CAUSE AND PREVENTION OF ROADWAY CRASHES AMONG YOUNG, HIGH-RISK DRIVERS IN MALAYSIA: A MULTI-DISCIPLINARY APPROACH

ALAN GIFFIN DOWNE

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY MULTIMEDIA UNIVERSITY APRIL 2008

Siti Hasmah Digital Library

Digitally signed by Siti Hasmah Digital Library DN: cn=Siti Hasmah Digital Library, c=MY, o=Multimedia University, ou=Research Library, email=kamal. sujak@mmu.edu.my Date: 2009.07.02 11:55:19 +08'00'

The copyright of this thesis belongs to the author under the terms of the Copyright Act 1987 as qualified by Regulation 4(1) of the Multimedia University Intellectual Property Regulations. Due acknowledgement shall always be made of the use of any material contained in, or derived from, this thesis.

 Alan Giffin Downe, April 2008 All rights reserved

ii

DECLARATION

I hereby declare that the work contained herein has been done by myself and that no portion of the work contained in this thesis has been submitted in support of any application for any other degree or qualification of this or any other university or institute of learning.

______________________ Alan Giffin Downe

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First, I wish to acknowledge the contribution of my supervisor, Dr. Stanley Richardson, whose guidance, wisdom and high standards have motivated me and kept me on track throughout all phases of the project. I also thank my former employer, Multimedia University, for permitting me to undertake doctoral studies during my time as a lecturer in the Faculty of Management. In this regard, I would like to express my gratitude for the gracious support and encouragement I have received from Prof. Dr. A. Seetharaman, current Dean of Management and from Prof. Dr. Hj. Mohd. Ismail Sayyed Ahmad, former Dean of Management. I also wish to thank Dr. A.S. Santhapparaj, Dr. V. Anantaraman and especially Dr. Sayed Hossain for coordinating and serving as panelists, respectively, when I presented this research to the faculty during my work completion seminar.

Several researchers at other institutions have provided assistance in the form of test instruments, unpublished papers and guidance over the course of this project. I especially thank Dr. Jerry Deffenbacher (University of Colorado), Dr. Yori Gidron (Brunel University), Dr. C.S. Papacostas (University of Hawaii at Manoa), Dr. Dianne Parker (University of Manchester), Dr. Murali Sambasivan (Universiti Putra Malaysia), the late Dr. C.R. Snyder (University of Kansas), and Dr. Henriette Wallén Warner (Dalarna University).

I would like also to thank four undergraduate research assistants who completed data collection for the study of Kuala Lumpur taxicab drivers: Agatha Yeoh Siew Ling, Gracy Thomas, Nazlina Nasihin and Sangeetha Munisamy.

I wish to acknowledge the Road Engineering Association of Malaysia (REAM), an organisation to which I have felt privileged to belong, as an Associate Member, since 2001.

iv

There are many individuals who have contributed greatly to the completion of this project through their helpful suggestions, collegial affiliation and friendship, notably Aw Lin, Aznur Hajar Binti Abdullah, Azrai Abdullai, Ming-Yu Cheng, Adeline Chua, Cynthia Downe, Ridhwan Fontaine, Jessica Ho Sze Yin, Lily Idayu, Loke Choong Khoon, Loke Siew Poh, Razlina Rezali, Omar Salahuddin Bin Abdullah, Bobby Varanasi and David Yong. A special expression of thanks is due to Fatimah Syam @ Noor Azleen A. Gani at the Siti Hasmah Digital Library for her very helpful assistance. For their caring support, I also wish to thