 .81 -.016 .313** .277** 1 8 19.079 1 Outcome Variables2 20 .354** 1 5 88.377** .355** .306** .402** .221** .101**.258** .531** 1 10 16.615** .228** .545** .85 19.484** .109 .70 8.241** .254** .402** .141* .78 8.D.292** .075 .588** 1 14 20.395** 1 11 65.357** . Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1C (n=252) Mean S.219** .310** .235** .01 level (2-tailed) S 129 .838** .265** 1 19 25.385** .229** .17 -.181** .311** .05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .05 -.212** .076 .277** .218** .Table 4.97 -.151* .166** .120 .345** .387** .476** .401** .291** .03 5.241** .110 .314** .306** .222** .18 -.38 5.259** .162**.199** .109 .095 .081 .270** .103** .137* .210** .270** .37 6.216** .446** .264** .278** .69 -.166** .8 -.516 .246** .368** .735** .261** .192**.501 .7 -.057 .307**.725** .228** .051 .508** .483** .03 -.271** .413** .340** .131* .191** 1 3 .308** .383** .-181** .288** .81 5.80 17.151* .158** .202** .7 28.183** .67 7.038 .286** .31 -.305** .082 .856** 1 17 43.465** .275** .196** .185** .304** .199**.250** .379** .281** .191** .00 -.592** .245** .230** .434** .373** .130** .293** .148** .203** .549** 1 Proximal Variables1 15 161.226** .378** .259** .49 6.324** .526** .52 7.745** 1 7 13.278** .64 -.518** .224** .448** .235** .11 12.183** .749** .193**.069 .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 .210**.17: Means.189** .167** .296** .275** .338** .42 3.202** .224**.230** .454** .254** .186** .17 -.424** 1 12 18.366** .565** .862** .221** .98 4.534** 1 18 19.9 -.095 .183** .70 1 2 4.192** .370** .428** .281** .033 .423** .342** .58 9.895** 1 13 26.422 -.296** .139** .003 .641** 1 4 4.412** .189** .294** .747** .150* .404** .348** 1 6 16.456** .451** .251** .302** .91 -.70 3.298** .277**.304** .252** .349** 1 16 67.481** .209** .392** .364** .364**.296** .263** .367** .86 -. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Distal Variables1 1 10.227** .178** .343** .530** .89 5.9 -.174** .804** .343** .230 .106 .506** .502** .150* .422** 1 9 22.36 -.268**.390** .292** .320** .323** .31 3.356** .
1B and 1C. it was not correlated with crash occurrence or with crash injury. proximal and outcome variables within the sample of motorcycle drivers in Study 2. However. but it was not correlated with crash occurrence or injury occurrence. crash occurrence and injury occurrence. The BIT subscale measuring destinationactivity orientation was significantly correlated to crash occurrence but not to injury occurrence. Hostility (HOS) was significantly correlated with all other variables except with crash occurrence and crash injury. BHS was significantly correlated with total BIT score and with all of the BIT subscales. standard deviations and relationships between distal. Of these negative the BIT subscales measuring freeway urgency and externally-focused frustration were significant. Similar to observed results in study 1A. All distal and proximal variables were positively correlated except internality (I) which was negatively corrected with the BIT total score.2 Results of Study 2 Table 4. externally-focused frustration. 4. 130 . all BIT subscales.18 shows means.BHS was significantly correlated to the total BIT score and to BIT subscales: usurpation of right-of-way. and destination-activity orientation.5. freeway urgency.
349** .50 73.264** .240** .6803 .325** .200* -.409** .179 7.111 -.226** .06 20.028 1 .917 3. 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.18: Means.Table 4.291** .4683 .043 .025 -.876** . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 3.374** .212* .251** .314** .66 5.367** .D.630** .880 .334** .55 175.317** .76 48.072 .418** .165 .290** .376** .371** -.415** .485 11.233** .580** 1 .66 1.30 .035 3.313** 1 .795** 1 * Correlation is significant at .05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .167 .562** 1 .081 8.259** .219** .428** .413** .413** 1 .150 -.232** .500** .269** .383** .183* 1 .614** .621 3.01 level (2-tailed) 131 .535** 1 .48 5.182* -.4966 1 .192* -.356** .758** 1 .139 .14 27.941** 1 .323 23.5738 8.750** .122 7.201* .
correlations between I and distal. In this study. but remaining I correlations with BIT and AQ subscales did not achieve significance. 132 .4. Differing from Studies 1A. verbal aggression (VER) and anger (ANG) were significantly correlated only with crash occurrence.19. neither an observed weak positive correlation between I and C. 1C and 2. standard deviations and relationships between distal. nor a weak negative correlation between I and P achieved significance. 1B. While physical aggression (PHY) and hostility (HOS) were significantly correlated with crash occurrence and injury occurrence. Externality-chance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P) scores were significantly and positively correlated with crash occurrence and injury occurrence.19 shows means.3 Results of Study 3 Table 4. proximal or outcome variables in Study 3 were weaker than those observed in Studies 1 and 2. In general. However. proximal and outcome variables within the sample of taxicab drivers in Study 3. BIT total scores had a significant positive correlation with crash occurrence but not with injury occurrence. As indicated in Table 4. AQ subscales were significantly and positively correlated with each other.5. 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.
42 66.091 .45 19.646** .658** .156 .166 .152 .88 1 .872** .150** .12 4.092** .54 11.141 .371** .268** .32 7.246** .271** .156 .072 .588** 1 .234** .05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .2000 .15 32.401** -.292** .240** .43 8.257** .149 .643** .561** 1 .177 1 .213** .235** .D.072 -.121 .061 .604** .173* .236** .276** .013 .161 -.200* .149 .240** .117 .19: Means.165 .10 1.218* .021 1 * Correlation is significant at .204* .120 .020 .99 10.071 .11 15.51 3.235** .167** .023 .65 75.197* .576** .178** .040 .182* -.06 2.4 5.338** 1 .039 .117 .095 .106 .229** .172** .194* 1 .121 .Table 4.636** .3 6.84 2.023 -. 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 12.109 -.17 20.194* .286* 1 .180** .067 .454** .117 .35 11.82 11.324** .103 .151 -.443** 1 .521** .030 .01 level (2-tailed) 133 .048 .853** .025 -.245** .148* .373** .091 -.0301 .225** .528** 1 .255** . Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 3 (n=133) Mean S.864** 1 .261** .222* .114 .032 1 .13 3.060 .193* -.618** 1 .070 -.060 -.147** .112 -.128 .404 .116 .807** .378** 1 .153** 1 .054 .749** .213** .275** .07 8.82 5.171 .31 8.254** -.32 3.028 .018 -.816** .263** .08 15.74 15.418** .721** .289** 1 .05 3.622** .
063. and externally-focused frustration. Study 2: B=. Table 4. freeway urgency.04. p<.088 p<. p<. p<.090.01 Study 1C B=. p<.6.01 B=. but not destination-activity orientation.315.01 and Study 3: B=. These results supported H1.146.1 through H1. p<. 4.01 B=.202. For the destination-activity factor.01 B=.095. These results supported H1. p<.01.229.172.117. p<.063. H1.278. Study 1B: B=.01 B=. p<.01 B=.238. p<. analyses were conducted to test whether BIT scores influenced crash occurrence. p<.120.041.6 Hypothesis Testing This section reports the results of analyses to test the hypotheses formulated in chapter 3 (see Table 3.01 B=.01 Study 3 B=. p<. p<.01 B=.01 B=.01. p<. were significantly related to crash occurrence (see Table 4.01 B=. p<.20: Results of Logistic Regression Analyses Showing the Effects of BIT Component Factors on Crash Occurrence Study 1A Usurpation of Right-of Way Freeway Urgency Externally-focused Frustration Destination-activity Orientation B=. p<.01 B=.01 Not Significant Study 2 B=.1. p<.01 B=.3 inclusive.20).1.048. p<.125.135.01.1.1. When the relationships between the four component factors of the BIT scale and the likelihood of a crash outcome were tested.1).01 Study 1B B=.1 Hypothesis 1: Behaviour in Traffic Influences Motor Vehicle Crash Outcomes First.034. Study 1C: B=.01).095. While controlling driver experience and driving frequency.01 134 .01 B=. p<. p<.01 B=. p<.4 was not supported. p<. results of logistic regression analyses indicated that usurpation of right-of way. p<.01 B=.180. 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=.080.4. p<. that behaviour in traffic influences crash occurrence.102.
01 B=.120.01 Study 3 Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant 4. externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation were significantly related to traffic crash injury in all studies except Study 3 (See Table 4.05 Study 1B B=. freeway urgency.01 B=. logistic regression analyses indicated that usurpation of right-of way.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 B=.01).158. p<. p<.2 Hypothesis 2: Driver Characteristics Influence Behaviour in Traffic ANOVA indicated that driver experience and travel frequency had a statistically significant effect on total BIT scores of automobile drivers sampled in Studies 1A. p<.01 and Study 2: B=. Table 4.01 Not Significant Study 2 B=. Study 1B: B=. When the relationships between the likelihood of injury occurrence and the four component factors of the BIT scale were tested.24. p<.035. p<. p<.01 B=.22.038.019. p<. p<.01 B=. p<.064. the results of logistic regression showed that total BIT scores were strongly regressed with the likelihood of experiencing an injury related to a motor vehicle crash (Study 1A: B=.01.21).01 B=.01 B=.140.Behaviour in traffic also influenced injury occurrence in all studies except Study 3.035. p<.069.095.075 p<. 1B and 1C (see Table 4.059.01 B=.01. p<.01 Study 1C B=.033 p<. respectively). 135 .01 B=.087. These results supported H1.23 and Table 4. Study 1C: B=. p<.091. that behaviour in traffic would influence injury occurrence.6. p<.074. p<. When driver experience and travel frequency were controlled.01 B=.054. p<. p<.01 B=.118.165. Table 4. p<.2.
56 175.82 33.82 168.60 185.41 167.22: The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores in Study 1A (N=301) Variable Driver experience 3 years or less 3 to 5 years 5 to 7 years More than 7 years Travel frequency Everyday Several times a week About once or twice a week About once every two weeks Almost never Note: ** p<.77 165.35 33.64 27.77 8.98 171.29 21.89 21.074* 110 81 37 45 29 181.50 28.88 28.31 161.23: 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<.92 157.32 28.32 147.64 26.43 20.52 25.16 3. * p<.320** 64 110 41 17 69 173.25 5.600** Table 4.Table 4.35 24.01.184** 136 . N M SD F 221 60 19 2 168.35 155.30 22.48 171.35 4.06 19.68 26.01 N M SD F 186 88 18 9 161.03 25.25 25.05.44 178.73 170.98 33.15 161.
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<.61 165.12 161. In Study 1B.39 19.01). about once every two weeks (p<.12 154.00 14. 137 . the effect of travel frequency on total BIT score was significant. Drivers who travelled about once or twice a week had significantly higher total BIT when compared to those who almost never travelled (p<.52 3. drivers who travelled everyday had significantly higher total BIT scores when compared to those who travelled several times a week (p<.00 16. motorcycle drivers’ experience was not significantly related to total BIT scores (see Table 4. Drivers who travelled everyday had significantly higher total BIT scores when compared to those who almost never travelled (p<. * p<.29 15.01 14.77 16.73 157.01. and those who almost never travelled (p<.Table 4. In Study 1C.01).01). Drivers who travelled every day 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<.345* 67 69 33 45 38 170.01).05.06 8.06 160. N M SD F 187 46 16 3 159.14 15.01).25).81 167.05).060** In Study 1A.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<.05). On the other hand. In Study 2.05) and about once every two weeks (p<.05).88 167.73 24.53 17.
55 73.62 10. N.81 161.31 78. In other words. 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.33 78. both driver experience and taxicab experience were tested.Table 4.09 15. taxicab driver experience was not statistically related to total BIT score.S.S) 52 32 7 17 14 182.56 3.26: 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<. However. Not significant N M SD F 77 31 10 4 174.47 5.81 22.27 14.753* 38 48 27 20 77.05.89 20. It was found that the driver experience was statistically related to total BIT score (see Table 4.05.37 9.94 20. it is concluded that Hypothesis 2. However.71 168.31 2.859 11.80 22.381 10.97 8.S) Therefore.64 24. Not significant N M SD F 3 16 23 91 82. the direction of the difference was opposite to what had 138 .528** In Study 3.25: 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<.52 172.58 188.50 184.82 162.437 (N. N.920 (N.26 10. that drivers’ demographic characteristics would significantly influence total BIT scores was supported in studies of automobile drivers.26).60 72.S. Table 4.01. * p<.81 175.74 77.55 10.316 1.63 1.68 20. * p<.50 24.01.65 73.
in that driver experience significantly influenced total BIT score but taxicab experience had no statistically significant effect.27).3 Hypothesis 3: Demographic Variables Influence Behaviour in Traffic The direct effects on total BIT scores of three demographic variables – gender. Hypothesis 2 was partially supported in the study of taxicab drivers. 1B. the observed effect was opposite to what had been predicted by H2.2. indicated no significant differences in mean total BIT scores. In Study 2.1 and H2. only H2. 1B. travel frequency actually increased total BIT scores.been predicted by H2. the longer the taxicab operator had been driving.2 was supported in that travel frequency significantly influenced total BIT score but driver experience had no statistically significant effect. For ethnicity. driver experience and travel frequency actually increased total BIT scores. Contrary to the two sub-hypotheses. 4. though.2. 1C and 2.1 was confirmed. 1C and 2 differed between different ethnic groups (see Table 4. only H2. ANOVA results for age. In Studies 1A. ethnicity and age – were investigated. 139 . Hypothesis 2 was partially supported in the study of motorcycle drivers. In this case. Contrary to the subhypothesis. ANOVA indicated that mean total BIT scores in Studies 1A.6. the direction of the effect was consistent with the hypothesised relationship between driver experience and total BIT score. the lower was the total BIT score. t-tests indicated that mean total BIT scores differed significantly between male and female participants. Again. however. In Study 3. where male automobile and motorcycle drivers scored significantly higher than female drivers.
74. For taxicab drivers studied in Study 3.12. N. H3. male 140 . N. H3. N. p<. Study 2 t=3.562.62. p<. it was found that female automobile drivers scored significantly higher levels on the I dimension when compared to male automobile drivers. results showed that gender had no influence on the three dimensions of locus of control: Internality (I). Study 1B t=2.S.S.05 F=11.01 F=1. N.01 F=9. Study 1C t=3.4 Hypothesis 4: Demographic Variables Influence Locus of Control The direct effects of the same three demographic variables on locus of control were also investigated.2 was confirmed. p<. Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers scored significantly higher total BIT scores than Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers (p<. N.05. 1C and Study 2. 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<.S.9. so the null hypothesis could not be rejected and H3. In Study 1B. however. in that ethnicity significantly influenced total BIT scores. p<.44. In Study 1C. In Study 1B.01). it is concluded that Hypothesis 3 was partially supported in studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers. Note: Not significant In Study 1A. age had no statistically significant direct effect on total BIT scores. p<. and Externality-Powerful-Others (P).27: Effects of Demographic Factors on total BIT Scores Study 1A Gender Ethnicity Age t=2. in that gender and ethnicity significantly influenced total BIT scores. In Study 1A and Study 2.01 F=184.108.40.206. p<.05).Table 4.05 F=220.127.116.11 were confirmed. p<.00. In Study 3.S.01 F=2.05. In all studies.81.3 was not supported. Therefore.05).53. t(250) = 2. 4. p<. Externality-Chance (C).1 and H3.01 F=8. p<.01 F=.99. Malaysian-Indian taxicab drivers had significantly lower total BIT scores than either Malaysian-Chinese taxicab drivers (p<.S Study 3 Not Applicable F=3.01 F=19.
05 respectively. F(2. 298) = 6.941.01). 299) = 5.05) and Malaysian-Indian drivers scored significantly higher on the P dimension than did drivers in all other ethnic groups (p<.041. p<. ethnic group differences were significant only with respect to mean C and P subscale scores. In Study 1C.01. p<. In Study 1B.05 and F(2.05. t(120) = 2.05). 298) = 3.05 and F(2. 249) = 3.05 and p<. F(2. p<. post hoc analyses showed that Malaysian-Indian drivers scored significantly higher on the C and P dimensions than did Malaysian-Chinese drivers (p<.370. Post hoc analyses indicated that Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers had significantly lower I scores than did either Malaysian-Chinese or Malay drivers (p<. Consistent with findings in Study 1A.05). In Study 2.527. F(2.503. F(2. 299) = 3. p<.05. 2 and 3 the age variable had no significant direct effects on any of the three dimensions of locus of control. E and P scores. p<.490.462. p<. For Studies 1A.476. In Study 1A. 1C. Malaysian-Indian drivers had significantly higher scores on the C dimension than did Malay drivers (p<. 298) = 3. 1B. 119) = 5.05 respectively.566. Post hoc analysis showed that MalaysianIndian automobile drivers scored significantly higher than did Malaysian-Chinese drivers (p<. Post hoc analyses showed that Malaysian-Indian motorcycle drivers scored significantly lower than all other ethnicity groups on the I dimension (p<. t(299) = 2. F(2.01 respectively). all ethnic groups had significantly different mean I.01 respectively.01). 141 . p<. ethnic group differences were significant only with respect to P subscale scores.automobile and motorcycle drivers scored significantly higher on the P dimension than did female automobile and motorcycle drivers. ethnic group differences were significant only with respect to I subscale scores. p<.
However. it was found that the gender and ethnicity of motorcycle drivers did have a significant direct effect on hopelessness.05. H4. H5.1.01).3. externality-chance and externality-powerfulothers. Malay motorcycle drivers had a significantly higher BHS score when compared to Malaysian-Chinese motorcycle drivers (p<. H4. ANOVA results found no significant differences in mean BHS scores between ethnic groups or different age groups among automobile drivers in Studies 1A. H4.2. that ethnicity significantly influenced internality.2 and H4. Female motorcycle drivers scored significantly lower than male motorcycle drivers. externality-chance and externality-powerful-others.2.2. Hypothesis 4 was partially supported in studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers.3 were not supported. that gender and ethnicity influence hopelessness. In Studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers. 1B and 1C found no significant differences in mean scores of hopelessness (BHS) between male and female automobile drivers. t(120) = 2.3 were supported. ethnicity and age on hopelessness were investigated. were supported. Therefore. that age influences hopelessness.3. In addition. was not supported in either Study 1 or Study 2. H5.1 and H5. in Study 2.2. based on the results of t-tests and ANOVA. Age was found to have no influence on BHS scores with the sample of motorcycle drivers in Study 2. so H4. 142 . p<.2 and H4. 1B or 1C. in that gender was observed to significantly influence the externalitypowerful-others scores.3. Hypothesis 5 was partially supported in Study 2 with the sample of motorcycle drivers. Hypothesis 5 was not supported with respect to automobile drivers in Study 1. Independent sample t-tests on data from Studies 1A.Therefore. it was observed that age had no significant effect on any of internality.3.079.1. In Study 1. H4.1.6. 4.5 Hypothesis 5: Demographic Variables Influence Hopelessness The direct effects of gender.3 was supported.
6.6. Hypothesis 6 was partially supported in Study 2. that externality-chance and externality-powerful-others would influence hopelessness. p<.306.354.1. p<. I had a significant negative effect on BHS scores (B = -. p<.01 and B = . with higher levels of internality related to lower levels of hopelessness and higher levels of both externality dimensions associated with higher hopelessness.01) but C and P had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = . it is concluded that Hypothesis 6 was supported in studies of automobile drivers.2 and H6. that internality would influence hopelessness. 4.254.254. internality (I) had a significant negative effect on hopelessness (BHS) (B = -.01 and B = .6 Hypothesis 6: Locus of Control Influences Hopelessness In Study 1A.7 Hypothesis 7: Hopelessness Influences Behaviour in Traffic In studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers. but C and P had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = . that the three locus of control dimensions influence hopelessness.01 respectively).371.239. H6. p<.290. no significant effects were observed between I and BHS scores in the sample of motorcycle drivers. p<.312. In Study 2. respectively).1. p<.01.186.2 and H6. Therefore. In Study 1C.3.01) but C and P had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = . was not supported. I was found to have a significant negative effect on BHS scores (B = -. In Study 1B. were supported. H6. were supported.01 and B = . results of linear regression analyses indicated that hopelessness had a significant positive effect on total BIT scores and on scores for each of the four BIT component factors (see table 4.01 and (B = . p<. respectively). p<. H6.341. p<.28).4. p<. 143 . p<.01.01.3.01) but externality-chance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P) had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = . with the sample of motorcycle drivers. respectively).342. H6.
B=. p<.191.05) and destination-activity orientation (B = . p<. p<.151. p<.05 Study 1C B=.01 B=.254. p<.349. the higher the hopelessness scores. the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = .05). p<. that hopelessness would have a significant positive direct effect on usurpation of right-of-way. N. H7.232. freeway urgency (B = . p<. p<. freeway urgency (B = .3 and H7.01 B=. it was observed that the higher the hopelessness (BHS) scores.2.01 B=.151. p<.153.01 Study 1B B=.200. p<.157. In Study 1C. p<.01).05) and destinationactivity orientation (B = . p<. was supported in Studies 1A.153.157.288.415.01 B=.4.S. p<.01 B=. Therefore. the higher the hopelessness scores. externally-focused frustration (B = .01). the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = .275.232.151. the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = .05 B=. p<. In Study 1B.287.141. p<.01 B=. 144 .01 B=.01). it is concluded that Hypothesis 7. p<.099.01 B=.05) but not for freeway urgency. externally-focused frustration (B = . p<.280. p<.280.349. it was observed that the higher the hopelessness scores.287. meaning that H7 was only partially supported for that study. p<.1. H7. that hopelessness would have a significant positive influence on total BIT scores. 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=.275. p<.05). p<.415.01 B=.317.05 In Study 1A. externallyfocused frustration and destination-activity were supported in both Studies 1 and 2. p<. p<.418.05 B=. externally-focused frustration (B = . the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = . p<.01 B=.01) and destination-activity orientation (B = .278. freeway urgency (B =.247. p<. p<.317.05 Study 2 B=.01). p<.01 B=.01 B=. p<.01). H7.01 B=. In Study 2. p<. p<.01) and destination-activity orientation (B = . externally-focused frustration (B = .191. that hopelessness would have a significant positive effect on freeway urgency was not supported in Study 1B.247.Table 4.254.01). p<. with both automobile and motorcycle drivers. p<.05).141. p<.01).151. 1C and 2.
but not of the sample of taxicab drivers in Study 3. p<.01 B=.01 B=. H8. that internality would negatively influence total BIT scores was supported. that locus of control would influence total BIT scores were supported in Study 1. 145 . B=.8 Hypothesis 8: Locus of Control Influences Behaviour in Traffic It was hypothesised that internality (I) would have a negative influence on total BIT scores while both externality-chance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P) would have a positive influence on total BIT scores. but not of the motorcycle and taxicab drivers in Studies 2 and 3 (See Table 4.339.01 B=. With regard to H8.01 B=-.01 B=-. but not H8. Results of multiple regression analyses (in studies of car. N.753. p<.336.2.3. p<. with internality observed to exert a positive effect on BIT and the two externality dimensions to exert negative effects.3 that externality-powerful-others would influence total BIT scores. the higher were mean total BIT scores automobile drivers in Study 1. H8.1.01 B=-. that the higher the subscale score for I.229. p<.29).2. p<. the lower were mean total BIT scores.077.297.01 B=. motorcycle and taxicab drivers).388.S. the higher were mean total BIT scores of automobile and motorcycle drivers in Studies 1 and 2.044. where only H8. N. results indicated that the higher were subscale scores for P. it is concluded that Hypothesis 8 was supported for automobile drivers in Study 1.S. N.01 B=. p<.S.1.4.05 B=.168.1 and H8. that internality and externality-chance would influence total BIT scores were supported.315.01 B=. p<.6. p<. results indicated that the higher were subscale scores for C.178. With regard to H8. p<. Therefore.01 B=.006. B=. Hypothesis 8 was partially supported for taxicab drivers in Study 3.1.625. Table 4.208.29: Direct Effects of Locus of Control on Total BIT Scores Study 1A I C P Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 Study 3 B=-.01 B=-. p<. H8. provided support for hypothesis H8. p<.2 and H8. p<. Hypothesis 8 was partially supported for motorcycle drivers in Study 2.3.239.
704.272. F=7. Further.581. it was found that Malay automobile drivers with high externalitychance scores had significantly higher BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of way than did Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers with low externality-chance scores.01 (see Figure 4. p<. results revealed that Malay automobile drivers with high internal control had significantly lower scores on BIT subscales measuring usurpation of right-of-way. F=4.710. 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. =8.1: Interaction Effects between Ethnicity and Internality on BIT In Study 1C. F=4. p<.01 respectively (see Figure 4. p<.1). freeway urgency and externally-focused frustration than did Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers with high internal control. In Study 1C.01 (see Figure 4.1).05.Additional analysis: Interaction of ethnicity and locus of control on BIT. 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. 146 .909. p<.2). Scores for the three locus of control dimensions – internality. p<.01 and F=8. Mean Score on Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) 175 Ethnicty Malay MalaysianChinese 170 MalaysianIndian 165 160 155 150 low high Internality Figure 4.
05. First. hopelessness did not moderate the relationship between locus of control and BIT. 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. 1B and 1C.00 62.3).05. However. in Study 2.2: Interaction Effect between Ethnicity and Externality-Chance on Usurpation of Right-of Way 4. R2=.00 64. Hopelessness moderated the relationship between internality and the total BIT score and between externality-chance and to total BIT score. Residuals Normality: Skewness=. F=4.Mean Score on Usurpation of Right-of Way Ethnicty 74.282.6.9 Hypothesis 9: Hopelessness Moderates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Behaviour in Traffic For Studies 1A. the results of hierarchical regression indicated that the R2 value changed after the internality x hopelessness interaction was added in the regression model (R2=. B = .537) and the moderator (hopelessness) showed a significant result.034.00 MalaysianIndian 70.00 low high Externality (Chance) Figure 4.327.00 68. p<. 147 .00 Malay MalaysianChinese 72. p<.444. Kurtosis=-.00 66. multiple regression showed mixed results.033.
Residuals Normality: Skewness=. p<.4: Moderating Effect of BHS on the Externality (Chance) -BIT Relationship 148 .371). Effect for drivers with high hopelessness score BIT Level Effect for drivers with low hopelessness score Externality (Chance) Figure 4.01.070.608. 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 4.463.3: 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=.BIT Level Effect for drivers with high hopelessness score Effect for drivers with low hopelessness score Internality Figure 4.167. and the moderator (hopelessness) showed a significant result. B = . Kurtosis=-. R2=.4). p<.01.459. F=18.
p<.05 t=.S. however.S t=2. p<. verbal aggression and indirect aggression (see Table 4. male automobile drivers had significantly higher total AQ scores than did female automobile drivers. and t(250) = 2. p<. p<. With motorcycle drivers.30).298. Mean total AQ scores differed significantly between male and female participants in Studies 1B and 1C. N.2.164. p<.690.780.480.31).05 t=4.01 t=2.S t=2.677.01 t=4. ANOVA revealed no significant differences between ethnic groups in mean total AQ scores. In both studies. Hopelessness did not moderate the locus of control-BIT relation for automobile drivers. 1C and 3.10 Hypothesis 10: Demographic Factors Influence Aggression Analyses tested whether gender.30: Direct Effects of Gender on AQ Total and Subscale Scores Total Aggression (AQ) score Physical Aggression (PHY) Verbal Aggression (VER) Anger (ANG) Hostility (HOS) Indirect Aggression (IND) Study 1B t=2. t= . N. N.05 Study 1C t=2.210. However. it is concluded that Hypothesis 9 was not supported in Study 1. In Study 1C. the H9. p<.521.032.187. When mean subscale scores for the five AQ component factors were tested. that hopelessness would moderate the relationship between externalitychance and total BIT scores. t(300) = 2. F(2. 249) = 5. mean total AQ scores differed significantly between ethnic groups. N. p<. p<.690. results indicated that male automobile drivers scored significantly higher than female drivers on measures of physical aggression.467. Post hoc analysis showed that Malaysian-Chinese 149 .603. Hypothesis 9 was partially supported in Study 2. and H9. In Study 1B and Study 3. Table 4.01 t=2.603.Therefore.1. p<.01 The relationship between ethnic background and aggression was tested for automobile drivers in Studies 1B. 4. p<. p<. were supported.820. ethnicity and age exerted direct effects on drivers’ Aggression Questionnaire (AQ) scores.01 (see table 4.01 t=-.6.S t=1.05 respectively.01. that hopelessness would moderate the relationship between internality and total BIT scores.
629.041. In Study 1C. N.632.01 F=2.01). p<.432.763.S. N.S. When AQ subscale scores were tested for Study 1B and Study 1C. N.155. Table 4. 249) = 10. the mean verbal aggression (VER) scores of Malay. F=2. F=1. N.S.564. F=1. F=2. p<. F=1. Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers had significantly lower IND scores than drivers from other ethnic groups (p<. The mean indirect aggression (IND) scores of Malay. N. F=1. mixed results were found.561. Malay automobile drivers scored significantly higher VER scores than drivers from other ethnic groups (p<. F(2.S.01.S F=10. F=4. p<.041. N.182. 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.automobile drivers in Study 1C had significantly lower total AQ scores than did Malay or Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers (p<.S.05.S. F=2.S. Malaysian-Chinese and Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers were also significantly different.01). In Study 1B. N.S. Malaysian-Chinese and Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers were significantly different. F=2. N.S.S. 299) = 4.01).804. p<. Malaysian-Chinese and Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers were significantly different. N. F(2.S.05 Study 1C F=5.S.S.31: Direct Effects of Ethnicity on AQ Total and Subscale Factors Total Aggression score Physical Aggression (PHY) Verbal Aggression (VER) Anger (ANG) Hostility (HOS) Indirect Aggression (IND) Study 1B F=2.01).077.01 Study 3 F=1.567.432. N. p<.904. F=1. N. 299) = 5. In Study 3. 150 .398.422. N.021. Similar to the findings in Study 1B.521. F=5.01. mean IND scores of Malay.57. ANOVA revealed no significant differences between ethnic groups in mean scores in any of the AQ subscale scores. p<. F(2.526. F=.01 F=. Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers had significantly lower IND scores than drivers from other ethnic groups (p<. N. N. p<.
2. only H11.29).Therefore.3 (that age would negatively influence aggression) was not supported.3 and H11. and destination-activity orientation (see Table 4. VER and IND) of five component factors among automobile drivers sampled in both Studies 1B and 1C. it is concluded that Hypothesis 10 was partially supported.2 (that ethnicity would influence aggression level) was supported only in Study 1C and only with respect to total AQ. This means that when taxicab drivers’ aggression scores were higher. with regard to the taxicab drivers sampled in Study 3. that aggression would have a direct positive effect on externally-focused frustration and on destination-activity orientation.6.1 (that gender would influence aggression) was supported with respect to measures of total aggression and to the same three (PHY. H10. H10.1.32). that aggression would have a positive influence on total BIT scores. respectively.4. 151 . H11. externally-focused frustration. 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. In Studies 1B and 1C.4. H10. total BIT scores and scores on usurpation of right-of way and freeway urgency subscales were higher. was supported. freeway urgency. 4. however. linear regression analyses indicated that total AQ scores predicted the total BIT score and the scores measuring only two of the four BIT component factors: externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation (See Table 4.3 and H11. externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation. However. The higher the total aggression scores. were supported. H11. Therefore. that aggression would have a direct positive effect on the usurpation of right-of way. VER and IND subscale scores. were all supported. In Study 3. it is concluded that Hypothesis 11. in studies of both automobile drivers and taxicab drivers. freeway urgency.11 Hypothesis 11: Aggression Influences Behaviour in Traffic In Study 1B and Study 1C. H11. the higher were automobile drivers’ total BIT scores and scores on the four components.
p<. B=.01. p<. Also.S. p<.324.438. B = . B = . p<.01 Study 1C B=.01 B=.01. but not in Study 3. Verbal aggression (VER) was found to have no significant influence on total BIT scores.263. respectively. p<. p<.121.01 B=.505. p<. p<. p<. the higher were total BIT scores. B = .01 respectively. p<. Additional analysis: Interaction effects of ethnicity and aggression on BIT.216. p<. Results of regression analyses also showed that anger (ANG) had a significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1B and Study 1C. This implies that when automobile drivers have higher levels of ANG and IND.491.Table 4.385.380. p<.881.05 B=. N.01 B=. it was found that there was an interaction effect between ethnicity and verbal aggression (VER) on freeway urgency.S. Study 2 and Study 3. N.370.520.01.01. p<.229. p<. p<. Malay automobile drivers with high VER scores tended to score 152 .387. but that this does not apply to taxi drivers.370. 1C. 1B. Study 1C and Study 3.204. Study 1C and Study 3.32: Effect of Aggression on Total BIT Scores and on BIT Component Factors Study 1B B=.183.540. hostility (HOS) was found to have a significant positive influence on BIT in Study 1B.01 B=. F=3. When the interaction effect of ethnicity and hopelessness was tested on the BIT and its four component factors.05 (see Figure 4. p<. no interaction effects were found in all studies – Study 1A. and B = .545. respectively.01 B=.235. p<.01 B=. and B = . p<.565.01 B=.263. p<.461.01. Similarly. p<. indirect aggression (IND) was also found to have significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1B and Study 1C.01 B=. Linear regression analyses indicated that physical aggression (PHY) had a significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1B.428. B = .05 B=.01 and B = .048. However.5). p<.01 respectively. their total BIT scores tend to be higher. B = . With both automobile and taxicab drivers. B = . 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=.01.01 and B = .483. but not in Study 3.01 Study 3 B=. p<. p<. the higher the levels of PHY and HOS. p<.
p<. p<.316. F=100. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-. B=-. Study 1C and Study 3.961.00 46. and R2 values changed after the I x AQ interaction was added in the regression models (R2=.645. p<. p<.05.00 Low High Verbal Aggression Figure 4.100. The moderating effect of I was significant. Residuals Normality: Skewness=. B=-.01. for Study 1B.01.1 Internality as a Moderator Hierarchical regression analyses revealed that internality (I) moderated the relationship between aggression and total BIT score. and B=-.01.12 Hypothesis 12: Locus of Control Moderates the Relationship between Aggression and Behaviour in Traffic 4.003. R2=.297. Mean Score on Freeway Urgency Ethnicty 52.218.104.22.168.00 42.01.516. F=81. Kurtosis=-. aggressive drivers with low internal locus of control would 153 . p<.076.5: Interaction of Ethnicity and Verbal Aggression on Freeway Urgency 4.00 44. Kurtosis=-. R2=. R2=. respectively.362.00 IndianMalaysian 48. In other words.12.significantly higher on freeway urgency than did Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers with high VER scores.00 Malay ChineseMalaysian 50. 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.131.929.
507. This applied to both automobile drivers and taxicab drivers.015. Effect for aggressive drivers with low internality score BIT Level Effect for aggressive drivers with high internality score Aggression Level Figure 4. Kurtosis=-. p<. p<. respectively).704. R2=. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-. R2=.6). R2 values changed after both the C x AQ and P x AQ interactions were added in the respective regression models (R2=. respectively). p<. In Study 1B. p<.694. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-.088.271.360.757.01 respectively.01.387. p<. Residuals Normality: Skewness= -. F=91.015. Kurtosis=.01.have higher BIT scores compared to drivers with high internal locus of control (see figure 4. the hierarchical regression revealed that externalitychance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P) moderated the relationship between aggression and total BIT score.6: Moderating Effect of Internality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship 4.431.297.01.01 and B = . 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=. B = . and the moderating effects of C and P were 154 . and the moderating effects of C and P were significant.794. F=94. p<.2 Externality-chance and Externality-powerful-others as Moderators In Study 1B and Study 1C. Kurtosis=-. F=71.297. R2=.109.12.897.117.6. R2=. Consistent with the findings from Study 1B. Kurtosis=.01.069. F=78. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-463.271.369.606. R2=. R2=.
that the internality. and the moderation effect was not significant.7: Moderating Effects of Externality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship However.302. This means that aggressive automobile drivers scoring high on either the C or P locus of control dimensions had higher total BIT scores than automobile drivers scoring low on either the C or P dimensions (see Figure 4. hierarchical regression results showed that neither C nor P moderated the relationship between aggression and total BIT scores for taxicab drivers in Study 3. and H12.1. H12. B = .01 respectively. H12.7).2. R2 values did not change after either the C x AQ or P x AQ interactions were added in the regression models. p<. 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. it is concluded that the Hypothesis 12 was supported in Studies 1B and 1C. Therefore. p<. externality-chance and externality-powerful-others 155 .332.3. Effect for aggressive drivers with high externality scores BIT Level Effect for aggressive drivers with low externality scores Aggression Level Figure 4.01 and B = . with the samples of automobile drivers study for student car drivers.significant.
6. 4. that externality-chance and externality-powerful-others moderates the relationship between aggression and BIT scores were not supported. t(250) = 3. 249) = 5. p<.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<.05) or Indian-Malaysian automobile drivers (p<. H122 and H12. F(2. 249) = 4. p<.885. Only H12.3.01).343.01.dimensions of locus of control moderate the relationship between aggression and total BIT scores were supported. p<.05).737.279.05. Chinese-Malaysian automobile drivers had significantly lower scores than IndianMalaysian automobile drivers (p<. p<.1.01 but not on about the derogation of others. There were also significant differences between ethnic groups on subscale scores measuring statements about physical aggression F(2. On the subscale measuring statements about revenge. Post hoc analysis indicated that Chinese-Malaysian automobile drivers had significantly lower total HAT scores than either Malay or Indian-Malaysian automobile drivers (p<.263.05. ANOVA results showed that ethnic groups differed significantly with respect to mean total HAT scores.314. male automobile drivers scored significantly higher on HAT subscales measuring statements about physical aggression.01. Also.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. There were no significant differences between ethnic groups with respect to hostile statements about the derogation of others. with the sample of taxicab drivers. 248) = 3. p<.01 and revenge: t(249) = 3. However. 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<. Hypothesis 12 was only partially supported in Study 3. t(249)=2. 156 . that internality moderates the relationship between aggression and total BIT scores was supported. and about revenge F(2.
01.01. derogation of others and revenge) positively influence total BIT scores. p<. This means that. was partially supported. that hostile automatic thoughts would influence behaviour in traffic. p<. B = .307. 4.1. on total BIT score were also tested. B = . that demographic variables would influence hostile automatic thoughts. externally-focused frustration.364.2. it is concluded that the Hypothesis 13. that gender and ethnicity respectively would have significant direct effects on hostile automatic thoughts. H13.224. the higher the scores on the three classes of hostile automatic thought. Therefore.01. (that thoughts about physical aggression. p<. 157 . The effects of HAT subscales measuring the three classes of hostile automatic thoughts. p<. B = . was supported. linear regression analyses indicated that total HAT scores predicted total BIT scores. p<.01.413. and also scores measuring the four BIT component factors: usurpation of right-of-way.01. p<.3. the higher the total HAT scores. B = . B = . that age would influence hostile automatic thoughts.6. freeway urgency.14 Hypothesis 14: Hostile Automatic Thoughts Influence Behaviour in Traffic In Study 1C.1 and H13. was not supported.277.Therefore. p<.379.192. H13. respectively. derogation of others and revenge had a significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1C B =. it is concluded that the Hypothesis 14.01 and B = . This means that. B = . Linear regression analyses indicated that subscales measuring thoughts about physical aggression.3. were supported.2 and H14.01.01 and destination-activity orientation.394. with the sample of automobile drivers studied. H14. were supported. the higher were automobile drivers’ total BIT scores and scores on the four components. p<. the higher were total BIT scores. H14.
565.188. The R2 value changed after the HAT-Physical Aggression x AQ interaction was added in the regression model (R2=. p<. R2=. Effect for aggressive drivers with high HAT score BIT Level Effect for aggressive drivers with low HAT score Aggression Level Figure 4. p<.-554.809. F=55. Normality Residuals: Skewness=. In other words. Physical Aggression and Revenge.297.297.01. R2=. also moderated the relationship between aggression and BIT.002. and the moderating effect of HAT-Physical 158 . Kurtosis=.085).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. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-.013. R2 values changed after the HAT x AQ interaction was added in the regression model (R2=. This means that the relationship between aggression and BIT would be stronger among automobile drivers with high total HAT scores than it would be among drivers with low total HAT scores. B = . Kurtosis=.8).05.8: Moderating Effect of Externality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship It was observed that two of the HAT subscales.01. 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 was significant.072).4. F=57. p<.6.911.
p<. p<. that hostile statements about the derogation of others moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic. that total HAT score would moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic.01.01. was not supported. H15.6. were supported.3. R2=.2. The HAT subscale measuring thoughts about the derogation of others did not moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic. and the moderating effect of HAT-Revenge was significant.16 Summary of Hypothesis Testing The following table provides summarised results for the hypotheses and subhypotheses in this study (see Table 4. Therefore.Aggression was significant. it is concluded that Hypothesis 15. Kurtosis=. F=59.026. However. 159 .33). H15. that hostile statements about physical aggression and revenge respectively moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic.246. Normality Residuals: Skewness=.294. B = . The R2 value also changed after the HATRevenge x AQ interaction was added in the regression model (R2=.297.1 and H15. was supported.475.092).207. B = . p<.01. 4.
S N.3: Gender will influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H4.S N.S S N.S N.S.S S S S S N.1: Driver experience will have a negative influence on total BIT score H2.3.S S N. S N.S N.2.S N.S N.2 :Freeway urgency will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.S S S S S N.2.S N.S P.S S S N.33: Summarised Results of the Hypotheses and Sub-hypotheses STUDY 1A H1: BIT will have a positive influence on motor vehicle crash outcomes H1.1.1: Gender will influence total BIT score H3.4:Destination-activity orientation will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.S S S S S S N.2: Taxicab experience will have a negative influence on total BIT score H3: Demographic variables will influence behaviour in traffic H3.S 160 .S N.1: Age will influence the Locus of Control: Internality S S S S S S S S S S S S S S P.1.S N.2: Freeway urgency will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.2.S S S S P.S N.2: Traveling frequency will have a negative influence on total BIT score H2.S N.2: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.Table 4.S S S S S N.S N.S N.S N.S N.3:Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.3: Ethnicity influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H4.S P.S S N.S P.S N.S S S N.S S S N.2: Ethnicity will influence total BIT score H3.S 3 P.4: Destination-activity orientation will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H2: Driver characteristics will influence behaviour in traffic H2.2.S P.1: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.2.S N.S S N.S 2 S S S S S S S S S S S P.1: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.1.S N.3: Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.1: Ethnicity will influence the Locus of Control: Internality H4.2: Ethnicity will influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.S 1C P.S 1B S S S S S S S S S S S S S S P.1.S S S N.2: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.1.2.S N.1: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.S P.2.S N.1: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Internality H4.1.S S S N.3: Age will have a negative influence on total BIT score H4: Demographic variables will influence the Locus of Control H4.1.S P.S S S N.S S P.S N.
S S S S S S S N.S N.S STUDY 1C N.S P.S N.3: Externality-Powerful-Others will have a positive influence on total BIT score H9: Hopelessness will moderate the Locus of Control-BIT relationship H9.2: Age will influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.S P.1: Gender will influence Hopelessness H5.S 2 N.S N.S N.S S S N.S 3 N.S N.1: Gender will influence Aggression H10.3: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Externally-focused frustration H7.S N.S S S N.33 (Continued) 1A H4.S 1B N.S S S S S S S S P.3: Age will influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H5: Demographic variables will influence Hopelessness H5.S N.S N.S N.2: Ethnic background will influence Aggression H10.3.2: Ethnic background will influence of Hopelessness H5.S P.S N.3: Age will influence Hopelessness H6: Locus of Control will influence Hopelessness H6.S N.1: Internality will have a negative influence on total BIT score H8.2: Externality-Chance will have a positive influence on total BIT H8.S N.S S N.S N.S S S N.S N.S S S N.Table 4.3.S S N.1: Internality will have a negative influence on Hopelessness H6.3: Age will have a negative influence on Aggression S=Supported.2: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Freeway urgency H7. blank=Not Applicable N.S S S S S S S S S S S S S S N.S N.2: Externality-Chance will have a positive influence on Hopelessness H6.S N.S 161 .3: Hopelessness will moderate the Externality-Powerful-Others--BIT relationship H10: Demographic variables will influence aggression H10.S N.2: Hopelessness will moderate the Externality-Chance--BIT relationship H9.S N. P.S N.S N.S N.S N.S P.S N.S N.S S S S S S S S S S S S S S N.S N.1: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Usurpation of right-of way H7.S S S S S P.4: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Destination-activity Orientation H8: Locus of Control will influence behaviour in traffic H8.S= Not Supported.S N. N.1: Hopelessness will moderate the Internality-BIT relation H9.S S N.S N.S N.S= Partially Supported.S N.S N.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.S P.S P.S N.
2: Thoughts about the Derogation-of-Others will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H15.S= Partially Supported.S 162 .S S S S S P.3: Aggression will have a positive influence on Externally-focused frustration H11.Table 4.S S N. P.33 (Continued) 1A H11: Aggression will have a positive influence on behaviour in traffic H11.2: Thoughts about the Derogation of Others will have a positive influence on total BIT score H14. N.S S N.2: Ethnic background will influence hostile automatic thoughts H13.1: Thoughts about Physical Aggression will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H15.S N.3: Externality-Powerful-Others will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H13: Demographic variables will influence Hostile Automatic Thought s H13.S S 2 3 P.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 H11.1: Gender will have a positive influence on hostile automatic thoughts H13.S= Not Supported.2: Aggression will have a positive influence on Freeway urgency H11. blank=Not Applicable 1B S S S S S S S S S STUDY 1C S S S S S S S S S P.3: Thoughts about Revenge will have a positive influence on total BIT score H15: Hostile Automatic Thoughts will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H15.S N.4: Aggression will have a positive influence on Destination-activity orientation H12: Locus of Control will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12.3: 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 N.3: Thoughts about Revenge will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship S=Supported.S P.2: Externality-Chance will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12.S S S N.1: Internality will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12.
23 28 33 38 24 33 p-value GFI .f.00111 . Hopelessness (BHS). BHS. 2002).05522 . Table 4. This contextual mediated model was tested six times and the goodness-of-fit indices for these models are indicated in Table 4. two were worthy of further examination. F4 F1.52 (Jöreskog and Sörbom.068 . freeway urgency.045 . C. P. F3 F1. AQ I.4.97 63.060 Note: Internality (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.93 . F4 χ2 49. F3. F2. P. HAT I. Usurpation of right-of-way (F1).34: SEM Comparison (Study 1C) Distal Factors 1C1 1C2 1C3 1C4 1C5 1C6 I. 163 . F3. BHS I.93 . F2. F2. All proposed models measured: (1) internality. F2.90 110.02 d.34. Externality Chance (C).58 35. (2) usurpation of right-of-way. F3. AQ and Hostile Automatic Thought (HAT). Externality Powerful-Other (P).087 .1 Study 1C The contextual mediated model in this study was tested with four distal factors – Locus of Control.7. F4 F1. externally-focused frustration (F3) and destination-activity orientation (F4) Of the six models tested.96 .93 . F2. F4 F1. BHS. HAT I.093 . Hostile Automatic Thought (HAT). freeway urgency (F2). Aggression (AQ).g. 4. F4 F1.97 . P. Three studies (Study 1C: automobile driver. P. Study 2: motorcycle driver. These models were re-specified by adding different proximal context factors. HAT Proximal Factors F1. externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation as proximal context factors. P I. hopelessness or subtracting the latent variables in order to obtain the optimal goodness-of-fit index. C. e. F2. F3. C. AQ. F3.96 RMSEA . AQ.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. C.00000 . C.80 104. C. externality (Chance) and externality (Powerful-Other) as distal context factors.00000 .00126 . and (3) crash occurrence and injury occurrence as outcome. Model 1C5 had better fit but necessitated dropping one of the component factors. AQ.00000 . P.102 . Hopelessness.38 100.
96. 5.14. For Model C5.96.32. GFI=. AGFI=.98). . values were: NFI=. Externality (Powerful-Other).97. ECVI=.42.92) on accident involvement. C6. CFI=.28 and .23 respectively (see Figure 4.10). . 164 . The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that all possible paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant: Internality.94.22 respectively (see Figure 4. values for these additional indices were: NFI=. goodness-of-fit was characterised as excellent (χ2=35. The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=.91. d. goodness-of-fit was characterised as very good (χ2=63.3.=33.043.=24.045. RMR=. of the BIT score.f.5.043. Externality (Chance).97. . which are detailed in sect.10).13.35.f.92) on accident involvement. The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that all possible paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant: Internality. . . The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=. . Externality (Powerful-Other). retained all four of the BIT component factors and fit indices were acceptable. Making a decision to select one of these models over the other raised a number of interesting points. Externality (Chance).02. For Model C6. RMSEA=.26. Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thought had effects on BIT.51 and PGFI=.97. To aid this discussion. AGFI=. An alternate model.48.29 and . subsequent additional analysis was carried out to calculate a range of comparative fit indices. but not as good as for C5. The five distal variables accounted for 67% of the variance in BIT scores. For Model C5.destination-activity orientation (F4).99) and constituted the best fit of all six of the tested models. For Model C6. ECVI=.060. CFI=. GFI=. Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thought had effects on BIT. d. and PGFI=. RMR=.26. with path coefficients = -. RMSEA=. with path coefficients = -. The five distal variables accounted for 70% of the variance in BIT scores.42.
51* .f =24 CFI=.79* .32* Externality (Chance) . BITF2=Freeway Urgency.99 P-value = . *p<.97 GFI=.26* Crash Occurrence Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) . BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration.13* Externality (Powerful Other) BIT1 BIT2 BIT3 . BITF4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4.005522 N=252 RMSEA=.58* .92* Accident Involvement .Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome Internality -.97 d.57* Injury Occurrence .22* Hostile Automatic Thought Model Statistics χ2=35.9: Contextual Mediated Model 1C5 (Three BIT Factors) 165 .05 BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way.63* .045 RMR=.043 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.29* Aggression (AQ) .
13* Externality (Powerful Other) BIT1 BIT2 BIT3 BIT4 .f =33 CFI=.31* Externality (Chance) .Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome Internality -.63* .043 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.96 d. BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration.00126 N=252 RMSEA=.98 P-value = . *p<.060 RMR=.50* .05 BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way.22* Hostile Automatic Thought Model Statistics χ2=63.56* .92* Accident Involvement . BITF2=Freeway Urgency.10: Contextual Mediated Model 1C6 (Four BIT Factors) 166 .77* . BITF4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4.02 GFI=.39* .58* Injury Occurrence .26* Crash Occurrence Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) .29* Aggression (AQ) .
freeway urgency (F2).80) on the accident involvement. VER. ANG.65 and .13 respectively.93 . HAT-R PHY. Verbal aggression (VER).f.66). VER. HAT-D. F3. ANG.f.00000 . using automobile drivers sampled in Study 1C.91 . ANG. F2. Hostile Automatic Thought-Physical aggression (HAT-P).91. RMSEA=. HOS. F2. Usurpation of right-of-way (F1).078 Note: Physical aggression (PHY). d. HOS.66 153.66 131.00000 . IND.080 . HAT-D. HAT-P. The results for the goodness-offit indexes are shown as follows: Table 4. F2.94 169. HAT-R Proximal Factors F1. HAT-P. GFI=. CFI=. Aggression (AQ). F3.In addition. F4 F1. The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=. HAT-P. externally-focused frustration (F3) and destination-activity orientation (F4) As depicted in Figure 4. IND.91 . 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). the final model has provided a reasonable fit to the data (χ2=153. path coefficients = . 42 61 50 61 61 p-value . IND.00111 . F3. ANG.10. ANG.084 . Hostility (HOS).41 d. F4 F1. The proposed contextual mediated model was tested five times (see Table 4. F2.73 169. HAT-D. F2.078. VER. F3 F1. F4 χ2 108. Indirect aggression (IND). HOS. HAT-P.00000 .92 . Hostile Automatic Thought was found to have a direct effect on the AQ (path coefficient=.95). Hostile Automatic Thought-Revenge(HAT-R).084 .00000 GFI RMSEA .41. HAT-R PHY. HAT-D. the contextual mediated model was tested using Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thoughts and their latent variables (component factors) as distal context factors.=61. HOS.35). HAT-R PHY. IND PHY. HOS. F3 F1. Hostile Automatic Thought-Derogation of others (HAT-D). Angry (ANG). IND. 167 .081 .35: Different Contextual Models (Study 1C) Distal Factors PHY.91 .
63* Indirect Aggression . *p<.078 RMR=.80* Accident Involvement . BIT4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4.62* .90* Derogation of Other Hostile Automatic Thought .13* Model Statistics χ2=153.058 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.11: Contextual Mediated Model Study 1C (Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thoughts) 168 .61* .91 d.66* . BIT2=Freeway Urgency.68* Aggression (AQ) BIT1 BIT2 BIT3 BIT4 . BIT3=Externally-Focused Frustration.69* Anger .58* .Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome Physical Aggression .65* Crash Occurrence Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) .05 .95 P-value = .60* Injury Occurrence Physical Aggression .83* .72* .41 GFI=.000 N=252 RMSEA=.f =61 CFI=.65* .82* Revenge BIT1=Usurpation of Right-of way.29* Hostility .
F2. C.94 . Hopelessness (BHS). p-value GFI RMSEA I.17631 .12 d. externally-focused frustration (F3) and destination-activity orientation (F4) The model including Locus of Control has provided the best goodness-of-fit to the data (χ2=29.06722 .33 33.94. F4 F1. The four distal variables accounted for 49% of the variance in BIT.058 . F3. Compared to the Study 1 for student car drivers.94 . Externality Powerful-Other (P). F2.047. freeway urgency (F2). path coefficients = -.36). P. The goodness-of-fit indexes for these models are shown as follow: Table 4. RMSEA=.062 Note: Internality (I). C. P I. Internality and Externality (Chance) the Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) but not Externality (PowerfulOther). The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that three paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant.07580 . CFI=.86 23 28 23 .95 .4. GFI=.f.80 respectively (see Figure 4.f.98). BHS F1.65 and . BHS I. C. 169 .36: Different Contextual Models (Study 2) Distal Factors Proximal Factors χ2 29.047 . the participants were motorcycle drivers.12. The contextual mediated model was tested using locus of control and hopelessness as distal context factors. Usurpation of right-of-way (F1). F3.2 Study 2 In Study 2. the final model for the student motorcycle drivers did not include hopelessness. P. Externality Chance (C).66) on the accident involvement. F2. The proposed contextual mediated model was tested three times (see Table 4.7. F4 39. d.=28. The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=.12). F3 F1.
BIT3=Externally-Focused Frustration. BIT2=Freeway Urgency.95 d.05 Injury Occurrence Model Statistics χ2=29.80* Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) .047 RMR=.f =23 CFI=.046 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.70* BIT4 . BIT4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4.89* .12 GFI=.66* Accident Involvement Externality (Powerful Other) .99 P-value = .17631 N=122 RMSEA=.78* .65* Externality (Chance) .83* BIT3 . *p<.Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome BIT1 BIT2 .57* Internality -.88* Crash Occurrence .05 BIT1=Usurpation of Right-of way.12: Contextual Mediated Model Study 2 170 .
37). The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=. AQ F1. F3.3 Study 3 In Study 3. 37. C. freeway urgency (F2).027 I. F2. have effects on the Behaviour in Traffic (BIT). GFI=. C. F3. C.13).40) on the accident involvement.22 23 . P.37: Different Contextual Models (Study 3) Distal Factors I.39 21 .39. The goodness-of-fit indexes for these models are shown as follow: Table 4. F2. but not Externality.06743 . 171 .95. AQ F1. The four distal variables accounted for 12% of the variance in BIT. F4 Outcomes χ2 d. Usurpation of right-of-way (F1). C. P Proximal Factors F1. The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that two out of four possible paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant.7.20 and .4.94 . Internality and AQ.f. Externality Chance (ExC).061 Note: Internality (I).079 Injury Occurrence I. This contextual mediated model was tested four times (see Table 4.95). F2. I. RMSEA=. path coefficients = -. F4 Crash Occurrence 31. Hopelessness (H). AQ and only crash occurrence as outcome has provided the best goodness-of-fit to the data (χ2=31. Externality Powerful-Other (ExPo). The contextual mediated model was tested using locus of control and hopelessness as distal context factors. F4 Crash Occurrence 18. p-value GFI RMSEA Crash Occurrence.95 .03084 . the participants were taxi drivers. F3. CFI=.59 17 .97 . AQ F1.068 Injury Occurrence Crash Occurrence.20 respectively (see Figure 4. externally-focused frustration (F3) and destination-activity orientation (F4) Model included locus of control.00524 .82 28 .35265 .=21. d. P. F4 50. F3.f.061.93 . F2.
061 RMR=.06743 N=133 RMSEA=.40* Crash Occurrence Externality (Powerful Other) .20* Aggression (AQ) Model Statistics χ2=31. BIT4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4.13 .f =21 CFI=.39* Internality -.03 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) .74* -.61* BIT4 .053 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.39 GFI=. BIT3=Externally-Focused Frustration.95 P-value = .63* BIT3 . *p<.05 BIT1=Usurpation of Right-of way.95 d.Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome BIT1 BIT2 .20* Externality (Chance) . BIT2=Freeway Urgency.13: Contextual Mediated Model Study 3 172 .
8. Step2=independent variable has a significant effect on the dependent variable. (2) the relationship between locus of control and accident involvement. 2 and 3 are satisfied. 4. (3) the relationship between aggression and accident involvement. 4.2 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Aggression and Crash Outcomes The four-step regression analysis showed that BIT strongly mediated the relationship between aggression and crash outcomes (see table 4.1 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hopelessness and Crash Outcomes In all studies.39). Table 4. Therefore.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.8 Testing Mediational Relationships Using SPSS The mediating effects of BIT on: (1) the relationship between hopelessness and accident involvement. hopelessness did not significantly influence the crash outcomes (see Table 4. Step 3=mediator has a significant effect on the dependent variable.8. consistent with path analysis results. Not applicable = mediating effect could only be tested when conditions in Step1. BIT was a complete mediator for the relationship between AQ total score and crash occurrence. and. Step4=Significance level of the relationship between independent variable and dependent variable is reduced indicating a partial mediating effect – or – independent variable does have a significant effect on the dependent variable indicating a complete mediating effect. the mediating effect of BIT on hopelessness and crash outcomes relationship could not be estimated. (4) the relationship between hostile automatic thoughts and accident involvement were tested using the four-step procedure proposed by Baron and Kenny (1986).38).4. 173 .
4 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Crash Outcomes For automobile drivers.8. where the 174 .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. Exceptions to this were found only with respect to the relationship between P and both crash outcomes in Study 1A.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 4.41). Table 4.39: BIT Mediates the Relationship between Aggression and Crash Outcomes BIT mediates Aggression-Crash Occurrence Relation Study 1B Study 1C BIT mediates AggressionInjury Occurrence Relation Study 1B Study 1C Step 1 Significant Significant Step 1 Significant Significant Step 2 Significant Significant Step 2 Significant Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Step 4 Complete Mediator Complete Mediator Step 4 Partial Mediator Complete Mediator 4. 1B and 1C. Externality-Chance (C) and Externality-PowerfulOthers – 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. Table 4. in Studies 1A.BIT was a partial mediator for the relationship between aggression and injury occurrence.40).
41: BIT Mediates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Crash Outcomes BIT mediates I-Crash Occurrence Relation Study 1A Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 Study 3 BIT mediates I-Injury Occurrence Relation Study 1A Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 Study 3 BIT mediates C-Crash Occurrence Relation Study 1A Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 Study 3 BIT mediates C-Injury Occurrence Relation Study 1A Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 Study 3 Step 1 Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 1 Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 1 Significant Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Step 1 Significant Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Step 2 Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Not Significant Step 2 Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Not Significant Step 2 Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 2 Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Step 4 Complete Mediator Partial Mediator Partial Mediator Not Applicable Not Applicable Step 4 Complete Mediator Partial Mediator Partial Mediator Not Applicable Not Applicable Step 4 Partial Mediator Complete Mediator Partial Mediator Complete Mediator Not Applicable Step 4 Partial Mediator Complete Mediator Partial Mediator Complete Mediator Not Applicable 175 . For taxicab drivers in Study 3. Table 4.mediating effect of BIT total scores could not be estimated because requisite conditions in the second step of the analysis were not satisfied. BIT had no mediating effects on the relationship between I. With respect to the relationship between I and the crash outcomes and the relationship between P and the crash outcomes. C or P and the two crash outcomes. no mediating effect of BIT could be estimated since requisite conditions in the second step of the analysis were not satisfied. For motorcycle drivers in Study 2. BIT had a complete mediating effect on the relationship between C and both crash outcomes.
665. Study 2: t(421)= 7. p <. With respect to the three dimensions of locus of control. Study 2: t(421)= -3.01. p <.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 4.9 Comparison of Automobile Drivers. 176 . p <.01. Study 2: t(422)= 8. Study 1A vs. It was found that there were significant differences in scores for hopelessness. Study 2: t(421)= -4.9. There was no significant difference in scores on the P dimension between automobile drivers and motorcycle drivers. Study 1A vs. Study 1C vs. Study 1B vs. Study 1C vs.663. Study 1B vs. Study 2: t(372)= 8. Study 2: t(372)= -3. 1B and 1C scored significantly lower on hopelessness than did motorcycle drivers.01. Automobile drivers also scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers on C. p <. automobile drivers scored higher than motorcycle drivers on I.993.1 Differences between Automobile Drivers and Motorcycle Drivers In a subsequent analysis. p <. Automobile drivers in Studies 1A. Study 2: t(422)= -2. Study 1A vs.01.426. 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. Motorcycle Drivers and Taxicab Drivers 4. scores for distal variables (locus of control and hopelessness).01.837. p <.01. p <.05.Table 4.162.442.
Automobile drivers scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers in injury occurrence.2 Differences between Automobile Drivers and Taxicab Drivers With respect to locus of control.261. Study 2: t(372)= -5. Study 2: t(422)= -6.01. t(986)= 5. p <.200. p <. Study 1C vs.01. t(986)= 34.01.01.687. t(253)= 8. 4.977. Study 1C vs. p <. p <.01.01.9. p <. Study 2: t(372)= -7. There were no significant differences scores on either C or P between the automobile drivers and taxicab drivers. Study 1B vs. Study 2: t(422)= -4.01. t(986)= 7. Study 1B vs. Motorcycle drivers scored higher than taxicab drivers on C. p <. p <.433.01. t(986)= 30.01. p <. t(986)= 3. Automobile drivers scored higher that taxicab drivers on total BIT scores. p <. p <.861. Study 1A vs. Also. p <. Study 2: t(421)= -7.614.186. p <. and on all four BIT subscales: “usurpation of right-of way”.775. “externally-focused frustration” and “destination-activity orientation”.211. p <.01. p <. t(253) = 2.01. Study 1A vs. Study 2: t(421)= -8.01. taxicab drivers scored higher than automobile drivers on the I dimension. Study 1C vs.747.9.01. respectively. t(986)= 6.577. p <. and to injury occurrence. 177 .3 Differences between Motorcycle Drivers and Taxicab Drivers Taxicab drivers scored higher than motorcycle drivers on the I locus of control dimension.01.Automobile drivers scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers with respect to the total BIT score. There were no differences between motorcycle drivers and taxicab drivers on the P dimension. automobile drivers scored higher than taxicab drivers with respect to crash occurrence. “freeway urgency”. p <.402.01. Study 1A vs.01. Study 2: t(372)= -6.01. t(986)= 37. Study 2: t(421)= -3. p <. p <.704.484. and t(986)= 35.837. 4.01. Automobile drivers scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers in crash occurrence.926.801.
178 . p <. p <. Also. and t(253)= 37. and all four BIT subscales: “usurpation of right-of way”. p <.01and to injury occurrence.Motorcycle drivers had higher total BIT scores than taxicab drivers. t(253)= 35. p <. t(253)= 31.01.982. “externally-focused frustration” and “destination-activity orientation”. t(253)= 39. respectively.01.01.946.977.01. p <.881.016.567.737. drivers scored higher with respect to crash occurrence. t(253)= 8. “freeway urgency”.01.01. t(253)= 11. p <. p <. t(253)= 8.
1991). The present research applied Sümer’s concept of a contextual mediated model. exerting weaker influence or more equivocal results than anticipated (Dewar. 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. Papacostas and Synodinos (1988) investigated four dimensions of driving behaviour conceptually related to the Type A behaviour pattern (TABP).1). not directly on driving behaviour and crash outcomes but rather on some intervening variable located more proximally to the event (see sect. Evans.2. Composite BIT scores were comprised of measures of usurpation of right-ofway. human factors that conceptually might be expected to have a strong influence over driving behaviour and crash occurrence end up.4. including gender. ethnic and driver experience differences with respect to 179 . al. They found gender. in which the roles played by variables in mediating and moderating effects of personality factors are more closely examined than in the past. upon examination. (1993). age and personality may be the most important factors in crash causation (Bridger. in which a set of personality and demographic factors are thought to exert effects. Elander et al.. freeway urgency. Often. externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation. multi-factorial perspective.CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION 5. researchers have been frequently frustrated when attempting to quantify the effects of psycho-social variables on either driving behaviour or crash outcomes.1 A Contextual Mediated Model for Understanding Factors Influencing Unsafe Driving Traffic psychologists. While it has been generally assumed and frequently stated that driver characteristics. 2002b). Elander et. 1993. Parker (2004) and others have stressed the importance of examining crash causation from a broader. 2. In an earlier study. 1995.
One recurrent complexity that arises when trying to understand traffic safety. All too often. Every aspect of the traffic system is in some way connected to every other aspect. is that factors interact with each other. This was true with respect to both the composite BIT score and individual scores of each of the four component factors. BIT scores are considered proximal to the crash event. which somewhat complicates our attempt to stay true to our title: “Cause and Prevention of Roadway Crashes”. alter the outcome or probability of occurrence of crashes and these have been classified into broad categories using different schemes (Evans. if different. particularly between psychological variables and crash outcomes. Type A individuals were significantly more likely to have found themselves involved in traffic crashes and. As a result. 1991). but did not examine the effects of BIT scores on crash outcomes. though. Since high BIT scores indicated driving behaviour consistent with TABP. hopelessness. Further. except with taxicab drivers. In the contextual mediated model. in the deterministic sense in which it is used in the physical sciences or engineering. But findings were more complex than that. Results reported here suggest an elaborate relationship. the proximal variable. A rich variety of individual factors exists which. significantly predicted selfreported crash occurrence in all replications and with all classes of drivers studied. In the present research. The matrix proposed by Haddon (1972) is one example. were significantly more likely to have been injured while driving.total BIT score and component scores. the term “cause” conveys the notion of a single causative element. BIT composite scores are also expected to mediate the effects of locus of control. BIT. In other words. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts on crash and injury occurrence. and did so in all cases but hopelessness. for automobile drivers and motorcyclists. 180 . it predicted self-reported injury occurrence in all cases.
… 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. 22.214.171.124). 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
Hijar and Tovar (2005) have noted that social capital. Because of occupational demands. SD=22. Inclán. traffic exposure and other variables on the effects that internality and externality exert on driving behaviour. affected driving behaviour and decisions about the use of public roads. it might also be assumed that their traffic exposure was greater than that of the students. the extent to which an individual is connected to others through interpersonal networks. as it did with the less experienced university students in the other groups. respectively).7 months.hierarchy. although driving frequency was not measured for taxicab drivers. 20.25 years. SD=131.16.01years. social trust and norms that promote coordination and cooperation.3.5. there are other possible influences. For taxicab drivers. This would be an error more likely to be made by younger novice or less experienced drivers. Further research is needed to examine the influence of driving experience. Malaysian-Indian automobile 187 . but the externality-chance dimension had no significant effect.1. In the present study.2 years. and 36.53. SD=. For taxicab drivers. Of course. SD=11.66) than the automobile drivers and motorcyclists (20. 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. as well. SD=1.63.2 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. By virtue of their age and occupation. it might be assumed that taxicab drivers could well have a broader social network. SD=1. They were also more experienced (266.6 months as licensed drivers. respectively). internals reported that they engaged in safer behaviour in traffic. 5. the continued operation of their vehicle is fundamental to their livelihood so motivational factors may take precedence over attributions of external control. taxicab drivers were considerably older (43.1 months.10) than the automobile drivers and motorcyclists (28.
when compared to Canadian students. The finding that Indian- 188 . In an environment where career choice. Carment (1974) also found. financial matters and social affiliations are made. There were no significant differences between Malay and Malaysian-Chinese participants on any of the three locus of control dimensions. With the Indian-Malaysian sample studied in the present research. that the Indian students were strongly external with respect to matters in their personal life. influence peddling and status-related privileges. Research completed some thirty years earlier by Carment (1974) found that university students in India were strongly internally-controlled. He explained this by pointing to the close and interdependent Indian family structure. which would have led young Indians to perceive that skills in overcoming systemic barriers. Since perceived success under such circumstances might be expected to be largely due to personal proficiency in such areas. it is easy to see how expectancies for the external control of life outcomes can develop. for support in effecting the life outcomes that are important to them. He attributed this to the socio-political environment of the time. or at least strongly influenced by outside forces. in terms of political ideology and interaction with the social system. rife with bureaucracy. perhaps due as argued earlier. to cultural values of intra-family dependency and parental influence that have persisted within the Tamil and other Indian communities in Malaysia (Abdullah & Peterson. Devashayam.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). were necessary to succeed. 2003. however. individuals would be more likely to develop attributions of internal control. findings with regard to locus of control differed from Carment’s (1974) earlier results. 2005). along with selfpromotion skills. corrupt practices. in which members look to each other and especially to maternal figures within the home. Participants scored high in terms of attributions about the controlling nature of fate and powerful others. spousal selection.
although they were consistent with more recent research by Sinha & Watson (2007).Malaysian participants scored lower in internality was contrary to Carment’s earlier conclusions with individuals from India.7 in 1996.8 million in 1996. 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. This is consistent with recent findings among Malay and Chinese ethnic groups in Singapore. (2006) found greater commonalities in personality traits. by extension. as a group. the proportion of the population residing in urban areas increased from 51% in 1991 to 55. 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. In reference to Carment’s explanation of the earlier results. than between Singaporean-Chinese and Chinese participants from China. 1999. including locus of control. Closer proximity of cultural groups can be assumed to increase contact and transmission of knowledge and awareness of value systems (Hofstede. Salih &Young. Sendut. 1999) where one’s skills at manipulating the system may have fostered a need for greater internal control. as a result. have been largely limited from participation in social and political processes that would necessitate that sort of social skill development and. 1999). 1998. there is considerable evidence that the socio-political environment in current-day Malaysia is different from that of India in the mid-1970s (Corbridge & Kumar. 1999.5 million in 1991 to 11.3 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. Again. Indeed. the reasons for this commonality in outlook are probably multi-factorial. Willford (2003) concluded that Indian-Malaysians. Gomez. an internal locus of control.3.5% annually from 9. The size of the urban population in Malaysia increased by 4. where Cheung et al. Nandy. but two possible influences stand out. 1966. 5. 2002. and. 1981). Armstrong (1987) argued that urbanisation has affected 189 .
Lynch. 2001. driving in a more urgent fashion and concentrating more on destination activities than on road and traffic 190 . more recently. King & Parker. aggression had a strong influence on behaviour in traffic. 318). 2003. 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. Oetting & Salvatore. 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. 2000. Nonetheless. among automobile drivers and motorcyclists.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. bringing them closer together in outlook. including perhaps attributions about the control of events. Parkinson. Government initiatives have aimed at re-positioning Malaysia as a highly networked information economy and society. Consistently. Hewstone and Ward (1985) showed that participants of Chinese descent in Singapore and Malaysia made about the same attributions about behaviour of Malay subjects as they did with regard to same-ethnicity subjects. Jenkins. Clayton. Huff. 5. 2001) In the present research. 2008. Brown (2007) has examined educational practices in Malaysia within the context of ethnicity and nation-building. Miller & Rodgers. Miles & Johnson. feeling more frustrated at external sources. 2002. there is a large body of evidence that aggression plays a significant role in unsafe driving behaviour and in crash outcomes (Deffenbacher. participants scoring higher on a measure of total trait aggression reported driving patterns that involved right-ofway violations. Dukes.women’s friendship patterns. 2002). Lawton & Nutter. by the enraged driver. in which members of ethnic groups are encouraged to adopt a ‘Malaysian outlook’ on life.
(1996) and Deffenbacher. 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”). 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. but there were no gender differences with respect to anger or hostility. Oetting et al. particularly where drivers felt that they were not at fault in the incident. found that drivers were more likely to report anger when congestion was present. a little less strongly when they thought about taking revenge (“I want to get back at this person”) and least 191 . the more dangerously they behaved in traffic. verbal aggression and indirect aggression. but had no significant effect on externally-focused frustration or destination oriented activity.conditions. Further. during such incidents. physical aggression. either verbally or as unspoken thoughts (“self-talk”). Finland and the Netherlands. Underwood et al. (1999) found that near accidents provoked feelings of anger. Angry and aggressive driving episodes have been related to hostile cognitive statements that drivers make. Underwood et al. Petrilli et al. Deffenbacher. (2003) found that drivers engaging in hostile automatic thoughts tended to report more aggressive and riskier driving. higher aggression levels related to a strong tendency to commit right-of-way violations and to drive more urgently. Parker. on a journey by journey basis. Male drivers tended to score higher than female drivers with respect to total aggression. 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. With taxicab drivers. there are only a few that have attempted to explore the mechanism through which external or cognitive contexts trigger the effect. but that there was no evidence that the drivers who generally experienced higher level of congestion also experienced more anger. While there are plenty of studies establishing the link between aggression and driving behaviour.
were also modified by the drivers’ locus of control. (b) schemas (underlying general assumptions about life).. the world and others). one’s interpretations of the environment lead one to react emotionally toward features within the environment (Galovski et al. although still significantly. would be most likely to involve the usurpation of right-of-way or more urgent speeding behaviour. a cognitive distortion which stimulates a cognitive response related to physical aggression or revenge. and (c) cognitive distortions (ways in which people misinterpret their environment). Not only did drivers’ angry cognitions have a direct effect on their behaviour in traffic. however. That is. These moderating effects were significant when the content of the cognitions involved physical aggression or revenge motives. The effects of aggression on behaviour. Aggressive automobile drivers with a tendency to believe that outcomes are determined by chance or fate were significantly more likely to report riskier driving patterns than were aggressive drivers who did not believe that outcomes 192 . 2006). 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. and that cognitive event in turn triggers an aggressive or punitive type of traffic behaviour. Such responses.strongly. but not when they involved the derogation of others. in the samples studied here. perceiving another person’s slow driving as purposeful may lead to the emotional experience of anger. 1997). but they were found to moderate the effects of aggression on behaviour in traffic. as well. when entertaining cognitive statements that made derogatory comments (“What an idiot!”) about other drivers. Drivers who scored high in aggression and who entertained more frequent hostile automatic thoughts about others tended to report driving patterns in traffic that were less safe than drivers who scored high in aggression but who entertained less frequent hostile automatic thoughts. In essence.. Each class of hostile automatic thought can be thought to represent a reaction to these three factors (Snyder et al.
Hochschild. This last finding replicated and extended earlier research by Gidron et al.. evoked specific behavioural responses that then became subject to contingent reinforcement (Kanfer & Goldstein. The relationship between aggression and driving behaviour is both important and complex. Downe & Loke. and particularly with negative emotion. (2003). 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. in the form of hostile automatic thoughts. Novaco. so I’ll overtake him/her at high speed on the inside and feel great – i. 1987. aggressive drivers of both automobiles and of taxicabs who had low levels of internality (i. 193 . and also by attributions regarding locus of control. Language loaded with emotional content. this process may be instrumental in the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic (“I’d like to knock his/her teeth out. “in ergonomics. p.. language comprehension can be regarded as a mental task which. 1994. were unlikely to believe that outcomes are determined by one’s own actions) were significantly more likely to report riskier driving patterns in traffic than were aggressive drivers with high internality scores. has been shown to be difficult to process (Dodge & Coie. A driver’s mental workload is increased by the number of task demands with which one must contend in performing a function and. 1990. 2004. Meichenbaum. receive positive reinforcement – when I see the shocked look on his/her face!”). Generally. 401). the original cognitive behaviourists tended to regard cognitive statements as internal mental stimuli that. like any other mental task. Similarly. It is moderated by cognitive processes.e. 1995. 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. Finally. has a workload associated with it” (Bridger. Certainly. 1977).e. or self-talk. but there may be more to it than that. 1979.are determined by chance or fate. true to operant learning principles.
1979) and disruptive to attentional processing of external stimuli (Adolphs. Stein. Tavris (1989) referred to anger as the “misunderstood emotion”. As drivers contend with heightened feelings of aggression and increased internal chatter. as well as other task demands of driving in traffic. 1993). 2004. and at the same time processing feelings of responsibility arising from one’s internal locus of control requires the investment of mental effort.1 Advantages of Using SEM Harlow (2005. Mercado & Tapia. 162).5 Testing the Contextual Mediated Model Using Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) 5. As the costs of achieving or maintaining a certain target level of performance increase. MartinLoeches. 2000. Additional studies are needed to investigate whether this relationship is best explained through an internal stimulus-response process. Tomkins. Hinojosa. Dien. and attempting to exercise control over. so too does the mental effort required (de Waard & Brookhuis. Performance (e. 2002..g. Lambie & Marcel. aggressive emotionality. Carretie. p. In fact. they may well reach a “red line” at which more mental effort is required than is available. subject to ambiguous interpretation (Chan. 1997). lane control in driving) will drop if effort investment is insufficient or ceases. 2005). hostile automatic thoughts. internal locus of control and tendencies toward more dangerous behaviour in traffic. Taylor & Fragopanagos.1) defined multivariate thinking as “a body of thought processes that illuminate interrelatedness between and within sets of variables” and proposed that 194 .5. 1996. Making sense of. 5. 2002. Trabasso & Liwag. As de Waard (2002) has argued: There are limits to the investment of effort. an overburdening of cognitive workload capacity or both. 1999.Robbins. The present research has demonstrated linkages between hostile automatic thoughts. Martin. This can happen both in conditions of very high task demand and in conditions where the driver’s state is affected (p. Watson & Wan. 2000.
or independent variables. SEM can not only tell how well the predictors. leaving only common variance” (Hardy and Bryman. 2006). p. 2004. When composing a model. involved in the analysis. the reliability of measurement can thus be accounted for explicitly within the analysis. variables but also determine which specific predictors are most important in predicting dependent variable outcomes (Maruyama. Finally.. The earliest use of SEM has been attributed to Swedish Statistician. 2004. the growth in application of SEM techniques has paralleled researchers’ access to computer based data analysis software programs such as LISREL.multivariate methods provide a richer and more comprehensive examination on the variables. 1998). and perhaps most important. Karl Jöreskog. 2000). a multivariate technique. advanced the idea of combining features of econometrics and psychometrics into a single model (Klem. allows the simultaneous estimation of multiple equations (Hair et al.434). the SEM depicts all of the relationships among constructs. who in 1970. Gavin and Hartman (2004). According to Williams. including dependent and independent variables. First. or dependent. Second. factors represented by multiple variables. or latent. By estimating and removing measurement error. using SEM to examine relationships among factors allows the relationships to be free from measurement errors “because the error has been estimated and removed. 195 .. similar to the variables representing factors in a factor analysis. The constructs may be comprised of unobservable. 2006). In addition. 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. Having the characteristics of multiple regression analysis. researchers are attracted to the benefits that SEM can offer.. Hair et al. explain criterion. Structural equation modelling (SEM). EQS and AMOS. SEM is deemed to be a unique combination of factor analysis and multiple regression analysis (Hair et al. 2006).
model re-specification by citing theoretical support for the changes made is desired. despite the prominence of SEM as a statistical tool. Hult & Kacmar (2004) and Williams et al.5. TLI. etc) 196 . Although many researchers have used SEM to examine a theoretically proposed model. and the root mean square residual were included.2 Goodness of Fit SEM is considered a confirmatory analysis for testing and potentially confirming theory. 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. (2006) have argued that no single ‘magic value’ for the fit indices has been found to differentiate good from poor models.e. but that very few studies have used multiple fit indices. as suggested by Hair et al. (2006). Shook et al. GFI. Williams et al. Shook. Sümer (2003) added that. CFI. It is therefore not practical to apply a single set of cutoff rules to the measurement models. CFI or TLI) One goodness-of-fit index (GFI. (2004) noted that. RMSEA or SMRM) One incremental fit index (i. Hair et al. (2004) commented on inconsistencies in the way SEM results have been reported in the literature.5. Therefore. (2004) has been critical of most studies. the goodness of fit index (GFI). several alternative models were tested against different propositions in order to arrive at a model with the best possible fit. SRMR.e. fit indices such as chi-square statistics. when assessing the fits of measurement models. there is a lack of consensus on how best to evaluate the extent to which a proposed model fits the data. 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. In the present research. the comparative fit index (CFI). etc) One badness-of-fit index (RMSEA. Ketchen.
2001. it may be advisable to select one that offers the most useful information even if indices are slightly lower than its alternative. Sümer (2003) reported that some researchers have used critical χ2 /degrees of freedom ratios from 2 to 5 to indicate an acceptable fit. we would argue. 2009) that have tended to select the model that has the best fit indices. Structural equation modelling should. It is argued here that.. the fit indices for assessing the model included χ2 value and the associated df. Maruyama. the model with the best goodness-of-fit indices is selected over alternate models...90. Although chi-square is the most fundamental absolute fit index.In the present research. This has become such a widely accepted principle that decisions over model selection have become almost automatic (Klem. 2003) and other disciplines (Elangovan. 2006. be a process that balances utility with statistical 197 . At the same time. Hair et al. 1998). Md-Sidin. RMSEA and the χ2 /degrees of freedom ratio. RMSEA lower than . GFI. Sambasivan & Ismail. CFI. provided competing models both present a pre-determined standard for goodness-of-fit.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.3 Best Fit or Best Model It is important to test multiple plausible rival models. 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.5. 5. it should not be used as the sole indicator of SEM fit because it is affected by sample size (Hair et al. CFI and CFI) greater than . 2000) and there are many examples of research studies. 2001. so that stronger evidence supporting the correct specification of a model can be adduced (Thompson. 1998. significant p-values can be expected. 2000). 2006) such that for analyses of sample sizes more than 250. both dealing with traffic psychology (Sümer.g.08 and a χ2 /degrees of freedom ratio less than 3. As a general rule. It is widely agreed that selection of the model should be a very good or an excellent fit. 2006). Fit index values (e.
it makes sense to choose a model with a slightly poorer fit but more useful information over the best-fitting model. Both models were judged to have an excellent or very good fit. stating that. 4. a finding that was further supported by additional subsequent analyses using a further series of goodness-of-fit indices. In the case at hand. However.7. assessment of model adequacy must be based on multiple criteria that take into account theoretical. If selection criteria were to be based solely on goodness-of-fit parameters. Index coefficients from the original and subsequent analysis are shown in Table 5. “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. as suggested by Byrne (2001).9) included all four components of the BIT scale. the choice between the two would be Model 1C6 given its superior index coefficients. Model 1C5 (see Figure 4.3). when taking into consideration “practical considerations”.soundness. this judgment rests squarely on the shoulders of the research. Byrne (2001) argued that: Fit indexes yield information bearing only on the model’s lack of fit. 88). 158). Thus.1. while Model 1C6 (see Figure 4. two structural equation models. Sobel and Bohrnstedt (1985) pointed out that exclusive reliance on goodness-of-fit indices is unacceptable. In some cases. provided the chosen one meets pre-determined standards for goodness-of-fit. There is some support for this position in the literature. destination-activity orientation. statistical. of intervariable relationships for high-risk undergraduate automobile drivers were compared using an initial set of goodness-of-fit indices (see sect. More importantly.10) excluded the fourth factor. 1C5 and 1C6. it is concluded that the selection of Model 1C5 would be preferable 198 . and practical considerations (p. they can in no way reflect the extent to which the model is plausible.
BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration.94 0. HAT Proximal Context: BITF1. 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.97 0.96 1.97 0. Given that multivariate analysis revealed a significant association between this BIT component and crash outcomes.99 0. P. F3 BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way.060 0.909 0. BITF2=Freeway Urgency. BITF2=Freeway Urgency.97 1. C.034 97. F2. AQ.97 0. F3 & F4 BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way.51 Very Good Model 1C6 Distal Context: I.045 0.97 0.96 0.42 11. C.02 0. HAT Proximal Context: BITF1.02 0. BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration. Injury Occurrence Degrees of Freedom RMSEA GFI Chi-sq/Df RMR AIC NFI CFI AGFI PGFI NCP ECVI Overall model fit 63.499 0.1: Goodness of Fit Statistics for Model 1C5 and 1C6 (Initial and Subsequent Analyses) Model 1C5 Distal Context: I. BITF4=DestinationActivity Orientation Outcomes: Crash Occurrence. Injury Occurrence 35. P. 199 .48 30.98 0. Fit Statistics (Threshold values) Outcomes: Crash Occurrence.39 Best because it includes important information about destination-activity orientation behaviour that would be lost if Model 1C6 were chosen.02 0.91 0. F2. AQ.043 129.Table 5.
By selecting Model 1C5. 1996). Kayumov. 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. they should be dropped.. 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. (2006) have noted that models with a higher PGFI are preferable over competing models because they have a better fit relative to their complexity. Sambasivan (2008) stated that. Storey. et al. the PGFI coefficient for Model 1C5 is 0. in particular. Hair et al. When dealing with systems that are safetycritical. 2006. a central psychological feature of the TABP in driving is not overlooked and the BIT framework is kept intact. one that favours the maximum use of information in the cause of saving lives. the standard should be to include as much relevant information as possible. Further discussion in this section refers only to Model 1C5.1). Schwebel. 2006). while for Model 1C6. 1995. Parker. when drivers do let their attention wander from current road and traffic conditions they are at increased risk of experiencing a crash outome (Moller. the decision was made to select Model 1C5 over Model 1C6. Nahn & Shapiro. 200 . in this analysis. goodness-of-fit. this is an important component to retain in a contextual mediated model of behaviour in traffic even if it does render a lower. it is 0.It can be argued here that safety research demands a somewhat different standard in terms of model construction and selection. based on the notion that each variable included may.42. Reason. Manstead & Stradling. provide the key to reducing injuries and saving lives (Reason. but still acceptable. However. farther along. when variables do not improve the AGFI and PGFI. For practical reasons. 1990.48.
aggression.5. internality and aggression had direct effects on BIT and indirect effects.35 and . externalitychance. Examination of the predictive relationship between distal and proximal variables yielded support for the contextual model and were consistent with previous findings (e. As observed from the investigation of structural paths.23 respectively) and the BIT displayed a significant effect on crash outcomes (path coefficient = . and hostile automatic thoughts).45). The results suggested that the alternative model.14. on crash outcomes. They appeared to be the strongest predictors among the five distal factors (path coefficients = -.34) and injury occurrence (r = . crash occurrence (r = -. . Distal factors (locus of control: internality. Evans. 2001. externality-powerful other.66). four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) had significant effects on BIT scores (path coefficients = .18) and injury occurrence (r = -.21). externally-focused frustration. with five distal factors (internality. .5. 1991. 2003). indicating the importance of this factor in crash outcomes.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. Findings in this study underscored the strong role of BIT in predicting accidents. externality-powerful other. via BIT.29). In Study 1C.4 Testing the Contextual Mediated Models Using SEM 5.g.28 respectively).1). Sümer.4.6. Total scores of BIT were significantly correlated with crash occurrence (r = . freeway urgency.5. for automobile drivers sampled. . the base model (with only locus of control variables) was compared against five alternative models (see section 4. externality-chance. indicating that driving behaviour is closely related to involvement in motor vehicle crashes. Rothengatter.26. Internality was significantly but negatively correlated with BIT (r = -. This suggested that automobile drivers with high levels of 201 . 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.28 and .
and four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way. One of the most compelling findings in Study 2 was that externalitychance scores had the highest correlations with BIT (r = . freeway urgency.65 and . internality and externality-chance (path coefficients = -. 202 . externality-powerful other and hopelessness). The first alternative model had four distal factors (locus of control: internality. freeway urgency and externally-focused frustration) for the proximal factor. with hopelessness removed as a distal factor but four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way. which sampled motorcyclists.55).24). freeway urgency. 5. externally-focused frustration. The second alternative model also had four distal factors but only three latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way.20) and injury occurrence (r = . and destination-activity orientation) comprising the proximal factor and two latent constructs (crash and injury occurrence) comprising the crash outcome variable. had a better fit than other alternative models. Aggressive automobile drivers tended to have high level of BIT scores.4. externally-focused frustration. as well as low probability of crash and injury occurrence.2 Study 2: Motorcyclists In Study 2.41).66) directly predicted crash outcomes. and destination-activity orientation) as proximal factors. Results indicated that the first alternative model.23) and injury occurrence (r = . on the other hand.25). was significantly and positively correlated with BIT (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.80) indirectly and the proximal factor-BIT (path coefficient = . Investigation of the path parameters revealed that only two of the distal factors. crash occurrence (r = . crash occurrence (r = . and high probabilities of crash and injury occurrence. externality-chance.internality were more likely to have low total BIT scores. Aggression.5. the base model (with only the locus of control variable) was compared against two alternative models.
via BIT. 4. for crash outcomes. However.20 and . 5. crash occurrence.24 respectively) that had direct effects on the proximal factor and a simultaneous indirect effect on crash occurrence. internality and aggression (path coefficients = -. aggression). The first alternative included four distal factors (internality. and destination-activity orientation) comprising the proximal factor and one latent construct (crash occurrence) comprising the outcome variable. their crash occurrence. the results of measurement model analysis showed that one of the distal factors. Results indicated that the third alternative model. All models included four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way.5. 203 .6. externality-chance. on the two latent variables comprising crash outcomes. crash occurrence. and destination-activity orientation) as proximal factors. had no significant effect on BIT scores. Distal factors. the base model (with only the locus of control variable) was compared against three alternative models (see sect. externality-chance. with the sample of taxicab drivers. had significant direct effects on the four latent constructs that comprised the proximal variable (BIT) and. The second and third alternative models only had one latent construct. the bestfitting model used only a single latent construct.3). the result was slightly different as a belief in chance as an outcome determinant had a significant effect on BIT scores. four latent constructs (usurpation of right-ofway. had a better fit than alternative models. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts. with four distal factors (internality. such as internality. to measure outcome. Finally. freeway urgency. in turn and indirectly. For motorcyclists. as a result.4. hopelessness.5.5 What Can be Learned from Testing Contextual Models with SEM? The use of SEM provided support for the contextual mediated model. externally-focused frustration.5. freeway urgency. externally-focused frustration. This suggested that internality and aggression play important roles in affecting the behaviour in traffic of taxicab drivers and. Investigation of the path parameters revealed that there were only two of the four distal factors. externality-powerful other and aggression).3 Study 3: Taxicab Drivers In Study 3. for the sample of taxicab drivers. externality-powerful other. Both dimensions of external locus of control had insignificant results.
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. In the present research. 2004). 204 . 2005. chosen at random from taxi stands. Further. the fact remains that participants constituting the four student samples were. With very few studies having been completed on Malaysian drivers to date. The fifth sample was comprised of professional taxicab drivers. Huguenin.6 5. 278279). To a large extent. an argument used by Montag & Comrey (1978) and others who have studied young drivers.1 Limitations of the Study and Methodological Considerations Generalisabilty of Findings A key feature of all research is the capacity for results obtained from a sample to be applied to a larger population with proportionately the same degree of diversity (Langdridge. An 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. both and particularly the student samples constituted a convenience sample that may have curtailed the generalisability of findings. a total of five samples were taken.6. 2005). Some authors have commented on the lack of generalisability of findings in traffic psychology research (Dunbar.5. “but sometimes it may be the only viable alternative when quick and timely information is needed” (pp. Sekaran (2003) points out. however. that convenience sampling is indeed the least reliable of all sampling designs in terms of generalisability. by virtue of their age and driving experience within the highest risk group. four of which were comprised of students from a single university.
as elsewhere.13 years (SD = 1.2%). Table 5. the sample does not appear to be very repreresentative of the Malaysian population. young drivers are among the most likely to experience a motor vehicle crash. contributed the largest proportion of the sample. Study 1C: 99. it is helpful to examine the distribution by state in which research participants obtained their driving licenses.In Malaysia. Sarawak and Kelantan were under-represented in the sample. Approximately one-third of all automobile crashes. Since. 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. The most populous state. With regard to whether the sample was representative of peoples of the various states and regions of Malaysia.31. 205 . 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. in Malaysia. The Spearman rank correlation coefficient for these two sets of scores is rs=.2). Selangor.to 25-year old high-risk group was 99. Sabah. while Malacca and Negeri Sembilan were overrepresented. Study 1B: 100%. during the interval from 2000 to 2003. making it the single highest risk age group (see Table 2. with a mean age of 20.55).2 compares the percentage of the national population located in each state and the percentage of the participants in the total sample coming from each state.2% and Study 2: 99. individuals usually obtain their license in the state in which they are registered as resident. involved drivers aged 16 to 25 years.6%. Ages of participants in this research ranged from 18 to 29 years.6% (Study 1A: 99.
2 (5) 0. and there are different crash frequencies in each one.000 2.2 7. in this case.300.2: 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) 7.100.6 (10) 7.3 compares the state of origin of participants in Study 1 with the more relevant measures of vehicle registrations and crash occurrence.674 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. high-risk drivers in Malaysia.19 Per cent (rank) of participants sampled 17.0 4. Not all states have the same number of drivers.576 2.7 (14) But.4 5. the state of origin is defined as the state in which the participants’ driving licenses were issued.004.260.3 (12) 11.807 733.6 6.150.2 3.000 1.286 1.4 provides similar comparisons for the state of origin of the sample of motorcyclists.1 (7) 8.188 1.5 (4) 4.000 Per cent of national population 26. Table 5.6 5.6 2.2 11.000 2.8 (6) 6.500 1. Table 5.2 (11) 12.000 215. 206 . attempting to determine sample representativeness based on only state population would be flawed.2 (1) 3.200.396. In both cases.2 (13) 11.6 0.Table 5.387.8 6.0 8.887.0 12.500.880 3.9 (3) 2.000 3.000 1. It is important to remember that the purpose of this research was to study the population of young. For that reason.5 (8) 3.9 9.503.818.9 (9) 7.7 (2) 2.
98 0.13 6.88 3.19 4.27 14.68 7.041 92.490 525.104 6.89 3.496 Private Automobile Registrations (until 2003) 703.785 393.16 2.84 11.Table 5.600 135.46 8.774 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 12.064 9.496 187.920 181.96 3.093 5.617 10.37 3.85 1.75 4.029 273.561 1.428.91 2.467 25.20 12.34 11.163 10.19 7.28 3.735 165.92 25.588.137 698.63 207 .4 4.35 4.93 9.144 12.50 29.768 6.88 2.70 3.24 2.05 2.212 39.170 13.003 10.90 5.76 3.725 70.635 1.97 12.45 9.43 2.24 0.34 3.3: State of Origin Compared with Crash Frequency and Vehicle Registrations (Study 1) Average Motor Vehicle Crash Frequency (2000-2003) 34.70 12.198 156.36 8.55 7.230 266.606 24.93 0.026 10.19 3.251 324.22 17.
64 1.958 % Participants’ State of Origin (by license 17 9 1 11 9 5 11 13 14 2 2 3 18 7 122 % Johor Kedah Kelantan Kuala Lumpur Melaka Negeri Sembilan Pahang Penang Perak Perlis Sabah Sarawak Selangor Terengganu 12.656 821.93 7.79 13.20 15.212 39.144 12.46 5.22 3.35 4.49 0.727 161.02 7.064 9.27 14.283 770.4: State of Origin Compared with Crash Frequency and Vehicle Registrations (Study 2) Average Motor Vehicle Crash Frequency (2000-2003) 34.36 8.029 273.75 5.4 4.93 9.989 6.43 2.003 10.88 3.48 1.615.64 2.02 10.606 24.305 276.76 3.37 3.561 1.467 25.28 3.722 255.92 25.88 2.15 5.82 9.63 13.59 1.98 0.46 14.03 4.49 12.38 4.38 0.856 310.112 347.992 776.288 444.170 13.026 10.995 233.14 7.59 12.133 705.33 4.679 90.10 9.768 6.74 208 .221 36.63 11.45 2.Table 5.617 10.496 % Private Vehicle Registrations (until 2003) 933.104 6.66 11.725 70.
This sample was comprised of individuals within the age group that has the most motor vehicle crashes. At least on these dimensions. were licensed as drivers in – the states with the most registered vehicles and the highest numbers of crashes. participants came from – or.824** .908** 1 3 Participants’ state of origin .Table 5.701** 1 Study 2: Motorcyclists Motorcycle crash frequency (by state) Vehicle registrations (by state) Participants’ state of origin 1 2 3 1 . Of course. Table 5.903** . was representative of a high risk driver population.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) .5 shows the The Spearman rank correlation coefficient (rs) for the variables in Tables 5. Even though data collection was carried out at a single university location. at least. it can be argued that they were. it is possible to say that sampling.4. there are many other dimensions on which members of a sample can or cannot be representative of the population from which they have been drawn. both for the studies of automobile drivers and for the study of motorcyclists.814** 1 .796** 1 Were the participants studied in this research representative of high-risk Malaysian drivers? In terms of their age and their regional origin.3 and 5. Future studies of Malaysian driving behaviour will need to expand the range participant 209 . 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.
1979). the easiest way to get data on several factors from the same subjects is by simply asking the subjects (p. demographic factors. 296). the data has to be disaggregated. as in other psychological research. None of these variables can be substituted by group means. Exposure. Again. However. Additional studies should be carried out in order to validate findings within the broader population. social desirability response sets and fakeability (Aiken. Much important data is available in official statistics. Hatakka. is that this kind of data is usually aggregated … From aggregated data we cannot study the connections between accidents and age and exposure. however. unless the variation within the group is very small. the use of questionnaire data provides the only practical possibility for gathering data at a low cost. Self-report data are prone to inaccuracy due to participant memory lapses.characteristics used as a basis for sample-to-population comparisons. Keskinen. The problem. The issue becomes even harder to resolve when dealing with cognitive variables that cannot be observed directly (Groeger & Rothengatter. 1998. e. 5.g. accident distributions by age.6. in studying driving behaviour. Elander et al. We can also get rough data of exposure by age. 2001). violations and accidents should be linked together. It would be impossible to find an answer to the question “is the elderly group with low mileage at a higher risk than younger drivers with high mileage?” In order to explain the differences between different road-user roups in accient risk. Rothengatter..2 Use of self-report methods The use of self-report methods in traffic psychology has been strongly criticised by af Wählberg (2002). accidents. 1998. (1993) have similarly argued that other methods for studying the 210 . Katila and Laapotti (1997) have argued that. attitudinal factors.
g. errors of recall or contamination by post-event information (Belli & Loftus.6. the longer the time period for data collection. 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. muscle tension. as well. all data may be subject to the shortcomings of self-report methods.g. inadequate data are collected when the research is conducted over short periods of time. perhaps drawing from drivers’ insurance records or. therefore. combined interview and observational methods. though. 211 . Particularly. blood pressure. as in a study reported by Chalmé. Since generally motor vehicle crashes are fairly rare events. subjects would tend to under-report dangerous or illegal activities and that this tendency might usually be expected to be consistent across compared groups. In future studies. 1996). 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. Miles and Johnson (2003) have noted that.. steering wheel reversals and speed change frequencies)” (p. 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. In the present research. subjective accounts of crash or injury history should be validated against objective measures.. Yet. self-reported crash and injury histories and self-reported driving patterns measured by the Behaviour in Traffic scale could be prone to inaccuracy. heart-rate acceleration and electrodermal activity) and to overt driving behaviours (e. The assumption. 13). 5. questionnaires were administered to measure all variables and. the more information is lost through memory lapses. in studies of driving behaviour.3 Timeframe for Data Collection Elander et al. Visser and Denis (2004).effects of personality on driving have drawbacks that cannot be overlooked. (1993) and af Wählberg (2003) have commented on the problem of data collection timeframes in studies of motor vehicle crashes. for instance.
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. 1971). First. Results were used as a measure of driving frequency for Studies 1 and 2. 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. Traits included in the contextual mediated model as distal variables have been found to be relatively consistent and resistant to change over this interval. 1999). and the hypothesis (H2.4 Measurement of Driving Frequency One of the self-report measures used in this research requires particular discussion. there is a certain imprecision to the measure. The problem with this approach is that it is every bit as subjective as the categorical judgements of 212 . 2002). Second.2) that higher levels would result in less risky behaviour in traffic was supported. it has to be acknowledged that the measure is subjective. in that the measure tells us little about the circumstances under which participants drove other than their perceived use against some unstated. 1997. Mercer. individual standard. a timeframe that is consistent with reasonably accurate recall (Haber & Haber.In the present research. 5.6. This method has been used in previous studies by other authors (Pelz & Schuman. and that one participant’s perception of frequent automobile or motorcycle use may seem infrequent to another’s. participants were asked to recall if a crash or resulting injury had occurred within the past twelve months. as well. other measures of driving frequency present as many or more problems. Some authors have asked participants to estimate the distrance travelled during a particular period (Lajunen & Summala. The driving frequency measure was alaso used a co-variate in analyses of relationships between other distal variables and proximal variables. Unfortunately.
1973. experiences that are more common than others tend to be the ones that are most available. 1993. “Some events are more available than others not because they tend to occur frewquently or with high probability. p. their chances of winning a lottery (Griffiths. There is some evidence that the availability heuristic exerts a greater impact when specific quantitative amounts or percentages have to be estimated. in other words. Kahneman. the accuracy of individuals’ self-report of the average kilometres travelled would be influenced by their recollection of the length of drives that were particularly arduous. 2004). This is why individuals tend to irrationally overestimate the number of murders per year (Jaffe. In much the same way.. Specifically. and the likelihood of encountering a traffic jam (Wood. in which the perceived probability of an event corresponds to the ease with thich the event comes to mind or. because they have taken place recently. this strategy leads us to overestimate their actual occurrence. Slovic & Tversky. on how available it is in our memories (Kahneman. 2003). 213 . but because they are inherently easier to think about. 181). Wood & Boyd. 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. frequency or distribution in the world (p. eventful or recent. 1993). 1982). 2002). and that people are consistently poor at making these sorts of estimates accurately (Saad. But. Often. the problem in relying on the ease with which event can be retrieved from memory for determining their likelihood is that our perceptions cannot necessarily be counted on as an accurate reflection of reality. because they are highly emotional and so forth” (Plous. as opposed to reporting perceptions in categorical form (Tversky & Kahneman. 2008). 2003. 1974). 121). Levy (1997) argues that: Unfortuantely. it is argued here that such inaccuracy is also likely due to a cognitive phenomenon known as the availability heuristic. but not always.frequency that were used in this research. although this has not been firmly established.
and the availability of the resources necessary to operationalise them. auditing the accuracy of drivermaintained records and scoring reams of data were all tasks that were judged to be beyond the capability and scope of the present research. but training participants in standardised record-keeping. 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. Of course. Deffenbacher et al.In the Malaysian environment. Given that sample sizes for this research had to be large enough to apply structural equation modelling procedures. many of the inaccuracies involved with the use of self-reported frequency data could have been solved by taking direct odometer readings. in the form of more vividly remembered trips to family reunions during festive seasons. Finally. (2003). Morf and Panter (2004) argue that psycho-social research generally involves a balancing act between idealised research questions. Sansone. it might be expected that participants’ driving estimates would be particularly prone to influence by the availability heuristic. during periods of low traffic volume. traffic volume and so on in logbooks as a means of controlling for differing driving circumstances. the use of distance travelled doesn’t really solve the main problem in travel frequency measurement. road conditions. 2000).. 2001) . which is the lack of information about the circumstances under which road use occurred (Odero et al. poorer pavement and more surrounding vehicles (Åkerstedt & Kecklund. Driving 30 kilometres daily on quiet city thoroughfares. A logbook approach was considered during the design of the present research. in their studies of roadway aggression. on one hand. emotionally-laden seasonal and holiday travel (Richardson & Downe. asked participants to record the time of day. for example. 1991). where driving histories generally include lengthy. Similarly. it was felt that the collection of logbook data would have overextended time and financial resources at hand for the five 214 .
While some authors have considered the terms “theory” and “model” as synonymous (e..7 5. Good theories are simple. creating new difficulties in their quantification (King. are testable and contain no contradictions. Rothengatter (2001) has argued that better measures of risk exposure are needed in traffic psychology. selfreported measure used here. have high information content. using other procedures for measuring driving frequency – particularly in the form of estimated distance travelled and verified logbook recordings of trip distances and conditions – in order to validate the categorical. there is little disagreement on the importance of travelling frequency as a variable in driving safety but little consensus on the best way to deal with methodological problems associated with its measurement (Evans. the decision was made to use participants’ subjective. Further research is required. 1991). In addition. 2005). the difference is that models are generally seen as “more modest affairs that aim to illustrate 215 . 1985. 1994). that associated methodological disadvantages were fewer than those of the competing approaches. but this was done with an awareness of the shortcomings of this measure.7. Michon. drawn from empirical studies and demonstrating inter-variable relationships (Chaloupka-Risser.studies undertaken. To summarise. 2005). collected logbook data would have been largely qualitative in nature. Summala. Models in Traffic Psychology It has been noted earlier that the emerging field of traffic psychology has yet to arrive at a unified. It was felt. 2004).g. during the study design process. but that considerable effort has gone into the development of descriptive models. 2002. 5. In the present research.1 Implications and Areas for Further Study Theory vs. are of nomological character and can be applied irrespective of time and space (Langdridge. categorical perceptions of driving frequency. 1997). 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. 2004). Ranney. over-arching theory (Rothengatter.
check facts. on the other hand. The first question is whether we need traffic psychology theories.patterns of relationships. debate as to whether the greater need exists for more theory or for more data. and while any data collection procedure must have some element of theory if it is to have real purpose. or represent processes. 294). 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. 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 are modest in ambition. Although one might agree with the statement (ascribed at different times to Helmholtz and to Lewin) that “there is nothing so practical as a good theory”. 32). The answer is probably not. The answer to this question is possibly yes. The second question is whether we need traffic psychology models. Throughout the development of traffic psychology. often in graphical form (Grayson. Grayson (1997) agreed. Hauer (1987). Wilde (1982) has expressed concern that the study of traffic safety “is characterised by a sparsity of comprehensive and articulate conceptions” (p. at times. there has beeen an ongoing discussion and. stating that. 1997. p. the fact remains that we have enough guidance already from mainstream psychology. if they aim to illuminate and encourage research on specific topics rather than the 216 . create links to other fields of knowledge or to explain or predict circumstances. 94). in particular to structure data. Huguenin (1997) has similarly argued that theories are necessary to treat a subject scientifically.
In this case. The debate often seems to revolve around the comparative merits of result-centred versus theory-centred methods in research. 304). those variables included a diverse set of human traits including locus of control.entire spectrum of traffic behaviour. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts. and if they are resultscentred (pp. for instance. 1985) – that could hinder scientific progress. In the present research. while ignoring other factors which are much too important to be ignored (p. 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. it seems unlikely that general theories offering much more can be formulated. 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. While many models offer insight into specific aspects of driver behaviour. 95-96). 2. In 217 . hopelessness. it has proved capable of linking psychological and demographic variables with a pattern of driving behaviour to illustrate influences on crash outcomes and injuries. Greenwald and Pratkanis (1988). This dichotomy of perspectives is not unique to traffic studies and driving behaviour but seems to permeate all areas of applied psychology. 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. Yet. This latter point was also stressed by Evans (1991). but the framework constructed here can easily accommodate a potentially endless range of both distal and proximal variables.3). who argued that. 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.
lead to the conclusion that we should abandon the differential accident paradigm and define alternative measures of safe driving. together with methodological difficulties associated with the use of accident measures. With several exceptions. 5. Future research should attempt to expand the contextual mediated approach beyond studies of crash histories. as defined by Grayson (1997).3. anxiety. it may be even more fruitful to focus the model on the interaction of variables that contribute to safe.. depression. provides breadth of focus and a more holistic perspective than many other attempts at modelling driving behaviour. openness. crash-free driving. conscientiousness. 2003). The contextual mediated framework. According to Ranney (1994). competence or hierarchical level of information processing (see sect. the process through which drivers make adjustments based on their perceptions of risk. much current research. agreeableness and neuroticism (Sümer et al. psychoticism. Rather than describing and predicting the interaction of factors involved in causing crashes. extraversion. … has used performance-based measures to predict individual accident histories.4).other studies.7. it has been conducted without the benefit of a process model of driving. 2. and has relied heavily on post-hoc explanations. sensation seeking (Sümer. not on everyday driving. 2005) were included as distal variables. The general lack of success in identifying predictors of safe driving. While the present research 218 . while still very much a model and not a theory. Kerlinger (2000) and others. for instance. has focused primarily on accident-causing behaviour.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).
Following this reasoning. Brown and Noy (2004) stressed that theories of BA and driving behaviour in general. is a concept that should be incorporated as an element in theories seeking to explain BA and its role in driving. 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. will always maintain more direct involvement with the driving task than those scoring high on externality dimensions. relying on it to competently perform the task it was designed for. those with an external locus of control may be more likely to give up control to an external device. those who see themselves playing little or no part in the unfolding of events will act in a less cautious manner. BA to in-vehicle safety measures may also be under the influence of drivers’ locus of control. On the other hand. along with trust in automation and sensation seeking. no matter how reliable a safety device. Such individuals would be more likely than internals to over-rely on a device to keep them oriented and alert. some of the variables considered are conceptually tied to them. Conversely. they will become less involved with the driving task and be less likely to react. They argued that locus of control. while intuitively appealing and providing some useful insight. Within their proposed conceptual framework. fail by not considering individual driver characteristics or the range of motivations that determine driving behaviour. It is possible that drivers with an internal locus of control will rely more on their own skills and abilities while they are driving and. 219 . should the device fail to perform the task for which it was designed.did not test any of those theories specifically. or at least to react more slowly. As a result. believing that fate will achieve its predetermined goals no matter what the individual does.
Coupled with simulated or actual driving experience and methods to modify patterns of hostile selftalk. 2005. though. The treatment or rehabilitation of dangerous drivers has relied heavily on cognitive behaviour modification applications (Deffenbacher et. external locus of control and hostile attributions. 1997. 1996). Gidron & Davidson. Luckner (1989) and others have successfully developed training curricula that encourage internality.. an area of increasing importance in fleet management (Barjonet & Tortosa. Typically. consistent with the earlier findings of Gidron et al. locus of control was found to exert effects on Type A driving patterns and. task capability (Fuller. al. Christ et al. Findings from the present research can guide planners of remedial courses and counsellors to teach methods for increasing internal attributions. 5.7.In the present research.3 Driver Selection. Specifically. (2003) to moderate the effects of aggression on driving outcomes. could be screened out. whether that adaptation is the result of perceived risk (Wilde. Further research should focus on the role played by locus of control in influencing patterns of BA. scarce resources for screening drivers. these approaches require special therapeutic training and large efforts on behalf of drivers. Further research is required to investigate implications for improving driving performance. Drivers may need to undergo cognitive restructuring about their beliefs about their own responsibility over road safety in order to increase levels of internality. 2006) or cognitive processing (Keskinen. Programmes with content focused on building internal attributions and a sense of personal responsibility would enhance training outcomes. 1996). changes in driver behaviour might be better targeted. 1982). 2004). Training and Rehabilitation The results of the present research have important implications for the improvement of driving behaviour. can be focused specifically on combinations of risk factors at both the distal and proximal levels. 2002. Summala. 220 . Drivers with combinations of TABP and aggression. once identified. which may mitigate the negative effects of roadway hostility.
From this has emerged the growing 221 . Cooke and Durso (2008) have noted that: Most industrial tasks require human operators to interact with various technologies. recognised that the cardinal bases of accident prevention fall into three categories: engineering.4 Preventive Measures: “The Three E’s” 5. and machines are highly intricate (p. 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. the Haddon Matrix (Haddon. Slinn. 1957.2 Engineering Interventions Engineering applications in transportation have become increasingly cogniscent of human thinking processes. This framework can be integrated with the “Three E’s” to identify specific crash prevention measures arising from the findings of the present research. 1).7.4). Matthews and Guest (1999) have argued that traffic engineering has also undergone a transition in emphasis over the last decade. teams of humans. Unlike 100 years ago. At the same time.7. Specific measures aimed at reducing accident occurrence or injury can be classed according to whether they are predominantly based on engineering principles. 1957).4. for the last fifty years.4.7. These have been euphemistically termed the “three E’s”. or legal intervention. education.5. 1970) provides another system for classifying highway events for the purposes of research or accident prevention (see Figure 2. 5. the technologies sophisticated and the interactions among humans. educational programming (including public awareness and driver training). World Health Organisation. 1961.1 Generating and classifying crash prevention interventions Ergonomists and safety scientists have. and the effective enforcement of regulatory legislation (Wheatley.
222 . or the adaptive automation concept. In the case of LKA. is strongly associated with crash outcomes would support the importance of further development of LKA systems. 2001). Bishop (2005) has noted that there is still a lack of knowledge about the threshold levels at which to set in-vehicle modifications. for instance. Maggio & Jin. not to overwhelm them with complicated or difficult override processes. there is an adaptive and cooperative relationship between the driver and the vehicle in ensuring that lane deviation and roadway departure are controlled. 2005). Several intelligent in-car systems have been developed to assist lane manoeuvring and to control lateral deviation in the forward motion track. Sadano. Lane-keeping Assist Systems (LKA). (Bishop. The amount of toque needed to adjust vehicle direction at highway speeds is quite small. there may be limits to the number and level of sophistication of devices installed in motor vehicles. Stough. At the same time. 2001). Holzmann (2008) argues that there is considerable potential for crash reduction in this sort of technology. Murazami. as well as other in-vehicle technologies now being tested for future implementation in automobiles and other vehicles (see Table 5. The findings of the present research that usurpation of right-of-way. 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. The aim should be to assist drivers by making routine actions simpler. in which in which the control of functions shifts between machines and human beings dynamically.6). 2003).application of computer and information technology to transportation infrastructure and vehicles. depending on environmental factors. with the resulting transport systems generally referred to as Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS. Such systems are based on a shared control paradigm.6). 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. These have been applied to in-car. Suda & Ono. roadway and environmental settings (see Table 5. so the systems are easily overridden by even the weakest drivers when needed (Kawazoe.
in particular to pursue environmental. Richardson & Downe. and management of parking and loading arrangements that influence the speed of traffic. Brown & Noy. was associated crash outcomes. A number of studies have reported that roadside vegetation and predominantly natural environments elicit lower levels of driver frustration and stress (Cackowsky & Nasar. traffic 223 . Recovery from lapses in attention has been faster in “restorative environments” enhanced with horticultural and aesthetic features (Heerwagen & Oriens.with a resulting increase in crash risk (Noy. 1997). 1998). in the form of driving above the speed limit and driving consistently in the fast lane. Parsons. initiatives aimed at improving environmental aesthetics may have a positive impact on roadway safety. but also encourages at a more basic level the concept of traffic management as a policy prescription: Traffic management refers to the adaptation of the use of the existing road network. Engineering solutions have also been suggested with respect to the design of roadways and the general driving environment. Hebl & Grossman-Alexander. 2004. Intelligent Speed Adaptation (ISA) and Adaptive Cruise Control (ACC) systems (see Table 5. 1999. 2000). 1993.6). Black. 2003. changes in traffic speed. The present research also found that freeway urgency. 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. Ulrich. This finding would lend support to the myriad of speed control devices now under development. such as Automated Speed Enforcement (ASE). Tassinary. Safety benefits from traffic management can result from changes in the patterns of trffic flow. Fountaine and Knotts. Traffic management may also be carried out for easons other than safety. Herzog.
and now encompass the principle of “traffic calming” (Brindle. 1992). Gregersen and Falkmer (2003). have pointed out that many problems still exist in the implementation of such technological solutions and that some of these – including the creation of higher mental workloads and overestimation tendencies in the use of information – may be particularly salient for young. Lippold and Mayser (2003) have noted that new driver assistance systems offer some promise for safety improvements by providing additional information to drivers. Probably. but extends into city-wide suppression of traffic. engineering solutions have the least to offer in terms of behaviour in traffic that involves risky levels of destination activity orientation. Maakip (2003) has also added that there is little understanding of exactly what specific pieces of information drivers require or prefer to have. p. This refers to driving while thinking about things unrelated to the driving task. 309). 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. journey purpose or other human factors.efficiency (capacity) or access objectives (Ogden. inexperienced drivers. 1991). This view embraces a philosophy and a set of goals that go far beyone mere physical control and management of traffic. Current discussions of speed management go even beyond traditional traffic management approaches. 1996. 1996. ostensibly satisfying wandering attentional needs and allowing vehicle operators to concentrate on tasks at hand. 224 . Proctor. questions of alternative urban structure. Dietze. however. and substantial lifestyle changes aimed at achieving an environmentally sustainable future (Ogden. however. and whether this information varies according to the situation.
lane road conditions. infrastructure. – 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.1. Hi H 1. 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. thermoplastic management systems – Many ability to detect lane and epoxy materials to metropolitan areas have departures and to alert drivers designate lane configurations. generally comprehensive lateral control controlled from a central assistance (LCA) – a point. to allow easier lanes and synchronised actuated increase in steering overtaking and lane signals decreases the need as the vehicle nears a lane. etc.6: Engineering Applications for Crash Prevention Finding Drivers who usurp the right-ofway and commit lane violations are more likely to experience crash outcomes. variable speed warning systems advise lane conspicuity and message signs (VMS). traffic and systems (RDWS) – curve different materials to increase weather sesors. traffic drivers when their speed is definition.1 Vehicle Road Environment lane departure warning lane marker improvements – integrated traffic systems (LDWS) – have the using plastic. “rumble strips” in expressways. the systems vision sensing technology to transmit information to combine lane and road drivers about traffic flow. Reducing conjunction with high lane keeping assist systems congestion and increasing intensity reflective devices (LKA) – these reduce the smooth traffic flow through driver’s need to make wider right-of-way – wider driver information. 225 . unsafe blind spot monitoring systems lane deviation.Table 5. keeping. transitions for. departure warning. created intelligent traffic of impending hazards. Integrated with combination of radar and roadside sensors. and likelihood of. management centers (TMCs) integrated lane marker with closed-circuit television road departure warning applications – these combine (CCTV) camersas. reversible corrections through a motorlanes. blind spot sensing and lange change assist.
2 lane deviation feedback systems – systems calculate the number of lane changes as a function of speed and cue the driver with performance data. generally pilot”.1 Drivers scoring high on a measure of freeway urgency are more likely to experience crash outcomes. are travelling.. vehicle’s speed to comply travelling at speeds higher cooperative vehicle highway with the speed limit. including controlled from a central cruise control but also track street and link closures. t-junctions or or (at maximum) to limit the warning signs for vehicles pedestrian crossings. Radar. to in-vehicle display terminals. 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”. ACC systems provide modifications.1.and millimetre-wave (MMW)-based inter-vehicle communications – systems that send data about the proximity of approaching or following vehicles. 226 . deriver-selectable interwhich surrounding vehicles provide speed modification at vehicle gap. 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. including those in adjoining lanes. Integrated with vehicles in the lane ahead of roadside sensors. H 1.1. adjusting transmit information to Intersection devices (yield speed as needed to maintaina drivers about the speed at and stop signs. the host vehicle. a particular high-risk part of the thoroughfare. communication systems (ACC) – acting as a Driving speed can be reduced embedded in the roadway “longitudinal control cothrough infrastructure infrastructure. point. than the safety standard. the systems intersection modification. systems (CVHS) – wireless adaptive cruise control road network modifications. traffic lights) safe.(continued) H 1.
(continued) Externally-frustrated drivers are more likely to experience crash outcomes. H 1. humorous content to evoke a contradictory affective response to frustration. signs with calming or vehicles. “Speed tables”. measures that can reduce by driver interactions with congestion and other contrary messages – roadroad. traffic flow management training to better frustration and effect a moderation and other cope with frustration caused calming influence on drivers. at which the whole road space at an intersection is raised. The use of properly designed humps are effective in causing vehicles to reduce speed in their vicinity. pinchpoints and gateways or arches. coupled with stress vegetation to reduce traffic signals.3 vertical displacement. horizontal displacement – these design features cause the driver to change direction quite sharply and change the visual cues presented by the roadway. Such devices include chicanes. has an advantage over intersection redesign by saving space. environment and other frustrating stimuli.1. 227 . in-vehicle biofeedback aesthetic applications – integrated traffic control devices – systems to measure beautification of median and centres – Systems that allow and feedback levels of driver roadside areas with for synchronised timing of arousal. automated speed enforcement – the use of high-volume speed cameras to regulate the speed of motor vehicles on roadways.
driver assistance systems – capable of providing information about destination conditions or journey progress.1.4 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. at least. 228 . weather-related road conditions. to reduce wandering thoughts and focus attention on driving tasks at hand. Destination-activity orientation is associated with a higher risk of crash outcomes. prepare for stress-provoking conditions and external frustration. This information allows drivers to avoid or. safety messages. dedicated broadcast of safety messages – radio or broadband messages with reminder to focus attention on driving tasks at hand. notification of construction ahead. notice of future road construction and notice of public events.(continued) electronic variable message signs (VMSs) – roadside signboards which change messages to provide updated information about traffic congestion. H 1.
229 . to inadequacies in driver training and testing. They concluded that there is clarealy a need to improve road safety education. Professional driving instruction tends to be inadequate because (a) driving instructors are not properly tested or monitored. 2001). The present research provides some useful additions to the knowledge base to be imparted to professional driving instructors in Malaysia. Downing and Sager (1982) reported that children were significantly less likely to recive advice than in the United Kingdom from members of thir family. it may be effective to conduct such awareness bulding within cultural centres. publicity campaigns and incentive schemes to be offered as part of the activities within mosques (Che Ali Bin Che Hitam. In a study of traffic awareness in developing countries. and (c) driving test standards and requirements are inadequate” (p.4.5. Training skills for anger management and frustration tolerance. It suggests that. Effective road safety education goes beyond driver training programmes.7. and must include broader awareness about the dangers of roads and traffic. to some extent. (b) there are no driving or instruction manuals. like community centres or places of worship. The present research suggests that. the probems of poor driver behaviour and knowledge in developing and emerging countries “are likely to be due. it is also important for them to devote some time to the affective and cognitive components of the driving task. teachers or the police.3 Education According to Jacobs and Baguley (2004). in addition to teaching the practical manoeuvres and driving techniques associated with managing a vehicle. 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. however. 73). given ethnic differences observed with respect to drivers’ behaviour in traffic. This is consistent with previous calls in Malaysia for safety awareness education.
evoke the least expectation and are least often evaluated in terms of their effect on accidents” (p. They also stated. and (3) legal measures providing rules governing the interaction of pedestrians and traffic. The Belief in a Just World bias is the tendency “to belive that they live in a world where people generally get what they deserve” (Lerner and Miller. (2) exhortatory and educational measures to encourage the development of appropriate skills and attitudes. N6). Yergil (2005) has discussed a number of cognitive biases that tend to enhance a false sense of safety among drivers. p. 2007. Jacobs and Baguley (2004) have stressed that changes in road laws and police operations need to be well advertised in order to be effective. p. such as visibility of enforcement. Success of the yearly Ops Sitak safety campaign by the Royal Malaysian Police and other regulatory bodies has been attributed to several “cumulative factors. or the tendency to attribute one’s own attitudes and behaviour to others. legal measures change least often.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. 1978. that “Of these three approaches. Second. Siegrist and Roskova (2001) have called for an integration of social science views arising from traffic psychology with legislation and enforcement pertaining to traffic. or an internal locus of control. The results of the present research would suggest that messages about the link between personal responsibility for one’s action. road safety campaigns and media coverage” (Cheah.4. 1030). and driving within safe legal limits could be included within future public information campaigns. one practical and the other touching on the development of theory. First. from the findings of the present research. and penalties for infringement to ensure that the rules are obeyed. 265).7. was studied in a 230 . however. This twinning of psychological and legal perspectives derives two implications. The bias of false consensus.5.
drivers need to resolve the contradiction between cognitions: “traffic laws are laws” and “I violate traffic laws. on one hand attributing outcomes to a fatalistic notion of Just World and. Ajzen. Both biases seem rooted in an external locus of control. Reason & Baxter. on the other. Azjen & Fishbein. 2001) provides an interesting theoretical framework for considering the influences of these cognitions and their interplay with regulatory controls. 1992). 498). 1991. The theory of planned behaviour (TPB. is allowed to occur in a Just World. after all. Yergil (2005) notes that: In order to maintain the self-concept of a law-abiding citizen.sample of drivers by Manstead. They showed that the frequency of violations was related to the evaluated percentage of other drivers who commit the same violations. Another possible way to minimise the same contradiction is to diminish the significance of the violation by labelling it as an action that. to consensual beliefs of powerful others. Future research is needed to determine the extent to which beliefs in a Just World and the false consensus bias influence both subjective norms and attitudes underlying 231 . opinions about what significant others would think of the behaviour (subjective norms) and perceived behaviour control (PCB). 2001. By doing so.” 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). Stradling. drivers create a sense of belionging to a majority group and therefore negate the possibility that they are behaving in a socially deviant manner (p. The TPB posits that a given behaviour is determined by individuals’ intentions which in turn are influenced by the individuals’ positive or negative evaluation of the behaviour (attitudes). Parker.
to traffic regulations.drivers’ decisions to adhere. it may be possible to come closer to the integration of legal and psychological perspectives advocated by Siegrist and Roskova (2001). Similarly. or not adhere. 232 . an orientation toward an external locus of control may influence PCB factors underlying the decision to comply with legal requirements or not. By examining drivers’ response to traffic laws in the context of the theory of planned behaviour.
when risky. 2003. it was concluded that driver experience.g. 2002. Results have indicated that. 2006) and it is anticipated that there will be many more. aggression and tendency to entertain hostile automatic thoughts all act upon driving behaviour patterns which.CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION The present research was an attempt to investigate interaction effects of experiential. hopelessness. as expected. derived from the earlier work of Sümer (2003). age. 2005. such human factors are important contributors to crash outcomes. with demographic and personality variables posited as distal and patterns of behaviour in traffic consistent with the Type A behaviour pattern. A contextual mediated model.. locus of control. gender. Sümer et al. ethnicity. was used to frame the relationship between these human factors. 233 . demographic and psychological characteristics of drivers on the occurrence of self-reported motor vehicle crashes and crash-related injuries. Iverson & Rundmo. In doing so. as proximal to the crash outcomes. It is concluded here that the contextual mediated model is useful in conceptualising and testing driving behaviour and its outcomes and that further research incorporating other variables at both the distal and proximal level should be carried out. structural equation modelling (SEM) was found to be a valuable technique for articulating interactive relationships in a holistic manner. Studies using structural equation modelling to interpret complex inter-variable relationships have become increasingly prevalent within the traffic psychology literature (e. In the present research.. Sümer. Wállen Warner & Åberg. contribute to the occurrence of crashes and injuries.
1982). like Brown and Noy (2004). task capability (Fuller. 1987).. consistent with the position taken by Byrne (2001) and other authors. while internal locus of control has been frequently associated with safer work and lifestyle practices (Guastello & Guastello. although it is widely acknowledged that this is not a hard and fast rule. 1973).In the current literature. This is Of the variables studied. Some inter-ethnic differences in 234 .g. as well as statistical grounds. 2000) and hierarchical motivation theories (Näätänen and Summala. the best fit usually implies the best model. In the present research. Montag & Comrey. 2003). 1974).. 1983) and was earlier found to moderate the effects of aggression on driving behaviour (Gidron et al. the locus of control variable has been long recognised as a moderator variable in a range of psychological processes involving stress (Lefcourt. it is argued here. 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. 1986. The present research replicated earlier findings about the important influences of internal and external locus of control over behaviour leading to safety problems and. Harrell. or external locus of control. Hoyt. It is further concluded that aggression also plays a significant role in behaviour leading to crash outcomes. 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. In most cases. one conclusion is that the locus of control construct plays an important role in safety behaviour. that when faced with competing models in safety studies. Further. the selection of one SEM over competing models has been generally based on which has the better goodness-of-fit. and accident risk (e. Some previous studies have shown a link between ‘fatalism’. it has been argued here that it may be an important factor in behavioural adaptation processes underlying risk homeostasis (Wilde. leading to the tentative conclusion that it is the aggressive aspects of Type A behaviour that are instrumental in relationships between TABP and safety outcomes. However. 1995.
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. Each system has its own experts whose lenses are focused almost exclusively on their own subject matter. it became apparent that motor vehicle crashes are indeed multi-factorial phenomena and that prior assumptions of causality should always be subject to review. As Rothe (2002) has pointed out: Traffic-safety systems are composed of complex behaviours that imply complex causes and entangled factors.g. In examining inter-relationships among and between these variables. 2005. road engineering and ergonomics. For example. Several authors (e. cultural anthropology. Groeger & Rothengatter. all are professionals who know their area of expertise has collegially or self-imposed limitations. and a psychologist who studies cognition and driving while turning away from laws and government. 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. One of the benefits of using structural equation modelling in such research is that it allows for a holistic. 1998.. in combination. However. promising approach to future studies of crasch occurrence. a civil engineer who uses laboratories to measure asphalt wearing under different conditions. an economist who researches economic factors of transportation without much concern for geography. Rothengatter. It is argued that this is a In interpreting these effects. including psychology (especially cognitive and information processing). as well. Huguenin. bird’s eye view of the factors contributing a given outcome. they 235 .aggression were observed.
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. In the present research. significant impacts can be made in reducing motor vehicle crashes. 313). 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. a multi-disciplinary approach leads not only to the greater level of understanding described by Rothe (2002). injuries and death. Indeed. 236 . findings with regard to four components of behaviour in traffic gave rise to a number of interventions in the engineering. educational and enforcement spheres. but it also opens the door for a wider range of preventive measures. Through a multi-disciplinary approach. 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.form a complex traffic-safety reality in which systems form a web of interdependent fields (p. management. regulatory and social science specialists should be encouraged.
. E140 Proceedings of the Safety on Roads International Conference (SORIC). Crash data analysis: collective vs. Radin Umar.B.E. and Law..H.  af Wählberg. Drinking and driving: intention. Accident Analysis and Prevention.R. On the validity of self-reported traffic accident data. Musa. Subramaniam. and Kulanthayan.  Adolphs. Puzzles & Irritations. H. A. and Anurag. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 1867-1874.  Ahmad Hariza.  Abdul Kareem. R. (1999)..  Abdullah.. 289-296. T. MY: Pearson. N. 38(5). M. 169-177. (2007). Current Opinion in Neurobiology. 237 . The effectiveness of motorcycle safety campaigns on motorcyclists. L.S. P.  af Wählberg. 473-486.A. M. and Pederson.T. 581-587. H. A. (2003).H. Psychological Testing and Assessment.E.. Mohd Zulkifli. A.  Åberg. 25. (2002). Review of global menace of road accidents with special reference to Malaysia – a social perspective. (2003). Neural systems for recognizing emotion. A. (1993). (2002). Petaling Jaya. Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies. attitudes and social norms of Swedish male drivers. K. Third edition. individual crash level approach. 12. Malaysian Journal of Medical Sciences. Bahrain. Understanding Multicultural Malaysia: Delights. R. 31-39. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. (2005). L. 10(2). P.  Abdul Rahman. (2003). Some methodological deficiencies in studies on traffic accident predictors. (Research Report 1/99) Kuala Lumpur: Malaysia Road Safety Council. 5. 35. Mohd Nasir. Car occupants accidents and injuries among adolescents in a state in Malaysia.  Aiken. (1979). Journal of Safety Research. S.REFERENCES  Abdel-Aty.
S. J. A.. M. and Kerrich. C.  Arthur. 291-307. W. E.) Action-Control: From Cognition to Behavior.. T.105-110. Attitudes and the attitude behavior relation: reasoned and automatic processes. (2003). and Christian.  Ajzen.J. (2005). 10.  Arbous. and Haigh.E. Nature and operation of attitudes. (Eds. 340-342. and Beckmann. 22(3). J. M. 187-195. I. Edwards.D. 7.  Ajzen. 10(6). and Hewston. Day.  Archer. 303-313.G. From intentions to actions: a theory of planned behavior. (2001). A. J. I. Aggressive Behavior. M. 33(3). Ethnic differences and married women’s employment in Malaysia: do government policies matter? Journal of Socio-Economics. (2004). London: John Wiley & Sons.T. T.  Armitage. (1952). (1991). Convergence of self-report and archival crash involvement data: a two-year longitudinal followup.. 238 . J. Social.J. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. I. Accident statistics and the concept of accident proneness. 404-415. 50(2). (2001). Women’s Studies International Forum.A.  Åkerstedt. B. (Eds.  Ajzen. Annual Review of Psychology. Personality.) European Review of Social Psychology. (1987). and Kecklund (2001). J. (1997). Age. 47. Women’s friendships under urbanization: A Malaysian study. From attitudes to behaviour: basic and applied research on the theory of planned behaviour. gender and early morning accidents. and Fishbein.  Armstrong. Current Psychology: Developmental. 179-211. Ajzen. 52. I. 23. Human Factors. A. Bell. and Tubré. S. Tubré. In Kuhl.C.H. Biometrics. Heidleberg: Springer-Verlag. Beliefs about aggression among male and female prisoners.  Amin. The theory of planned behaviour. W. 623-633. In Stroebe. Learning. 27-58. (1985). Journal of Sleep Research.
and Tortosa. G.A.V. Accident Analysis and Prevention. European Journal of Oncology Nursing. M.) Traffic Psychology Today (pp. Wilde.D. Human Performance. (Eds. Continuing carnage on our carriageways. and Alexander. GJ.. 231-234.  Aylott. (Ed. 21-30). 2(4).31-42.F. Boston: Kluwer.-E. (1994). P-E. October 18).-E.C. Barrett. 2007 from http://www. (1986). In Barjonet. An alternative accident prediction model for highway-rail interfaces. T. and Biehl.  Baron.bakrimusa. 89-105.L.  Asian Development Bank (2005). F. (2002). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual. In Rothengatter. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Transport psychology and transport in Europe: a general overview. (1991). Retrieved April 4. (2001). W. 14-29). strategic and statistical considerations. 51(6).) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. 1173-1182.M. Manila: Philippines. and Carson. (1997). P.S. (2005.A. Asian Development Bank – Association of Southeast Asian Nations regional road safety program (accident costing report AC5: Malaysia).com/archives/continuing-carnage-on-our-carriageways. Arthur.) Challenges to Accident Preventions: The Issue of Risk Compensation Behaviour. 4(2). When hope becomes hopelessness. Transport psychology in Europe: a historical approach.  Bakri Musa... Improved safety through improved technical measures? Empirical studies regarding risk compensation in relation to antilock braking systems. In Trimpop. and Kenny. and Tortosa. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 34. Prediction of vehicular accident involvement: a meta-analysis. 34. R.  Barjonet. 279-284. K. R. R. P.  Ballesteros.M. Amsterdam: Elsevier.  Barjonet.M.  Austin. B. (Eds. D. (2002).  Aschenbrenner. F. Groningen. and Dischinger. S. Characteristics of traffic crashes in Maryland (1996-1998): differences among the youngest drivers. (1998). NL: Styx. 239 . J. R. P. M. and Carbonell Vaya E.
(2005).) Theory and Concepts in Qualitative Research: Perspectives from the Field. 73-84. A.  Belli. (1976).  Beck.C. E. R. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. Cognitive therapy. A. San Antonio TX: Psychological Corporation.A. (Ed.. and Weissman.) The Evolution of Psychotherapy (pp. Theory: the necessary evil. New York: Cambridge University Press. K. Kovacs. Prisoners of Hate: The Cognitive Basis of Anger. and Berg. (Eds..F.T. D. 5-37. The pliability of autobiographical memory: Misinformation and the false memory problem. 240 .) Remembering Our Past: Studies in Autobiographical Memory (pp.  Beck. hopelessness and fatigue in patients and family members in palliative care.T.  Beck. New York: Teachers College Press. A. A.F. and Trexler..  Beck. 588-606. 29(1). A. Health Education and Behavior. and Mills. Palliative Medicine. D. (1975). 1146-1149. A. Beck. (1987b).  Beck. D. A. Hartos. Journal of the American Medical Association.J.  Beck. Psychological Bulletin. (1993). Weissman. A.T. In Zeig.H.G. and Simons-Morton (2002). 218-229). (1999). 149-178). L. and Steer. and Bonnett. (1996). Cognitive Therapy and the Emotional Disorders.T.S. The measurement of pessimism: the Hopelessness scale. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy: An International Quarterly. (1987a).  Bentler. D. New York: Perennial Harper Collins. A.  Beck.T. (Ed. Lester.T.. 19. P. Cognitive models of depression. In Rubin. J.M. R. 1(1). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. (1974).C. G. (1980). Hopelessness and suicidal behavior. Teen driving risk: the promise of parental influence and public policy. H.K. 88. 157-179). (pp. New York: Brunner/Mazel. Hostility and Violence. E.T. In (Flinders. New York: Meridian. 234-240. Manual for Beck Hopelessness Scale. J. M.. and Loftus.G. A. The level of and relation between hope. (1993).E. 42  Becker. 234(11).  Benzein.
E. Malaysian National News Agency. 472-481  Binzer. R. (1994).. M. Accident analysis and Prevention. A. 241 . (2006. New York: McGraw Hill. Personality and aggressive behavior under provoking and neutral conditions: a meta-analytic review. Ben-Zur. F.bernama. 38(3).  Bina. Applied Ergonomics. and Valentine. (2002). 45(1). R. Graziano. (2006). S. Anxiety. Hopelessness and locus of control in patients with motor conversion disorder. Introduction to Ergonomics.S. (2006) Risky driving and lifestyles in adolescence. B. S. Associations of Type A behavior with the emotional traits of anger and curiosity.C.  Blasco.com. Benjamin. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis.  Bettencourt.my/bernama/v3/printable. Nordic Journal of Psychiatry. 2007 from http://www.S.A. Psychological Bulletin.B. New York: Routledge. Williams. J. 15(1).  Bernama.. D. (1995).php?id=185148. 37-40. H. 751-777. K. and Shimmin. 39-55. (1984). T. Talley. 37.. R.  Blumenthal. 43. M. F. (2006). Applying Psychology in Organizations.J. 95-104. 391-399.E. A technology to measure multiple driving behaviors without self-report or participant reactivity.D.. Retrieved March 30.A. Managing the high costs of road deaths.  Blacker. J. Assessment of conceptual tempo in the Type A (coronary prone) behavior pattern.  Boyce. and Bonino. March 12).  Bridger. 53. McKee. Journal of Personality Assessment. T. and Geller. and Haney.  Boff.. A. (1981). (2001). Stress and Coping. 44-51. Revolutions and shifting paradigms in human factors & ergonomics. 34(1). Applied Psychology: An International Review. 313-322. 132(5). Psychology and road safety.
242 .) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application. Haliburton. Accident Analysis and Prevention. (2000). and Cudeck. T. N. (2002). 9-19).D. (Eds.M. C. and Carbonell Vaya. (1995). D. T. Goldzweig. 445-455. 14.. R.D. T.S. Exposure and experience are a confounded nuisance in research on driver behaviour. Levine. 32(1). 641-649. (1989). G. International Journal of Educational Development. In Rothengatter. Ergonomics.  Brown. Single sample cross-validation indices for covariance structures.E. (1982).  Brown. R. (2005). 318-330. 37(4). How traffic and transport systems can benefit from psychology (pp. 4(4).K. 21.  Brown. I. R.  Brown. (1997). W. (Re) positioning Malaysia: high-tech networks and the multicultural rescripting of national identity.C. 105-124. Journal of Applied Psychology. and Warren.W.S. The effects of music tempo on simulated driving performance and vehicular control. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 27(3).  Browne.E. The Fatality Analysis Reporting System as a tool for investigating racial and ethnic determinants of motor vehicle crash fatalities..D. and Wilde. (1992). (1948).W. 345-352.  Brown. I.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application. 24(1). Behavioural adaptation to in-vehicle safety measures: past ideas and future directions.  Burns. Local street management in Australia: is it ‘traffic calming’. Schlundt. Briggs.  Brindle. R.J.G. Accident proneness among street car motormen and motor coach operators. (2004). and Ghiselli. P. Amsterdam: Elsevier. observational data and driver records. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour.C. 24..P.  Bunnell. Personality and Individual Differences. I. Risk taking in male taxi drivers: relationships among personality. and Huguenin. E. In Rothengatter. I. R. Political Geography. 20-23. C. W. (2007). 29-38  Brodsky. 18(2). 267-278. (Eds. Multivariate Behavioral Research. M. 219-241. E. Making ethnic citizens: the politics and practice of education in Malaysia. Amsterdam: Pergamon.C.. and Noy. G.
The restorative effects of roadside vegetation. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Manual for Aggression Questionnaire.H. Journal of Consulting Psychology. B. 31. J. 35(6).. (1981).D.W.L. Human Factors for Highway Engineers.M.. 63-65.. and McIver.. E. Automatic attention to emotional stimuli: neural correlates. B. 343-349.A. 65-115). M. (1999).W. and Kline. M. Mercado. 243 .  Caird.  Byrne. J. Applications and Programming. 15981613. and Borgatta.J.) Social Measurement: Current Issues (pp. 736-751. Ergonomics. (2003). J. T.. L.  Byrd. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.H.P. Analyzing models with unobserved variables: analysis of covariance structures. (Eds. Applications and Programming. G. W. 290-299. 22. M. Cohn.A. and Tapia. 9. (Eds). J. PRELIS and SIMPLIS: Basic Conccepts. 45-50.. (2000). F. & Santos. Internal versus external control in India and Canada.  Carment. O. (2002). (1974). (2004).  Carsten. and Durkee. (1998). J.  Buss.  Carretie. J. Multiple perspectives. (1957).  Cackowski. R.  Carmines. Human Brain Mapping. (2004).K. E. Environment and Behaviour. M. L. E. Hinojosa. Gonzalez. Buss.. Beverly Hislls CA: Sage. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Los Angeles CA: Western Psychological Services. A.G. A. (2001).F. Parada. Seatbelt use and belief in destiny among Hispanic and non-Hispanic drivers. Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Conccepts. 21. and Warren. A. In Fuller. and Cortes. 47(15). International Journal of Psychology.L. In Bohrnstedt. T. Martin-Loeches. D. The relationship between organizational and individual variables to on-the-job driver accidents and accident-free kilometers. An inventory for assessing different kinds of hostility. and Nasar. Structural Equation Modeling with LISREL. Oxford: Elsevier Science.  Byrne.
.pdf 244 . R. R. 10(2). and Huguenin. Proceedings of the International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT) Extra Workshop. Howard. S.D. The Star. Monash University. 21(4).  Cheung. (1996). In Rothengatter.H. 41. Paper presented at the Traffic Engineering and Management in Malaysia workshop. H. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Visser. Pacific Grove CA: Duxbury.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. November 12). 109-122. 61-71). 467-477.-H. Personality and Individual Difference. 557-562. Self-consciousness in Chinese college students in Hong Kong. Motorcyclist accident involvement by age. Y.-L. Personality across the ethnic divide in Singapore: are “Chinese traits” uniquely Chinese? Personality and Individual Differences. (2007).com/statefarm/chop/youngdriversurvey/PDF/NYD_Survey_FIN. J. (1985). F. and Yeh.G. Sunway Campus. (2007. Cognitive effects of environmental knowledge on urban route planning strategies.org/workshops/05CampoGrande  Chan. and Denis. Kuala Lumpur. and Nash. New York: Dell. what can we know – traffic psychological analysis of Driver Behaviour. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour.P. W.  Cheah. R.ghipr. November).-H. March 20-22.W. Taiwan. D. Motorists more careful because of Ops Sitak. Driving: through the eyes of teens. gender and risky behaviors in Taipei.ictct.F. (Eds. Brazil.  Chaloupka-Risser (2005). Carver. T. What are we allowed to ask. (2000).  Chaplin. Retrieved October 15. (2006).M. (2004). 2008 from http://www. J.  Che Ali bin Che Hitam (2001. Matto Grosso do Sul. Doing data analysis with SPSS 10. Dictionary of Psychology.. R. S. M. N6. 2007 from http:www. T.  Chalmé. P. Malaysia. Campo Grande. Retrieved March 31.  Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and State Farm Insurance (2007).0.  Chang. Traffic management and road safety along federal roads in Malaysia. and Lim. Cheung..
.. 22(3). T.  Chung.E. Cancer Nursing.  Chipman. E. June).. and Stiles. In Chmiel. S. (2000). Cairns. )2007). 28(2). N.S. B. Bradshaw.P. 679-684..  Christie. Personality and Individual Differences. Accident Analysis and Prevention.. and Chan. Demakakos. T. P. and Costello.. 974-981. Accident Analysis & Prevention. (1992). French.. Ward. and Darviri.. R.L. C. H. Smiley. 377-390). Bakou.C. D. 245 . N. M. (2005). R. How exposure information can enhance our understanding of child traffic ‘death leagues..) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp.’ Injury Prevention. injuries and cultural definitions: motorcycle injury in urban Indonesia. (Ed.  Clarke. C.. 1283-1289. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Make Roads Safe: A New Priority for Sustainable Development. 125-129. 431-443. 196-203. distance as measures of exposure in driving surveys. S. 2007 from http://www. Lamsudin. N. Y. Retrieved December 7. and Ward. M. V. Personality traits and the development of depression. 38(6).. Panosch.  Christ. (2002). MacGregor. 13(2). and Truman.T. Chioqueta. Safety at work. Aggressive behavior while driving as predictor of self-reported car crashes. Towner. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 24(2). A. 193-200. (2007). (2004). (Eds. 255-274). Journal of Safety Research. 39. J.. and Huguenin. P.) An Introduction to Work and Organizational Psychology: A European Perspective (pp. Koumaki. hopelessness and suicide ideation.. Tzamalouka. G. In Rothengatter. E. (1999).  Chmiel. M.D. Helmets. N. London: Wiley-Blackwell. and Bukasa.. C. Kasniyah. The role fo motorcyclist and other driver behaviour in two types of serious accident in the UK.makeroadssafe. and Lee-Gosselin. Time vs. Bartle.org/documents/make_roads_safe_low_res. A.  Chliaoutaks.K. R. P.. P. W.M. (1996).D.  Commission for Global Road Safety (2006. Patient-related barriers to cancer pain management in a palliative care setting in Hong Kong. 33.pdf  Conrad.G. C. Driver selection and improvement in Austria.
21-50. and Huguenin. American Psychologist. N48  de Raedt. 10. R. (Eds.  Cozan.A. N. February 8).my/permalink. p.M. 16(5). The Star.A. Retrieved April 5. F. 95-104. 10. (2005). Cooke. Human Factors for Engineers (pp. G. In Rothengatter. R. position on the road and culpability in a road accident scenario. 161-175). T. P. P. W. Amsterdam: Elsevier.  Cresswell. 45-62. R. Legal and Criminological Psychology. (1996). Editorial: Get out of my @%^$! way: there are a few things we should remember about this whole rudeness-on-the-road thing. The influence of car and driver stereotypes on attributions of vehicle speed. and Santos. (1961).  Davin Arul (2005. 5(1)..) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application. J. Stories of Modern Technology Failures and Cognitive Engineering Successes.thestar. In Fuller.  Crittendon. Wagenaar.S. K. Accident proneness. Asian self-effacement or feminine modesty? Gender and Society. and Durso.  Costa. October 18). (1962).L. (1991).J.  de Waard. 64.  Davies.F. and Patel. R. 246 .T. Journal of Personality Assessment. (1995). 20(5). D.  Crombag.com. Amsterdam: Elsevier. and McRae. L.M. 152-171. 263. and Froggatt. and Ponjaert-Kristofferson (2004). 2007 from http://blog. 98-117. D. H.asp?id-7003.W.D. or variable accident tendency? Journal of the Statistical and Social Inquiry Society of Ireland. (2002). Mental workload. P. and van Koppen.  Cowardly Malaysian drivers. Domains and facets: hierarchical personality assessment using the Revised NEO Personality Inventory.R. W. Cognitive/neuropsychological functioning and compensation related to car driving performance in older adults.J. Crashing memories and the problem of ‘source monitoring’. Engineering psychology and the highway transportation system. Applied Cognitive Psychology. [Letter to the Editor] The Star Online. (2006. Boca Raton Fl: CRC / Taylor & Francis.
T. R.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. E. 28. D. AZ: Lawyers & Judges. Control motivation and young drivers’ decision making. J. S. In Dewar.. Richards..W. J.) Human Factors in Traffic Safety (pp. T. E. Tucson.  Dewar.L. R. The expression of anger and its consequences. On the measurement of driver mental workload. C.  Deffenbacher. and Brookhuis.. 575-590.T. The Driver’s Angry Thoughts Questionnaire: a measure of angry cognitions when driving.B. 34.L. 247 .  Dewar. AZ: Lawyers & Judges. E. 1-20. (Eds. R. and Ameratunga. 209-233). and Morris. Oetting. Oetting. 123132. R. Lynch. L. Journal of Counseling Psychology.  Dien.  Deffenbacher. (2004). 14(12). Petrilli.F. and Carbonell Vaya. Differential lateralization of trait anxiety and trait fearfulness: evoked potential correlates.R. 729-730.L. (2003). and Salvatore. R. de Waard..) Human Factors in Traffic Safety (pp.  Deffenbacher.R.S. 41. S.E. (2002a).S. (2000). Women’s Studies International Forum. Age differences – drivers old and young.. Individual differences. K. Amsterdam: Pergamon. 161-171). R.  Dharmaratne. Filetti. 50(2). E. Lynch. (2005).. and Meyer. R..  Delhomme. (1997). 5-17.L. In Rothengatter. (Eds. 373-393. In Dewar. 111-142). J.S. P. and Swaim. J. (1996). 333-356.L. Cognitive Therapy and Research. M. P.R. (Eds. R. 47. Journal of Physicians and Surgeons Pakistan. 383-402.. and Olson. Characteristics of two groups of angry drivers. E. Tucson.E. Behaviour Research and Therapy. N.C. (2002b). Huff. Personality and Individual Differences. E.  Devashayam. Oetting.. 27(4). J. Lynch. Lynch.N.R. R. Characteristics and treatment of high anger drivers.D. (1999). P.E.S. Journal of Counseling Psychology. (2003).  Deffenbacher.A.D. E. T. and Oetting. Power and pleasure around the stove: the construction of gendered identity in middle-class south Indian Hindu households in urban Malaysia. T. R. Road traffic injuries in Sri Lanka: a call to action. and Olson.L. Ergonomics. 26(1). (1998).L.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology.. Lim. and McFadden. Ball. and Ballard. Dietze. Ebersbach. D... 525-535.. Sungai Petani. (2007.a. A. C. Malaysia.. In Khalid. and Che Doi. Clayton. negative emotional and risky driving.L. Jenkins. Science & Technology.E.. A.D. M. Kedah. 53. and Mayser. 14(2).. The safety potential of the new driver assistance system (CSA).  Downe. (1999).) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. Nigeria. In Dorn. T. Aldershot UK: Ashgate. H. 85-92). M.  Downe. J. Kuala Lumpur MY: IEA Press. E. (2003).A. Social information-processing factors in reactive and proactive aggression in children’s playgroups. (2003). M.  Draskóczy. 197208. Amsterdam: Pergamon. L. R. November).T. 323-331. 278-285). R. 263282. W. (1999). S. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. K. 248 . S.S. M. Women drivers’ behaviour..) Proceedings of Agriculture Ergonomics Development Conference (pp. J.G. Bahar. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Effects of aggressive driving and river characteristics on road rage.. Paper presented at the First International Conference-Seminar on Culture. Lippold.. L. In Rothengatter. T. S. Asian Institute of Medicine. Traffic safety and the new research paradigm in human sciences. (Eds.  Dobson. ‘Fatalism’. December). C. (2001). C. A. R. Brown.  Dodge. Development and evaluation of a measure of dangerous aggressive. and Coie. locus of control and worker safety in three Malaysian plantations: moving toward a contextual-mediate research model. Knowledge transfer. T. and Loke. 33. Powers.G. J. (1997).  Dukes. Health Education Research..  Dula.L.) Driver Behaviour and Training (pp.L. N.Y. Aggression and ethnicity in Malaysia: a preliminary investigation.P.M. (Eds. M.E.A. and Rodgers. (Ed.R. accident causation and prevention: issues for health promotion from an exploratory study in a Yoruba town. Miller. and Carbonell Vaya. Social Science Journal 38. 223-231). 1146-1158. (2004. (1987). Mohd Yusuff.  Dixey. socio-demographic characteristics and accidents. 31.
In Underwood.) Traffic and Transport Psychology (pp. Cross cultural research with the locus of control construct. G.  Edwards. 201-22. New York: Academic. Causal ordering of stress. 113. Leadership and Organizational Development. Dumais. 771-782. and Turecki.org/workshops/02-Brno/Elvik.A. 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. and French D. Volume 3: Extensions and Limitations (pp. (1993). Chawky.. Behavioral correlates of individual differences in road-traffic crash risk: an examination of methods and findings. Amsterdam: Elsevier  Dyal. Using epidemiological data to address psychological questions about pedestrian behavior. Annals of Internal Medicine. Boyer. C.L. Kim. 74. 69. A. Lalovic. (2001).  Elangovan.. Brno. 209-306).pdf  Engel.M. Psychological Bulletin. West.. 249 . (1971). 4(3).. 838-844.  Dunbar.L. 279-294. A. 50(13).B. (1962).  Elvik. (2005). Weather-related road accidents in England and Wales: a spatial analysis. J. (2002). G... (1984). N. (1996). and intention to quit: a structural equations analysis. (1968). G.  Ellis.) Research with the Locus of Control Construct. Retrieved December 25. (2005).. Lesage.. 2007 from www.  Engel. J. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry.  Elander. Reason and Emotion in Psychotherapy. 159165. Journal of Transport Geography. (Ed. G. Ménard-Buteau.R. R. 17-26). R. 293-300. In Lefcourt. satisfaction and commitment. 22(4). Czech Republic.(Ed. C. March 20-22. J.ictct. H. G. New York: Lyle Stuart Press.. A. Sudden and rapid death during psychological stress.D. R. Psychiatric risk factors for motor vehicle fatalities in young men. A. A life setting conducive to illness: the giving up complex. Annals of Internal Medicine. A.
and Popovich.G.  Farik Zolkepli (2007. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Evans. American Journal of Public Health. 23(5). E.M. Worse than a war zone: our roads claim 6. 784-786.M. and Chambers. Risk Analysis. Traffic Safety and the Driver.. 421-435.  Farmer. E. London: Medical Research Council.A.  Ferguson. 16. The Star.M. Klesges. Comment: the dominant role of driver behavior in traffic safety. Patterson. L. (1976). (Industrial Fatigue Research Board Report No.  Evans. G. 6(1).  Farmer.  Ey. S.  Farran. E. C. (1995). (1991).G. (2000). N22.6bil losses yearly. Herth. 19-36.A. (1926). 81-94.. December 10).S. (1939). L. L. and Chambers.. (1929).. E. B. L. (1986). Statistical Analysis in Psychology and Education. J. and Alpert. W. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage. 250 . A psychological study of individual differences in accident rates.G. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Racial differences in adolescents’ perceived vulnerability to disease and injury. M. A study of personal qualities in accident proneness and deficiency.J.  Evans. Hadley. Risk Homeostasis Theory and traffic accident data. L. and Chambers. Journal of Behavioural Medicine.000 and RM5. 55). (1984).  Farmer. 86(6).  Evans.. 38). E. Barnard. E. New York: McGraw Hill. (1996). 84). A study of accident proneness among motor drivers. London: Medical Research Council. S. (Industrial Fatigue Research Board Report No. London: Medical Research Council. Hope and Hopelessness: Critical Clinical Constructs. K. (Industrial Fatigue Research Board Report No. Driver fatalities versus car mass using a new exposure approach. p.
Women and traffic accidents.  Forward. Human Factors for Engineers (pp.. (1998. Linderholm. and Rosenman. Intention and Behavior. I. P.H. R. S. Belief. A. and Barron. 47-55. (1986). Towards a general theory of driver behaviour. Tix. Teoh. and Seiden. Human factors and driving. Attitude. The task-capability interface model of the driving process. 66. and McCartt. and Santos. 63-77. A. 9.W. Testing moderator and mediator effects in counseling psychology.  Friedman. 115-134.. (2006). Progress in teenage crash risk during the last decade. Ferguson. The intention to commit driving violations – a qualitative study.W. and Bragg.  Fuller.. Cultural values in Malaysia: Chinese. Recherche Transports Sécurité.A.  Firestone.  Fuller. (1975). (1974). New York: Knopf. (2005). S. S.  Fontaine.R. (2000). 51(1).P. Cross Cultural Management. Accident analysis and Prevention. 289-298. 251 . S. 77-97). P. R. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Journal of American College Health.A. Journal of Safety Research 38. (2004). 412-426. In Proceedings of the 24th International Congress of Applied Psychology.A. H.  Forward. E. R.E. (1990).. J. R. R.  Fuller. August).  Frazier. and Järmark. Perception of the risk of an accident by young and older drivers. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour.18(4). Journal of Counseling Psychology. B. Amsterdam: Elsevier. 137-145. 37. R. 207-213. causes. San Francisco. 461-472. and Richardson. (2007). 38(5). Malays and Indians compared.  Fishbein.T. S. (2002). Suicide and the continuum of self-destructive behavior. Type A Behavior and Your Heart. (2005). M.  Finn. I. K. and Ajzen. R. Reading MA: Addison-Wesley. R. 12(4). M. consequences and considerations. In Fuller.
6.C.A. R. (1977). Behavior Paterns.T.  Gidron. Use of auditory icons as emergency warnings: evaluation within a vehicle collision avoidance application. D. Stress and Coronary Disease. T. E. Fuller.  Garg. D. Malta. European Journal of Public Health. Washington DC: American Psychological Association. 109-116. R. (2003).  Graham. Amsterdam: Pergamon.. Nandy. Internal locus of control moderates the effects of road-hostility on recalled driving behavior. Attitude towards online purchase of fish in urban Malaysia: an ethnic comparison. Rajasingham-Senanayake.. C. A. N. Petaling Jaya.. R. 19. A.S.. McHugh. and Hyder. S. Mutu. 42(9). Exploring the relationship between development and road traffic injuries: a case study from India. J. Y. E. G. 58(1). N. (2006). and Mahbob. and Carbonell Vaya. 540-546. and Pender. 487-491.E. Journal of Applied Psychology. (1949). and Brown.  Ghiselli. rights and redistribution in Malaysia. (1996).  Gomez.. The prediction of accidents of taxicab drivers. Gal. Y. K.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. Ergonomics. (1999).B. (2008). E. In Rothengatter. Tracing the ethnic divide: race. Journal of Food Products Marketing. Development and preliminary validation of a brief intervention for modifying CHD-predictive hostility components. and Syna Desevilya. 1233-1248. MY: Sage. 16(5). and Davidson. Aggressive Driver.A. 167-202).) Ethnic Futures: The State and Identity Politics in Asia (pp.. Revue européenne de psychologie appliquée.  Gidron.W. H. 252 . (1999).  Grayson. 93-96). 13-21. Journal of Behavioural Medicine.  Galovski. T. (2006). (1997). In Pfaff-Czarnecaka. Theories and models in traffic psychology – a contrary view. C. 109-128. Task difficulty and risk in the determination of driver behaviour. (2006). and Blanchard. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. 33(6).S. A.  Ghazali. 203-220.D. Road Rage: Assessment and Treatment of the Angry. (Eds. Hillsdale.T. E. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. E.B. (Eds. L. 12(4). and Gomez. E.  Glass.E.
 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.
In Lefcourt. A comparison of reported levels and expression of anger in everyday and driving situations. 177-196. 3.P. Lawton. D.. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.  Lenior. R. Applied Ergonomics. N.M. A. (1974).G. 303-304.  Levenson. H.K. R.  Lefcourt. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 253-269). Volume 2: Developments and Social Problems (pp. 479-490. D. G. and Stiller. (1973).  Lee.) Research with the Locus of Control Construct. Moscati. H. H. (2005). 97.  Lerner. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychiatry. IV. The locus of control as a moderator variable: stress. Locus of Control: Current Trends in Theory and Research. New York: Academic. 93. 377-383. 2nd Edition. Jehle.  Leech. 659-662. and Nutter. Journal of Social Psychology. and Morgan. 37.  LeShan. Cancer as a turning point. A.. C.. E. H.  Lefcourt. Journal of Personality Assessment. H.A. (Ed.M. Mahwah. Malay dominance and opposition politics.V. pp. 397-401. Additional dimensions of internal-external control.M.  Levenson. Multidimensional locus of control in psychiatric patients.B. (2001). H. 38. Human-factors engineering for smart transport: decision support for car drivers and train traffic controllers.L. Janssen. Conner. (1989). Neerincx and Schreibers (2006).C. British journal of Psychology. 262 . SPSS for Intermediate Statistics: Use and Implementation. Dutton.407-423. W. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.J. In Southeast Asian Affairs 2002: An Annual Review.. Barrett.. (1975). 41. (1983).  Levenson. (1976). H.M. K. (2002). (2002). G. Activism and powerful others: distinctions within the concept of internalexternal control.M. The influence of demographic factors on seatbelt use by adults injured in motor vehicle crashes. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. New York: E. Billittier. L.
H. Retrieved April 5. M-R. (1979). D. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Accident-proneness: does it exist? Occupational Safety and Health.) Research with the Locus of Control Construct. S.A.P. (2002) Driver skill: performance and behaviour. 7.  Lonero. H-F. Tools of Critical Thinking: Metathoughts for Psychology.. L-L. In Lefcourt. Accident Analysis and Prevention. (2007). (1981).S. Volume 1: Assessment Methods (pp.  Levy. In Rothe. Defensive driving a must under new curriculum. 15-63). Levenson. March 26). (1997)..P.  Lin. Wu. Huang. (Ed. Retrieved May 14. L. F. 2007 from http://www. C.  Lim.htm.S. H-D. (1980). Predicting risky and angry driving as a function of gender.. 59-67. J. Internal and external control as determinants of decision making under conditions of risk.M.limkitsiang. H. W..M. and Donovan. and Scodel.. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. (1999. Role of primary personality factors in the perception of traffic signs and driver violations and accidents. 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. Neighbors. R.asp?file=/2007/3/26/nation/17254652&sec=nation&focus=1. D. (Ed. 8-9  Liverant. (1960). I. 263 . 10. Accident Analysis and Prevention.  Lindsey.com. 11. Differentiating among internality. Edmonton AB: University of Alberta Press.my/news/story. 213-222. powerful others and chance. February 2). 125-127. (2004).  Lonczak. 2007 from http://thestar. A. E. Media Statement released by the Office of the Malaysian Parliamentary Opposition Leader and Democratic Action Party Secretary-General. 36. (2007.  Loo. New York: Academic. 39(3). The Star Online. 536-545. H.) Driving Lessons: Exploring Systems that Make Traffic Safer. Psychological Reports.  Looi. Hwang. K. The effect of crash experience on changes in risk taking among urban and rural young people. and Yen.com/archive/1999/feb99/sg1541.
C.P. and Williams. Accident Analysis and Prevention.M. Accident Analysis & Prevention.M. I. M. Malaysia. Vissers. H. Traffic accident involvement rates by driver age and gender. Watson. Quality & Quantity. and Hershberger. (1995). (1988)..  Marcoulides. and McDonald. (Ed.R. M. 62-67. R. Age differences in male drivers’ perception of accident risk: the role of perceived driving ability.A... Basics of Structural Equation Modeling. (1998). May).W. 391-411. J. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 264 .L.R.L. and Jessurun. P. R. J. H. D. 73-87. G. (1999). Goodness-of-fit indexes in confirmatory factor analysis: the effect of sample size.A. C.L. R. Aldershot UK: Ashgate. W.W. G.  Luckner. 103. 299313.  Marsh. Lourens. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.K. Journal of Rehabilitation. and level of education. Journal of Personality. 593-597.  Maruyama. age. of affect.  Massie.. J.L. L. In Dorn. driving violations and accident involvement in relation to drivers’ sex. K.. Monash University Accident Research Centre. Balla. A. Altering locus of control of individuals with hearing impairments by outdoor-adventure courses.) Driver Behaviour and Training (pp. behavior and cognition. 27(1). Victoria NSW. A three-factor model of trait anger: dimensions. J.R. Report No. (1986). 18(4).F. Goodness-of-fit in CFA: the effects of sample size and model parsimony. Young driver research program – a review of information on young driver performance characteristics and capabilities.  Maakip. and Wan. D. Campbell. 129.A.28. 55(2). Driver information systems: a preliminary investigation of motorists information requirements in Kuala lUmpur. (1989). 869-897. Multivariate Statistical Methods: A First Course. and Mooran.F. A.  Marsh. and Balla. 233-252).  Martin. 185-217.M.  Matthews. Australia. (1994. 68(5). 31. (2003). Thousand Oaks CA: Sage. S. Annual mileage. Psychological Bulletin.  Macdonald. (1997). (1994).L. (2000).
E. [ in press]. S. Gilbody.. D.. A. (1983).  Mercer.  McRae. and Costa.  McKenna. Journal of Managerial Psychology.P.. 649-663. Beresford. Sambasivan. Risk Analysis.P. Fort Worth TX: Holt. Accident proneness: a conceptual analysis. Perspectives Psychiatriques. and Brown. F. P. I. Duncan.htm  McConnell. R.  McMillan.P.net/Bloge/2005/11/malaysia-records-highest-single-day.  Meichenbaum. 2007 from http://www. M. F. November 6). Cognitive-Behavior Modification: An Integrative Approach.D. Malaysia records highest single-day death toll during holiday period. 29. New York: Plenum. 45-52. Male and female drivers: how different are they? AA Foundation for Road Safety Research. D. (1974). (1990). The University of Reading. G. 265 . and Burkes. E. I.malaysia-today. and Neilly. 23. Personality in Adulthood. (1977). New York: Guilford. Cognitive abilities and safety on the road: a re-examination of individual differences in dichotic listening and search for embedded figures. Psychological Medicine.R.  Md-Sidin. Understanding Human Behavior. Waylen. (1998). F. Unconscious suicides. (1986).V. Traffic accidents and convictions: group totals versus rate per kilometer driven.. (1989). 173-181.. Ergonomics. J. 37(6).  McKenna. Malaysia Today. (2009). (1989). Ismail. Hampshire UK. Relationship between work-family conflict and the quality fo life: an investigation into the role of social support.  McKenna. J. 71-77. 34(47).. Can we predict suicide and nonfatal self harm with the Beck Hopelessness Scale? A metanalysis. M. (2005. (2007).  Mendel. L. G. Rinehar and Winston. Retrieved April 5.E.W. 769-778. Accident Analysis and Prevention. S. 9.
and Niemi. E. (1989). First year as a licensed car deriver: gender differences in crash experience.. 44(2).pdf  Moller. D. Michon.php. and Laflamme. Statistics.E. from http://www. Safety Science. A critical review of driver behaviour models: what do we know. and Blum. Accident Analysis and Prevention. J. J.  Miles. Retrieved May 23. 38(6). In Aggressive driving: three studies. M. Journal of Psychosomatic Research..  Ministry of Transport Malaysia (2007).) Human Behaviour and Traffic Safety. (1949). Explanatory pitfalls and rule-based driver models. H.L.L. L. L. 21(4).org.A.. 33(3).panducermat. 266 . 147-161. In Helkama. (154).  Monárrez-Espino. (1985). J. C. (1997). AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety. L. Cognitive theory of traffic behaviour.  Michon.A.aaafoundation. (Eds. 401406. 6(2). and Schwing. A. (2003). R.C.org/pdf/agdr3study.  Mizel. (1983. J. Simulator performance. Aggressive driving. K. Time intervals between accidents. Turku. 335-342.. and subjective sleepiness: normative data using convergent methodologies to assess driver drowsiness. G. May). Nhan. 2006 from http://www. and Johnson.  Mintz. P.J.L. 61(3).M. and Keskinen. l. V. Hasselberg. Retrieved December 15. E. 2007. Aggressive driving behaviors: are there psychological and attitudinal predictors? Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. A. (2006). Washington DC. (Eds. 75-85. A re-examination of the accident proneness concept.my/en/street_smart_statistik. Kayumov. and Shapiro. microsleep episodes. 341-353. Bulmas. M. 195-211. Finland. Journal of Applied Psychology.  Mikkonen.) Proceedings of the Finnish-Soviet Symposium on Cognitive Processes.  Mintz. New York: Plenum. what should we do? In Evans. Journal of Applied Psychology. (2006).
Internality and externality as correlates of involvement in fatal driving accidents.E.  Niméus. H. R. and Gomez. 243-261.L. (1987). (1994). D. Boston: Pearson.L.  Näätänen. In O’Donoghue . Nandy. Religioin 37. (Eds. Träskman-Bendz and Alsén (1997).  Most. A.  Neuman. (2007).  Novaco. S.  Nandy. 38(1).. 72. R.  Morris. J. 8. Accident proneness and road accidents. Montag. Hopelessness and suicidal behavior. 137-144. (1999). A. Amsterdam: North Holland. 267 . P. 42.T. MY: Sage. Petaling Jaya. Clinical problems of anger and its assessment and regulation through a stress coping skills approach. (2003). (1956). W.  Näätänen. L. (Eds. and Krasner. 164-174.) Ethnic Futures: The State and Identity Politics in Asia (pp. A. 320-388). In Pfaff-Czarnecaka. R. Journal of Applied Psychology. (1974). R..  Moore. 51-63. Visual Cognition. A.) Handbook of Psychological Skills Training: Clinical Techniques and Application (pp. and Comrey. 6. (2001) Ethnicicity and suicidal behaviour in Malaysia: a review of the literature. 15(2). 32-37. I. (1976). Coping with the politics of faiths and cultures: between secular state and ecumenical traditions in India. 167-202). K. Transcultural Psychiatry. Defining ‘modern’ Malay womanhood and the coexistent messages of the veil. and Maniam. Journal of the Institute of Automobile Assessors. T. Journal of Affective Disorders.S. A. Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. 125-132.L.  Mousser.. Feature-based attentional set as a cause of traffic accidents. and Astur. and Summala H. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 339-343. E. and Summala.B. (2007). Rajasingham-Senanayake. W. Fifth Edition. New York: Allyn & Bacon. Road User Behavior and Traffic Accidents. A model for the role of motivational factors in drivers’ decision-making.
Risk homeostasis hypothesis: a rebuttal.  Novaco.  Our roads are filled with selfish drivers..W. P. p. 1016-1024. (1997). A. A. E. says operator. I. 2(5). F.A. Tucson. Novaco. Straits Times. In Fuller. J. 171. R. and Lonnqvist. (1996. M.  Noy. 92-93. (1998).  N-S highway still one of the safest roads.L. p.  Olson. Ergonomics.F (2001). (2007. K.. Garner.  Ohberg. Human Factors for Engineers (pp.R. Aldershot. Social psychological principles: ‘the group inside the person’.W. Human factors in modern traffic systems. 40(10). (2001). [Review of the book Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application]. (Eds. Temes. February 8). 237-252. Oxford UK: North Holland. J. 43-76).  Ochando. P. [Letter to the Editor] The Star. and Hermida. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice.  O’Neill. and Olson. AZ: Lawyers & Judges.W. December 9). Pentilla. R. 445-460. In Dewar. Road traffic injuries in developing countries: a comprehensive review of epidemiological studies. (2002). B. and Williams. Spanish Journal of Psychology. 34. N51. M. P.B. Safer Roads: A Guide to Road Safety Engineering. 253-326). R. 4. Driver perception-response time.  O’Connell. (1996). 654-656.S. Tropical Medicine and International Health. and Z.38. In Baenninger. R. (1997). Injury Prevention. UK: Ashgate.) Human Factors in Traffic Safety (pp. R.  Ogden. Zwi (1997).) Targets of Violence and Aggression: Advances in Psychology (pp. and Santos. Driver suicides. A.L (2002). The decade 1989-1998 in Spanish psychology: an analysis of development of professional psychology in Spain.. (2000). (Ed. W. Amsterdam: Elsevier  Odero. J. British Journal of Psychiatry. 468-472. Aggression on roadways. 201-215). 4(2). 268 .
R. Applied Psychology: An International Review. T. 92. Anger and aggression among drivers in three European countries.ictct. Driving errors. 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. 34. 2007 from www. C. M. D.D. driving violations and accident involvement. R. (Eds. Accident Analysis & Prevention. Amsterdam: Elsevier. (1988). British Journal of Psychology. C.G. and Summala. (1974). (2002). and Saleh. Helsinki. N. Locus of control in university students from eastern and western societies. T. and Huguenin. 1036-1048.. 38(3). and Lajunen (2005). (2001). 3-13.E.pdf -  Pai. Lajunen. Lajunen.  Özkan.. Dimensions of driving behaviour and driver characteristics. 37(1). Retrieved December 20. L.S.W. D. driving skills and attitudes toward in-vehicle technologies (ISA & ACC). 507-526. Özkan. Road safety: what has social psychology to offer? In Rothengatter.  Parkinson. T. Accident Analysis & Prevention. J. H.  Parker. 269 .S. 229-235. T. (2008). W..R.M. 38(5). Multidimensional Traffic Locus of Control Scale (T-LOC): factor structure and relationship to risky driving.R and Stradling. Tassinary. O.T. (pp. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. (2005).  Papacostas. Traffic locus of control.G. The view from the road: implications for stress recovery and immunisation.A. S. 42. (2004). R. 456-461. Hebl. 40. D.  Parker. (1998). and Grossman-Alexander. (1995).  Parker.  Parsons.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application. 479-486.S. J. Reason. and Synodinos. Poster session presented at the 18th International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT). and Kaistinen. Manstead.org/workshops/05Helsinki/P1_Ozkan..  Parsons. and Schneider.. T. Ulrich. 18. Ergonomics.. M. 113-140. 125-134). A. 533-545. J.. Anger on and off the road. B. Finland. Personality and Individual Difference. Journal of Environmental Psychology.
L. Geneva. Taillard. Neuroticism-extraversion as correlates of accident occurrence.and Schuman. E.) (2004). U. 147-154. E.H..R. Peden. Are young drivers really more dangerous after controlling for exposure and experience? Journal of Safety Research. A. M. Perceptual and Motor Skills. G. Scurfield.. Mohan. 3. (2002). 1153. J.J. 324. (1980). 8(1). Simple reaction time... Retrieved March 31.org/workshops/05-CampoGrande  Perry. Matto Grosso do Sul. and Renner. 2007 from http:www.A.A. and Singh. Jarawan. Brazil. (1986). R. Further evidence of associations of type A personality scores and driving-related attitudes and behaviors. 9-14 270 . Quera-Salva.  Peltzer. Journal of Sleep Research. W.B. A.C... B. Accident Analysis and Prevention. (1976). 35. K.M.R. 201-204. Campo Grande.  Peters. 875-878. M. risk-taking and risk perception of accidents among South African taxi drivers. Automotive Vehicle Safety. Morristown NJ: General Learning. (2000). D. Locus of Control in Personality. G. World report on road traffic injury prevention. Type A behaviour pattern and motor vehicle drivers’ behaviour. (1971).  Peden. duration of driving and sleep deprivation in young versus old automobile drivers. D. D. A. M. (2002).A. Road traffic injuries are a global public health problem [Letters].s  Pelz. Proceedings of the International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT) Extra Workshop. 619-623. 12(3). 68-79. Sleet. (1999). British Medical Journal. B. Accident Analysis and Prevention. and Mathers (Eds.J. Switzerland: World Health Organization. D.  Philip. (2005). P. S. D. 63. T. Perceptual and Motor Skills.ictct. (2003). Hyder.. and Åkerstedt..  Perry. and Peters. 91.  Pestonjee. Superstition. London: Taylor & Francis. and Baldwin. and Hyder. Bioulac. and Al Haji. March 20-22. A. Road safety in southeast Asia: factors affecting motorcycle safety.  Per.  Phares.
Journal of Applied Psychology. and Langley.E.  Reason. 369-374  Renner.J. reasons for riding and the social context of riding among young on-road motorcyclists in New Zealand. 26.J. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 29(1).  Reason. Ergonomics.I. Venturesomeness and extraversion as correlated of juvenile drivers’ traffic violations. 32. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Plous. 32(2). (1996). 334-343. Disaster Prevention and Management. J. Stradling. Updates of road safety status in Malaysia. J. Errors and violations on the roads: a real distinction? Ergonomics.  Ranney. (2005). J. and Anderle. J. (1990). C. C. Manstead. (1989).N. (1965).  Radin Umar..  Preston.A. and Harris. and Campbell. and Lussier. Accident reduction through area-wide traffic schemes. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health. Delineating road accident risk along mountain roads. (1993).. Models of driving behavior: a review of their evoloution. R. W. P. 317-333. R. New York: McGraw Hill. S. The Psychology of Judgment and Decision Making. L. Psychology of drivers in traffic accidents. Hopelessness.D. 566-573.  Proctor.  Prociuk. (1991). (2000). S.  Rautela. 3112). Baxter. IATSS Research / International Association of Traffic and Safety Sciences. Performance differences of individuals classified by questionnaire as accident prone or non-accident prone.J. S. S. D. Chalmers. F.  Reeder. Journal of Clinical Psychology. S.J. 1315-1332. internal-external locus of control and depression.-G.. Traffic Engineering and Control. Breen. T. (1976). 20(4). 284-288.  Porter.. 78-80.. (1994).H. Cambridge University Press. 733-750. 16(3). Human Error. 673-678. A. 271 . and Pant. 32(3). K. T. Rider training.S. 299-300. (1990). 33. E. S. and Corlett. (2007). 49(4).S.
H. Journal of Safety Research. (2007) Statistik2006. E. R.efpa.64. and Nickel. 37(1). (2003.P. S. Aberrant driving behaviour: homogeneity of a four-factor structure in samples differing in age and gender. P. 569-582. and Solomon.R.html  Robbins. and Voas. (2005b) Fatal red light crashes: the role of race and ethnicity. S. Journal of Safety Research. M. 2007 from http://www. 45(8).A. (Ed). W-R. Jefferson NC: McFarland & Company. 34(15). and Voas. Ergonomics. Human factors and motor vehicle crashes: a conceptual framework for ergonomic research in South East Asia. 453-460.96/v5/statistik/statistik-2006. 272 . (2000). Analysis of motor-vehicle crashes at stop signs in four U. R. (2004). Pacific Grove CA: Brooks/Cole. S. R.  Robbins.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application. (Eds.  Rimmö. Weinstein. cities. Organizational Behavior. Theories of science in traffic psychology. Accident Analysis & Prevention.. Aggression and Violence: An Interdisciplinary Approach. and Downe. (2002).G.pdf  Risser. Proceedings of the joint conference of the Asia Pacific Conference on Human Computer Interaction and the Southeast Asian Ergonomics Society Conference.  Richardson. (2005a) Stop sign violations: the role of race and ethnicity on fatal crashes. (2005). S. 1-7. 37(3).L. Retting. T. Amsterdam: Elsevier. (1999).D.  Romano. Tippetts. In Rothengatter. A.  Risser.  Road Transport Department Malaysia [Jabatan Pengagkutan Jalan Malaysia].G. April). R.. P-A. Report to the General Assembly. European Federation of Psychologists’ Associations Task Force on Traffic Psychology. (2000). Tippetts.be/doc/Final%20report%20TF%20Traffic%20Psychology%20GA%202003. Stress and Health. Upper Saddle River NJ: Prentice Hall. Anger. 2007 from http://202.  Rice.B. Singapore: Elsevier. R. Retrieved December 11.Y. E.  Romano. In Lim. (2003). 485-489. K. R..190. and Huguenin. P.S. Retrieved May 23.
Boston: Kluwer. (pp. C. G. J. J. 56-67.  Rowley. (2005).  Rothengatter. (2002).(Ed. (1998). 308-331. Some problems and misconceptions related to the construct of internal versus external control of reinforcement. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources. The ethnic factor in state-labour relations: the case of Malaysia.B. 5. In Barjonet.  Rothengatter. A.  Rotter. topics and methods. 88. and Bhopal. Traffic safety: content over packaging. (1966). M. Amsterdam: Elsevier. 10. 80. J. P-E. In Underwood. Edmonton CA: University of Alberta Press. 43(3).  Rotter. 249-258. 43(1). M. Capital & Class.  Rotter. (2006). The role of ethnicity in employee relations: the case of Malaysia. Drivers’ illusions – no more risk. (2001) Objectives. T. T. Internal versus external control of reinforcement: a case history of a variable. 428-435  Rothe.B. G. 489-493.) Traffic and Transport Psychology (pp.) Traffic Psychology Today (pp. 84-115.P. Rosenbloom. 214-220). 595-600).  Rothengatter. (1975). 45.) Behavioural Research in Road Safety VIII. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. (Ed. An overview of traffic psychology: do research and measures match? In Grayson. (Ed. (Ed. T. T. American Psychologist. 3-12). whole issue. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. and Bhopal. (1990). J. (2005). Crowthorne UK: Transport Research Laboratory. Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. (2002). T.B.) Driving Lessons: Exploring Systems that Make Traffic Safer. 273 . C. and Shahar.P. In Rothe.  Rowley. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. Psychological Monographs. J.B. (2007). Differences between taxi and nonprofessional male drivers and attitudes towards traffic-violation penalties. Traffic psychology and road safety: separate realities.  Rothengatter.
Relationships between injuries at work and leisure time.  Royal Malaysian Police [Polis Diraja Malaysia] (2003). J. Amsterdam: Elsevier.  Rude drivers lack emotional control. and Heiskanen. M. Malaysian Road Accident Statistics.A. [Perankaan Kemalangang Jalanraya Malaysia]. Accident Analysis and Prevention.A2. Ergonomics of the driver’s interface with the road environment: the contribution of psychological research. Retrieved May 22. 373-376. F. 2003 from http://www. Retrieved December 11. B. Human Factors for Engineers (pp. IBU Pejabat Polis. 29(1). S. [Perankaan Kemalangang Jalanraya Malaysia]. [Perankaan Kemalangang Jalanraya Malaysia]. Malaysian Road Accident Statistics. Royal Malaysian Police [Polis Diraja Malaysia] (2000).  Salminen. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 33-36. September 26). Bukit Aman. (2005. Correlations between traffic. IBU Pejabat Polis.  Royal Malaysian Police [Polis Diraja Malaysia] (2007).htm 274 .  Saad.malaysia-today. IBU Pejabat Polis.  Salminen. Malaysian Road Accident Statistics. Basingstoke UK: AA Foundation for Road Safety Research. Malaysian Road Accident Statistics. (1997).my.  Royal Malaysian Police [Polis Diraja Malaysia] (2002). 2007 from http://www. (1999). occupational. (2005).gov. R. sports and home accidents. Road Safety – Back to the Future. (2002). Bukit Aman. September 29).  Royal Malaysian Police [Polis Diraja Malaysia] (2001). p.  Sadiq. Kuala Lumpur. spills & death plague Malaysian roads.rmp. (2006. S. IBU Pejabat Polis. Malaysiatoday (Reuters). 37(2).net/Blog-n/2006/09/thrillsspills-death-plague-malaysian. In Fuller. Bukit Aman. Bukit Aman.  Sabey. J. Statistik Kemalangan Jalanraya & Kematian. [Perankaan Kemalangang Jalanraya Malaysia]. Kuala Lumpur. and Santos (Eds. Thrills. Kuala Lumpur.). 23-42). Kuala Lumpur. The Star.
(1966).C. C. (2000). and Schade.F. C.  Sambasivan..E. 275 . M. (2003).L. Traffic Engineering + Control.  Scuffham. and Rizzo.). Jr. little details. An investigation of behavioural adaptation to airbags and antilock brakes among taxi drivers. Ericsson.. F. Sagberg.  Schneider. (Eds. 6(9).. (2004). and Sætermo. and Bourne.C. Ball.) The Sage Handbook of Methods in Psychology (pp. Applied Economics. Public acceptability of traffic demand management in Europe. and Panter. J. 293302  Salih. Fosser. Jr. 673-687. Singapore: Maruzen Asia for United Nations Centre fro Regional Development. 35. P.K. (1997).F. Urbanization and Regional Development (pp. Morf. (Ed.  Schlag. A.. Regional Development Series. 34. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage. In Sansone. M.C. (2008. 29(3). A. 3-16). D. Asian Survey. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Individual difference factors in risky driving: the roles of anger/hostility. and the social psychological road in between. M. I. K. 179-188. Accident Analysis and Prevention.. and Young. and Panter. (2006). In Healy.E. Economic factors and traffic crashes in New Zealand. and Langley (2002).. L. v. Morf. The effects of contextual interference on the acquisition and retention of logical rules. K. 484-491. (1995).I. 6. S.  Scuffham. and sensation seeking.T. A. Healy. V. A. The research process: of big pictures.. L.  Sansone. and Bourne. Malaysia: urbanization in a multiethnic society – case of peninsula Malaysia. 38. Learning and Memory of Knowledge and Skills: Durability and Specificity. conscientiousness. Severson. H. A model of traffic crashes in New Zealand. M. 801-810. J. In Honjo.A. (1981). 117-147).  Schwebel. Nagoya: Japan. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage. C. B. 314-318.T.  Sendut. 41. Personal correspondence. C. November 15). K. P.A.A. Contemporary urbanization in Malaysia. Accident Analysis and Prevention.F.
(1998). Research Methods for Business: A Skill Building Approach. suicide and unconscious motivation. (1988). New York: John Wiley & Sons. 1549-1565. (1988). 137-160. Journal of Counseling and Development. Ergonomics. B. 1.) Traffic Psychology Today (pp. D. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education. Los Angeles CA: Western Psychological Services.H. 276 .S. (2003). M. Manual for the Attitudes toward Guns and Violence Questionnaire (AGVQ). R. J. In Barjonet.E. The measurement and treatment of client anger in counselling.  Siegel. L. and Zakowska. 119(3). (2001).E. P-E.. Summala. New York: McGraw Hill.M.  Shinar.  Shinar. Automobile accidents. S. U.P. B. 3-7.  Shook.. American Journal of Psychiatry. (1956). The effects of safety regulations and law enforcement. D. 51(1).M and Kacmar. K. H. and Roskova. 180-205).. and Warshaw. E.  Sharma. (2000). Dewar.  Sheppard. 66.. Sekaran. 46(15). 15(3). 361-365. P. Theory of reasoned action and theory of planned behavior in alcohol and drug education.  Siegriest.J. Aggressive driving: the contribution of the drivers and the situation. Ketchen. 25. G.  Sharkin.T. (2004).L. M. 237-240. The theory of reasoned action: a metaanalysis of past research with recommendations for modifications and future research. A. Fourth Edition. and Kanekar. D. and Payne. (1962). Hult. S. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. C. 397-404. Boston: Kluwer. An assessment of the use of structural equation modeling in strategic management research. (2007).R.  Shapiro. Journal of Consumer Research.  Selzer. Strategic Management Journal. (Ed. Traffic sign symbol comprehension: a cross-cultural study.L. Hartwick. J. C.. 325-343. (2003).
B. and Frank. Matthews. 50(8). Sinha.org/publik/driving. 1029-1030. 477-492.A. Product design with people in mind. Editorial.  Spielberger. (1992).. C. Measuring the experience. (2007).. 2007 from http://findarticles.) Anger Disorders: Definition and Treatment (pp.. coping and psychological illness: a cross-cultural study. Fishchoff. and Coombs. N. Assessing hostile automatic thoughts: development and validation of the HAT scale. and Poirier.  Slinn. and Sydeman. (1995). Oxford UK.D. D.). Traffic Engineering Design: Principles and Practice.  Stanton. and Watson. N. N. M.C. Cognitive Therapy and Research. J. 49-68). E.sirc. 14(4). (2001. Crowson. S. In Kassinove.R.  Smiley.D.com/p/articles/mi_qa3622/is_200001/ai_n8903050/pg_1  Snyder. 2007 from http://www.  Social Issues Research Centre (2004.  Slovic. Ergonomics. 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. P. B. 1-18). (Ed. C. Human Factors in Consumer Products (pp.. Retrieved December 25.pdf  Spielberger. Corrigan. B. 44.J. H.G. Stress. B. Philadelphia PA: Taylor & Francis. Reheiser. B. 47(8). FL: Taylor & Francis. In Stanton. American Psychologist. (1998). Lichtenstein. International Journal of Stress Management.J.A. Boca Raton. 277 . (2007). M. Retrieved December 1. A. J. Issues in Science and Technology. and Guest.. (2004). (1977). 237-258. London: Arnold.C.K. 21(4). Jr. S.  Stanton. C.. August).K.A.. R. Preference for insuring against probably small losses: insurance implications. Journal of Risk and Insurance. 386-397. expression and control of anger. Houston.. (Ed. Kurylo. Auto safety and human adaptation. (1997). Injury control: a promising field for psychologists. P. Winter). 1151-1158. P.
N. 44(3). (1993).L. and Ryan. (2001). R.  Sümer. Behavioral factors as predictors of motor vehicle crashes in young drivers. 467-480. and stress. D.. Traffic congestion. Harlow UK: Addison-Wesley. N. J. (1988).R.E.  Stevenson. E.. D. Trabasso. 681-688. and Pinto. N. Cheltenham. 2(4). N.  Storey. The Methodology of Theory Building.. 139(6). Behavioural compensation by drivers of a simulator when using a vision enhancement system. A. (1996).A. R. Palamara. The representation and organization of emotion experience: unfolding the emotion episode. R. In Stough. Bilgic. 278 . New York: Guilford. (1989) Prevention and control of injuries arising from road traffic accidents in Malaysia. T. Type A Behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology.. J. 279-300). M. (1978).  Subramaniam. Sümer. 35. Journal of Psychology. and Erol.W. 178-182. Safety-Critical Computer Systems. T. and Jin. 43(9). Stanton. Medical Journal of Malaysia. (Eds. P.R. Maggio. Methodological and technical challenges in regional evaluation of ITS: Induced and direct effects.  Stewart. M. H. M. Personality attributes as predictors of psychological well-being for NCOs. 529-544. (2000). Attributions of responsibility for motor vehicle crashes. (2001). (2005). Accident Analysis and Prevention. Stokols... and Campbell. D. (2003). (2005). 247-254.) Intelligent Transportation Systems. Morrison. G.  Sümer. N.M. Traffic Injury Prevention.E. M. Ergonomics.  Steiner. Personality and behavioral predictors of traffic accidents: testing a contextual mediated model. and Liwag.  Stokols. 37(4).. UK: Edward Elgar. 63. Sydney AU: Educology Research Associates.  Stough. R. and Havland. Novaco.A. (Ed.. N. Accident Analysis and Prevention.) Handbook of Emotions (pp. 949-964.C. R. M. 1359-1370. In Lewis. J.  Stein.
. In Underwood. (2005). Ergonomics. (1997). A. Accident Analysis and Prevention. (1988). G.) Road User Behaviour: Theory and Research (pp. Amsterdam: Elsevier  Summala. Nguntra. 22(1-3).  Summala. Risk control is not risk adjustment: the zero-risk theory of driver behavior and its implications. 442-451. Nieminen. Özkan. (Ed. A. N. Accident risk and driver behaviour.. 38(3). (1994).  Summala. Koonchote. H. (Eds. T. and Näätänen. 383-394). Karanci. H. W. The zero-risk theory and overtaking decision. and Lajunen. S. vehicles. Hierarchical model of behavioural adaptation and traffic accidents.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. H. In In Rothengatter. 38. Safety Science. H. G.  Summala. 703-711. T.  Summala. M. (1996). Berument. and Carbonell Vaya E. coping selfefficacy and quake exposure as predictors of psychological distress following the 1999 earthquake in Turkey. (Eds. and Punto. 21. (1988).  Sümer. 103-117. (1980). (Report 11). (1996). 82-92). 331-342. Traffic psychology theories: towards understanding driving behaviour and safety efforts. T. Sümer.. H. 31. T. (1986). Human Factors. and Tantriratna. H. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology. 18(4)... University of Helsinki Traffic Research Unit. H.N. N. Epidemiologic characteristics of drivers. Amsterdam: Elsevier. 41-52). P.K. and Merisalo. Helsinki.  Summala. P. and de Bruin.. (2005). Personal resources.. Asymmetric relationship between driving and safety skills. and Gunes. 193-199.) Traffic and Transport Psychology (pp. R. 491-506. S. pedestrians and road environments involved in 279 . H. Assen/Maastricht: Van Gorcum. Mahasakpan. T. Maintaining lane position with peripheral vision during in-vehicle tasks. In Rothengatter. (2006).  Summala.  Swaddiwudhipong. A psychophysical method for determining the effects of studded tires on safety. Risk control is not risk adjustment: the zero-risk theory of driver behaviour and its implications. H.  Summala. R. Journal of Traumatic Stress.
Y. 37-44. Journal of Social Psychology. and Theodorson. Washington DC: American Psychological Association. (2001)..G. G. International Review of Applied Psychology. Hopelessness in a community population: factorial structure and psychosocial correlates. C. G. S. and Layde. (2000). 33(2). Kuhn. Southeast Asian Journal of Tropical Medicine and Public Health. In Barjonet. Anger: The Misunderstood Emotion.. (1969). The interaction of attention and emotion. Sakamoto. S. Fujihara. B. Boston: Kluwer.  Theeuwes. (2001). 25(1). G. New York: Thomas & Cromwell.R. E. 42. In Grimm.M. D. The effects of road design on driving. 280 . Sakamoto. A Modern Dictionary of Sociology.R.  Taylor. C. E. T. 18(4). 609-615. J.  Tanaka. (Ed.C. J. Journal of Clinical Psychology. (1989).. Driving habits and behaviour patterns of university students. and Kitamura. (eds.S.  Tanaka. S. A fit-index for covariance structure models under arbitrary GLS estimation.  Theodorson.  Thompson. and Yarnold. P.. T. British Journal of Mathematics and Statistics. Ten commandments of structural equation modeling. 353-369. S.S. Ono. 138(5).road traffic injuries in rural Thailand. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Y. 581-590. Age and gender patterns in motor vehicle crash injuries: importance of type of crash and occupant role. (1998). P. 241-263).) Reading and Understanding More Multivariate Statistics. P-E. and Kitamura. (1985). 167-172. 241-257. Hopelessness in a community population in Japan.  Tanaka. A.E. J.  Tavris. and Huba. N.  Tavris. New York: Simon & Schuster. Fujihara. and Papacostas. L. E. (1996). 52(6).M.. Neural Networks.  Synodinos.. (1985).A.J. and Fragopanagos (2005).233-239. Ono. 34.) Traffic Psychology Today (pp..
C. 185.  Tversky.  Tiliman.  Underwood. G. and Kahneman. 5. London: Academic. Journal of Counseling Psychology.. and Milton. B.  Trimpop. 7. (1996). Personality and Individual Differences.  Turner.. and response to a traffic safety campaign. W. A. Collusion after a collision: witnesses’ reports of a road accident with and without discussion. Availability: a heuristic for judging frequency and probability. R. Injury Control and Safety Promotion. Enns. (1973). Science. In Neumann. D. P. and Everatt. and Vavrik. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. Cognitive Psychology. (1993). Paying attention behind the wheel: a framework for studying the role of attention in driving. (2003).  Underwood.. (1985). 11-22. 207-332.F. 1124-1130. D. 32(3).. D. A. 55-68. 123-130. (Eds. (1949).A and Hobbs. 4(4).  Trick. Anger while driving. Judgment under uncertainty. J.  Tversky.T. 5(5). The accident prone automobile driver. J. C. and Sanders. Chapman. Age and gender differences in risk-taking behaviour as an explanation for high incidence of motor vehicle crashes as a driver in young males. accident involvement. Personality predictors of driving accidents. 385-424. Wright and Crundall. (2004). 321-333.  Ulleberg. American Journal of Psychiatry. H. Relationship to risk-taking preferences. G. 2.M.E. (1999). (2001). (1974). and Kahneman. and Kirkcaldy. J. 23(1). 10(3). Applied Cognitive Psychology. Personality subtypes of young drivers.  Underwood.) Handbook of Perception and Action. and McClure. 445-448.W. Effectivenss of cognitive-behavioral treatments in reducing Type A behavior among university faculty – one year later. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. 147-152. 279-297. 281 . G. 106(5). A. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomic Science. Automatic and controlled information processing: the role of attention in the processing of novelty. L. P. (1997). G. Mills. Volume 3: Attention. O. J. R. Thurman.
T. (Ed.. (2005). Bergerson.. Harris. T. On-line driver workload estimation.  Vavrik. and Rothengatter.  Vasconcellos. A.J. Brazil. Effects of road situation and age on secondary task measures.A. Accident Analysis and Prevention. (Eds. Amsterdam: Elsevier  Van der Hulst. Harrison. Proceedings of the 14th workshop of the International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT).F.ictct. S. Meijman. 2007 from www. W. Personality and Individual Differences. 43(2). Smart. A. 913-921.. (1999). and Vallerand. 26.pdf  Vallières. J. The role of attributions and anger in aggressive driving behaviours.org/workshops/05-CampoGrande  Vassallo. Retrieved September 1.) Traffic and Transport Psychology (pp. R. Ergonomics. 24-29. March 20-22. Ergonomics. A. Matto Grosso do Sul. É. Traffic accident risks in developing countries: superseding biased approaches.M.. Campo Grande.org/workshops/01-Caserta/Vaa. 39. J. (1998). Italy. (2001). 2007 from http:www. Cognition and emotion in driver behaviour models: some critical viewpoints. Proceedings of the International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT) Extra Workshop. D. Risky driving among young Australian drivers: trends precursors and correlates. Driver selection and improvement in Germany. 42. (2004). E.A. R.  Verwey.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application. and McIntyre. Sanson. T.. S. Anticipation and the adaptive control of safety margins in driving. G. Caserta.D. Amsterdam: Elsevier. H.  Velting.  Vaa.” Recovery. W.F.D. 336-345.ictct. 210-222. “Accident prone. D. 181-190). In Underwood.B. and Huguenin. 282 . 9(2). Retrieved December 5. 444-458. M. Cockfield. (2005). Utzelmann. Personality and negative expectancies: trait structure of the Beck Hopelessness Scale. J.. In Rothengatter. (2007). (2000). (1999)..
28.html. M. Changes in young adults offense and crash patterns over time.  Walker.  Wállen Warner. Accident Analysis and Prevention. (2001). and McKenna. Shope.F. 2007 from http://www. (2006). H. N. Stanton.  Waller.pdf  Wei. New Zealand.theaa.A. 50(4).. J. Perceived coping as a mediator between attachment and psychological distress: a structural equation modeling approach.H. January 21). Journal of Counseling Psychology. Methodological problems associated with surveying unlicensed drivers. Retrieved December 15. 123-142.. L. eye blinks and ongoing driver behaviour.. 2008 from http://www. An on-road investigation of vehicle feedback and its role in driver cognition: implications for cognitive ergonomics. Cradle Attitudes – Grave Consequences. and Carbonell Vaya E.B. 117128. M. (2000). 283 . The development of gender differences in risky attitudes and behaviour in road use (Summary Report). International Journal of Cognitive Ergonomics. Basingstoke UK: AA Foundation for Road Safety. Amsterdam: Elsevier.  Waller.P.com/public_affairs/reports/AA-foundation-FDN33-cradle-grave. (2001). (2002). and Zaidel. and Little. and Young. Predicting drowsiness accidents from personal attributes. In Proceedings of the 1998 Road Safety Research. Heppner. 438-447. T.  Watson.P. Backwoods Home Magazine. T.S. (2009. P. Wellington. P. Raghunathan.. M. A.com/articles/waterman37. and Åberg. Personality and Individual Differences. D.R. B. and Mallinckrodt (2003). A. 9. Feeling nostalgic? Now you’ll rave.  Waterman. Here’s the story of Burma-Shave. Policing and Educatino Conference 2.M. (Eds.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. 33.F. G.E.backwoodshome.  Waylen.. F. Retrieved November 2. In Rothengatter.T. (1997).J.A. 427-433. Elliot. 421-444. W. 1-8). (1998). Drivers’ decision to speed: a study inspired by the theory of planned behavior. P. Verwey. 5(4). Transportation and society. R.
Childhood accidents. (2002). P.  Wilde. Mild social deviance. Accident Analysis and Prevention.S. R. 15(11/12). Risk Analysis.J.J. British Journal of Psychology.. Risk homeostasis theory and traffic education requirements.  Wilde.S. J. The theory of risk homeostasis: implications for safety and health. M. Wiliams.. deductions and discussion of recent commentaries. 8. Advances in Paediatrics. (1961). University of Waterloo Press. An exploratory study of the relationship between road rage and crash experience in a representative sample of US drivers..  Wilde. and Anderson.N. Ceminsky.J..M. G. 130(4). D. Risk homeostasis and traffic accidents: propositions. Does risk homeostasis theory have implications for road safety? British Medical Journal. G. 209-225. 34. K. and French. Proceedings of the International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT) Extra 284 . 135-154). and Klerman.  West. In Halsey. S.L. (1994). Elander.W.) Transport Risk Assessment (pp. M. Deaths and injuries from car accidents: an intractable problem? Journal of Cleaner Production. 31. Snow. Hostility and depression associated with suicide attempts. 1149-1152. (pp. In Yager. 207-219. (2007).  Wilde.  Wheatley. G.S. 469-529) New York: McGraw Hill. S..  Wheatley. 1116-1121. American Journal of Psychiatry.J. Weissman. Accident Prevention. G.  Wilde. G.  Wells. (2005). G. Preventions of accidents in childhood.  Wilde. (2002). 84.  Wells-Parker. J. E. 2.S. 271278. On the choice of denominator for the calculation of accident rates.). Hallberg. B. (1993). R.. Ergonomics. (ed. G.J. G. 324.. Toronto: PDE Publications. 450-455. M. 441-468.S. G. Target Risk. Type-A behaviour pattern and decision-making style as predictors of self-reported driving style and traffic accident risk.S. Fox. Dunaway. (1984). Guiling.J. G.M (1956). 195. (1982). (1973). (1988). (Ed.
Y. 26(6). In Hanson..  Williamson. Campo Grande. A. The fluid state: Malaysia’s national expressway. (2003). Research Methodology in Strategy and Management.. 807-811. (2008). Fundamentals of ergonomics in theory and practice. (2000).  Williamson. 31. L. and Well.R.. M. N.G. 303346. (1994). A. S. by age and gender. T. T. M. J. J. for motor-vehicle crash deaths. S. (2001). 110-131. T.  Woodcock.  Wood. Designing for the in-car safety and security of women.G.Workshop. D. 55(175). M. Mastering the World of Psychology. J. Welsh. (Ed.F. International Social Science Journal. V..) Contemporary Ergonomics.S. Flyte and Garner. Gavin. (1999). Journal of Safety Research. (2004). 8. (1996). New York: Taylor & Francis.  Williams. 99-109. and Shabanova. E. Applied Ergonomics. Brazil. 6(2).E.C.A. and Boyd.F. 34(5). 2007 from http:www.ictct. 557-567.. Wood. (2003). 527-531. and Hartman. Lenard. Boyd.  Williams..J. Driver experience with antilock brake systems.I. 398-403. (2003).B. Responsibility of drivers. Farmington Hills MI: Gale. Retrieved March 31. Psychological Assessment.  Williams. Possession and displacement in Kuala Lumpur’s ethnic landscape. Space and Culture. Boston: Pearson.  Wilson. 1. Countries and Their Cultures. and Poythress. Matto Grosso do Sul.org/workshops/05-CampoGrande  Willford. 285 . A.  Williams. Structural equation modeling in strategy research: applications and issues. March 20-22. A. Cascardi. N. Accident Analysis and Prevention.K. J. The factor structure and convergent validity of the Aggression Questionnaire in an offender population.
286 . (2007). 42(5). 46-58.  Zhang. and Stanton.  Yergil. Ergonomics.R.  Yaapar. Back to the future: brake reaction times for manual and automated vehicles. (2005). Ergonomics.  World Health Organization [WHO] (2004). 1314-1330. D. L. theatre and tourism. S. (2000). and Harris. 43(9). (1999).C. 740-746. 473-485.A. Geneva. 118. Drivers and traffic laws: a review of psychological theories and empirical research. Accidents in Childhood: Facts as a Basis for Prevention. Technical Report Series No. Head tilt during driving. and Chaffin.S. . (Ed.) Traffic and Transport Psychology (pp. In Underwood. Regional Office for the Western Pacific. Amsterdam: Elsevier  Young.  Zikovitz. World Health Organization [WHO] (1957). Report of an Advisory Group. 33(3). Ergonomics. 50(1). Islam. Asian Journal of Social Science. Negotiating identity in Malaysia: multi-cultural society. 487-503). Country reports. N. D. G. D. X. A three-dimensional dynamic posture prediction model for simulating in-vehicle seated reaching movements: development and validation. M. (2005).
1939) and arising from the individual differences approach in psychology. the ABS reapplies it until the wheels begin to lock-up again. Immediately after releasing the pressure. Behavioural adaptation (BA): “the ability to adapt to novel conditions based on one’s experiences. the outcome of which is typically reflected by perceived advantages. allowing the wheel to turn. a concept generally attributed to Farmer and Chambers (1926. 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. differential accident involvement). presumably because of personality factors. to the individual” (Brown & 287 . on most surface types. or benefits. traction is maintained steering and braking actions continue to be effective. drivers stop sooner and in a more controlled manner than with traditional rack-and-pinion braking systems. (see also.GLOSSARY Acronyms and Symbols: ABS AQ BA BHS BIT C DDB FARS HAT I ITS IFRB Anti-lock braking system LoC Aggression Questionnaire MVA Behavioural adaptation P Beck Hopelessness Scale PBC Behaviour-in-Traffic RHT Chance SEM Dangerous driving behaviour SRS Fatality Analysis Reporting System TAPB Hostile automatic thoughts TCI Internality TPB Intelligent transportation system TRA Industrial Fatigue Research Board Theory of Reasoned Action Theory of Planned Behaviour Task capability theory Type A Behaviour Pattern Supplementary restraint system Structural equation modelling Risk Homeostasis Theory Perceived behavioural control Powerful others Motor vehicle accident Locus of control Definitions: Accident-proneness: a tendency toward accidents. ABS ensures that. Because the wheels continue to turn during the braking manoeuvre. the brake line pressure is relates. As a result.
distal variable. proximal variable. black event) Contextual mediated model: an empirically-based path analysis. The central idea is that. risk homeostasis theory. it refers to a combination of circumstances. hierarchical driver adaptation theory. BA is a core concept in all risk theories of driver behaviour. The model posits certain variables as distal to the crash event and predicts that their influence will moderate drivers’ self-reported tendencies to behave in certain ways when in traffic situations. that corresponds to an accumulation of crashes in the statistical mass. McKenna of the University of Reading. It refers to accumulations of motor vehicle crashes in amassed statistics. accident proneness) Differential psychology: see individual differences approach. Turke showing the manner in which the certain demographic. (see also. when confronted by differing levels of perceived or objective risk in the environment. as an alternative to the largely discounted notion of accident proneness. where effort to save lives may be concentrated. driving and psychological variables influence self-reported behaviour in traffic and self-reported crash outcomes. 25). 288 . rather than a theory. road and traffic conditions. (see also. therefore allowing for the influence of external factors. the statistical model was based on the results of automobile users’ responses to psychological testing and questionnaires. including driver behaviour. p. 2004. it is essential when searching for black spots to disaggregate the accident mass by splitting it into progressively smaller units by type. It differs from accident proneness in that it (a) denotes an area of study. and (c) assumes that individuals may vary along a continuum with regard to factors that affect their risk of crash. drivers will alter their behaviour (see also. black spot) Black spot: a term attributed to Heikki Summala of the Traffic Research Unit at the University of Helsinki. (b) does not prejudge the causation of personality variables. first offered by Nebi Sümer of the Middle East Technical University in Ankara. Usually based on geographical location of the crash. Black event: a post-hoc extension of the black spot concept. The concept has been applied both to Summala’s (1996) hierarchical adaptation theory and to Fuller’s (2000) task capability theory. (see also. In the present research. task capability theory) . time of week and. where possible. crash outcome) Differential accident involvement: a concept proposed by Frank P. characteristics of road users. (see also. The contextual mediated model forms the basis of ordering variables within the research design for studies reported in this thesis. Also referred to as risk compensation.Noy.
bipolar construct ranging from I (internal) to E (external) maximums.S. William Haddon Jr. then of the Veteran’s Administration Medical Centre in San Francisco. this is an orientation in psychology concerned with the study of traits or quantitative differences in traits by which any individual may be distinguished from other individuals. personality) Industrial Fatigue Research Board (IFRB): a body set up in Great Britain during World War One to investigate the cause and prevention of industrial accidents. the vehicle and the road – with the three phases in a motor vehicle crash – pre-crash. in-crash. motivation. aptitudes. 289 . One such multidimensional model of LoC was advanced by Hanna Levenson. self-concept.. In traffic psychology. Each of the nine elements of the matrix represents a possible focus for road safety.Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS): is a database in the public domain maintained by the U. Department of Transportation. interests. Locus of control (LoC): a concept generally credited to Julian B. It contains detailed information about fatalities resulting from motor vehicle crashes on public roadways in the United States since 1975. The name was changed to the British Industrial Health Research Board in 1931. a body of theoretical and empirical knowledge has been generated from attempts to consider how individual differences – primarily in personality. Individual differences research typically focuses on the domains of personality. Haddon matrix: a model developed by the American traffic analyst. Headway: the distance between two vehicles travelling one in front of the other. Externality Chance (C) and Externality Powerful Others (P). leading to the now largely discredited concept of accident proneness. Rotter of the University of Connecticut. selfefficacy and self-esteem. accident proneness) Inner speech: see self-talk. Individual differences approach: also referred to as differential psychology. and after crash – to form a matrix with nine cells. not as a unidimensional. which combines the three components of the road traffic system – the human. It was at the IFRB that statisticians and analysts first examined the distribution of accident frequency. demographic and motivational variables – contribute to diving outcomes. ability. Later conceptualisations have viewed LoC. who posited three dimensions: Internality (I). (see also. (see also. intelligence. but rather as a multidimensional variable made up of three or more dimensions. it refers to the degree to which individuals attribute the cause of their behaviour to environmental factors (external LoC) or to their own decisions and actions (internal LoC). values.
motor vehicle crash was considered largely synonymous with the concept of motor vehicle accident. For the purposes of the present research. motorised bicycles. p. most usually on roads. Freudian psychology considers it to be a manifestation of the integration of the id. the individual differences approach. if perceived risk exceeds target risk. 333-334). PBC refers to the degree of control that individuals believe they have over a given behaviour. When there is a discrepancy between the level of perceived risk in the environment and an internalised “target risk” level. Motor vehicle crash: a collision or incident that may or may not lead to injury. Wilde.Motor vehicle: a machine which incorporates an engine and wheels and is used for transportation on land. but excluded those vehicles which operate on rails. somewhat analogous to a thermostat. regards it as “that which permits a prediction of what a person will do in a given situation. 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. if perceived risk falls below the target risk. conversely. including life goals” (Chaplin. or characteristic manner of responding to life’s problems. Wilde’s theory has generated equivocal 290 . individuals will engage in more cautious behaviour. mobile construction equipment or platforms. Private speech: see self-talk. bicycling. and using animal-drawn or human-drawn carts or other devices. For the purposes of the present research.S. individuals will engage in behaviour intended to eliminate the discrepancy. and buses. individuals are likely to perform riskier behaviour. trucks (lorries). That is. Risk homeostasis theory (RHT): Originally postulated by Gerald J. Risk compensation: see behavioural adaptation. Adlerian psychology views it as “the individual’s style of life. the ego and the superego. operates to keep user risk at an essentially constant level. Professor Emeritus at Canada’s Queen’s University. Non-motorised transport: any transport that does not require a motor to generate energy. motor vehicles included automobiles. as expressed by Raymond Cattell. Perceived behavioural control (PBC): a key concept in Azjen’s Theory of Planned Behaviour. the RHT posits that an underlying feedback system. 1985. occurring on a public road and involving at least one moving motor vehicle. Different schools of psychology vary in their conceptualisation of personality: the individual psychology of Gordon Allport views personality as “the dynamic integration within individuals that determine their characteristic behaviour and thought”. Included in this term are walking. motorcycles.
these tyres are manufactured with small metal studs – much like football cleats – inserted in the treads. zero risk theory) Road infrastructure: road facilities and equipment. as the result of injury sustained in the crash. most frequently attributed to Donald Meichenbaum at Canada’s University of Waterloo. It refers to the constant stream of chatter that goes on in one’s mind. 35). Road traffic system: Road traffic may be considered as a system in which three components (the human. tunnels. and (d) improvement of known hazardous locations on the road network. They enable better traction and shorter braking distances than non-studded counterparts. p. Studded tyres: used primarily in countries that experience ice. Opportunities for road safety engineering in general apply at four levels: (a) safety conscious planning of new road networks. (see also. which applies engineering principles in order to identify road design or traffic management improvements that will cost-effectively reduce the cost of road accidents. (c) improvement of safety aspects of existing roads to avoid future problems. (b) incorporation of safety features in the design of new roads. Also referred to as private speech or inner speech.and snow-covered roads during the winter months. Road traffic fatality: a death occurring within 30 days of a motor vehicle crash.research results and some heated controversy within the field of traffic psychology. Cognitive self-statements may be either negative or positive. Road traffic injuries: fatal or non-fatal injuries incurred as a result of a motor vehicle crash. overpasses. Within the context of this research. archways and footpaths. 1996. 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. based on analysis of road and traffic related accident information. including the network. behavioural adaptation. at both conscious and unconscious levels. A motor vehicle crash may be considered as a failure in the system. signage. stopping places. Self talk: a fundamental concept in most theories of cognitive behaviourism. Road safety engineering: “a process. bridges.” (Ogden. Road user: a person using any part of the road system as a non-motorised transport user or as a user of a motor vehicle. parking spaces. the vehicle and the road) interact with each other. target risk. but only 291 . draining system.
studded tyres actually increase braking distances and decrease lateral control of the vehicle. (see also. Supplementary restraint system (SRS): Also referred to as “airbags”. instrument panel and windshield of a motorcar. perceived Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA): was proposed by Martin Fishbein at the time with the University of Illinois at Urbana and presently of the Annenberg School for Communication at University of Pennsylvania. Each cell of the matrix represents a combination of the three dimensions which form the basis of the theory. According to RHT proponents. and Icek Ajzen at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst. On dry roads. which are the best predictors of behaviour. hierarchical adaptation theory) Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB): as proposed by Icek Ajzen of the University of MassachusettsAmherst. behaviour control) (see also. According to Wilde (1994). risk homeostasis theory) Task cube.when manoeuvring on icy or hard-packed snowy surfaces. derived from Summala’s (1996) hierarchical adaptation theory of driver behaviour. (3) the benefits expected from cautious behaviour alternatives. The theory of reasoned action (TRA) proposes that behaviour is a function of intentions. Intentions are influenced by: (a) attitudes (the positive or negative evaluation of the behaviour). where i represents the number of factors defining the functional taxonomy dimension. The TPB has been applied to a wide range of research problems in traffic psychology. target risk is determined by four “classes of utility factors”: (1) the benefits expected from risky behaviour alternatives. remains constant at the target level. Individuals will undertake behaviour to ensure that the level of risk in which they are engaged. theory of planned behavriour) 292 . and (c) perceived behavioural control (PBC) over the performance of the behaviour (which jointly influences both the intention and behavioural performance). (see also. the TPB posits that a given behaviour is determined by individuals’ intentions. (2) the costs expected from cautious behaviour alternatives. it is a level of risk that each individual is willing to accept. A complex 3 X 5 X i matrix. (b) subjective norms (opinions about what significant others would think of the behaviour). theory of reasoned action. 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. and (4) the costs expected from risky behaviour alternatives. 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. (see also. which in turn are a function of attitudes and subjective norms.
The five basic transportation factors include: safety.Traffic management: planning. comfort. risk homeostasis theory) 293 . The emergence and impact of the field of traffic psychology is discussed in chapter 2 of this thesis. It is primarily concerned with the study of the behaviour of road users and the psychological processes underlying that behaviour. Traffic mix: the form and structure of different modes of transport. (see also. In the present research. convenience and economy. community planning. from its outset. motorised and non-motorised. Traffic psychology: a relatively new and developing field of applied psychology that. road engineering. time. only when a subjective threshold is exceeded and “feelings of fear” are experienced. that share the same road infrastructure. the term is considered synonymous with transport psychology and with mobility psychology. management science and economics. coordinating. behavioural adaptation. It is often proposed as an alternative to Wilde’s risk homeostasis theory. has embraced a multidisciplinary approach and a shared focus with human physiology. Transportation factors: a set of five domains operating on the process of moving goods or persons from one place to another. it posits that drivers attempt to maintain a stable balance between subjective and objective risk. ergonomics. Zero risk theory: as proposed by Heikki Summala of the Traffic Research Unit at the University of Helsinki. adapting behaviourally to driving conditions. controlling and organising traffic to achieve efficiency and effectiveness of the existing road infrastructure capacity.
Appendix A: List of Published and Research Scales 294 .
eng. CA 90025 USA http://portal. 1993). with the understanding that they would not be re-published. Papacostas & Synodinos. 1988) Obtained with permission from the authors: c/o Dr. Brace & Company).70400&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL Beck Hopelessness Scale (BHS.wpspublish.S.com/portal/page?_pageid=53. Papacostas Department of Civil Engineering 2540 Dole Street University of Hawaii at Manoa Honolulu. Information for obtaining copies of these instruments is provided below: Aggression Questionnaire (AQ. San Antonio. 2000).edu/~csp/csp. TX 78259 USA http://pearsonassess. 19500 Bulverde Road.A number of variables studied in the present research were measured using scales copyrighted by corporate publishers or by universities where they were developed.exe?grab_id=0&page_id=1549&query=Beck%20Hopelessness%20Scale&hiword= BECKER%20Beck%20Hopelessness%20SCALED%20SCALES%20SCALING%20Scale%20 Behaviour in Traffic Scale (BIT. Research scales (BIT and HAT) were obtained and used with the permission of the authors. Beck & Steer. Buss & Warren. Hawaii 96822 USA http://www.hawaii.html 295 .com/cgibin/MsmGo. Available from: Western Psychological Services 12031 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles. Available from: The Psychological Corporation (Harcourt. C. Published scales (AQ and BHS) are marketed only to professional psychologists capable of meeting criteria for psychometric knowledge and expertise.
Kansas 66045 USA www. Crowson. Snyder. Houston.psych. Kurylo & Poirier) Obtained with permission from the late Dr.edu/hope. Snyder.ukans. C.R. 296 .Hostile Automatic Thoughts Scale (HAT. Correspondence regarding this scale or the associated hope theory should be directed to: Graduate Training Program in Clinical Psychology The Department of Psychology 340 Fraser Hall University of Kansas 1415 Jayhawk Boulevard Lawrence.
Appendix B: Personal Information Form (PIF) 297 .
. 1. __________ (city/town) (state) (country) 4.. sitting behind driver) ___ car (passenger) ___ bicycle (non-motorized) ___ walk ___ other (please specify: _______________) 6. Proton Wira) _______________ ___ motorcycle – what engine size (e. so please answer all questions as truthfully as you can. How often do you travel in a car: as a driver (please check only one): ___ every day ___ several times a week ___ about once or twice a week ___ about once every two weeks ___ almost never ___ never as a passenger (please check only one) ___ every day ___ several times a week ___ about once or twice a week ___ about once every two weeks ___ almost never ___ never 298 . For how long have you had your driver’s licence? __________ years and ___________months (number) (number) 3. _________.g.what manufacturer & model (e. _________. In what city/town have you lived most of your life? _______________.CONFIDENTIAL Personal Information Form Please answer the following questions about Please answer the following questions about YOURSELF.g. What type of motor vehicle do you most often drive? (please check only one) ___ car -. what kind of transportation do you use? (please check only one) ___ bus ___ motorcycle (driver) ___ car (driver) ___motorcycle (pillion. We are not asking for your name. In what city/town did you learn to drive? _______________. 250 cc) ______________ ___ other (please specify: _________________) 7. __________ (city/town) (state) (country) 5. Do you presently have a driver’s licence? (circle one) yes no If yes. Most of the time when you travel. please answer the following questions: 2.
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:__________________________________________ ) 299 . do you have ready ACCESS to a car? (please check only one) ___ yes.8. most of the time ___ no 10. When you want to use a motorcycle. When you want to use a car. Within the last twelve (12) months. have you been in a motor vehicle accident that required you to be hospitalised for injuries? yes no If yes. some of the time ___ yes. do you have ready ACCESS to a motorcycle? (please check only one) ___ yes. all the time ___ yes. sitting behind driver) ___ car (passenger) ___ bicycle (non-motorized) ___ I was walking ___ other (please specify: _______________) If yes. some of the time ___ yes. all the time ___ yes. most of the time ___ no 11. How often do you travel on a motorcycle: as a driver (please check only one): ___ every day ___ several times a week ___ about once or twice a week ___ about once every two weeks ___ almost never ___ never as a passenger (please check only one) ___ every day ___ several times a week ___ about once or twice a week ___ about once every two weeks ___ almost never ___ never 9.
Within the last twelve months.12. What is your ethnic background? (please specify only one:) ___ Malay ___ Indian-Malaysian ___ Chinese-Malaysian ___ other (please specify: _____________) THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR COOPERATION 300 . but no injuries? If yes. have you been in a motor vehicle accident that resulted in damage over RM100 to your vehicle. in what kind of vehicle were you travelling when the accident occurred? ___ bus ___ motorcycle (driver) ___ car (driver) ___motorcycle (pillion. What is your age? ___ male _____ years ___ female 17. 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. in what kind of vehicle were you travelling when the accident occurred? ___ bus ___ motorcycle (driver) ___ car (driver) ___motorcycle (pillion. Within the last twelve months. what phrase best describes what happened? (please check only one): ___ my vehicle was changing lanes and hit (or was hit by) another vehicle ___ my vehicle hit (or was hit by) another vehicle that was changing lanes ___ my vehicle went out of control and went off the side of the road ___ my vehicle went through a red light (or sign) at an intersection (junction) ___ the other vehicle went through a red light (or sign) at an intersection ___ my vehicle hit another vehicle from behind ___ my vehicle was hit from behind by another vehicle ___ other (please specify:__________________________________________ ) 13. have you been in a motor vehicle accident that required you to go to a medical clinic for minor injuries? yes no If yes. sitting behind driver) ___ car (passenger) ___ bicycle (non-motorized) ___ I was walking ___ other (please specify: _______________) If yes. What is your gender? 16. sitting behind driver) ___ car (passenger) ___ bicycle (non-motorized) ___ I was walking ___ other (please specify: _______________) If yes.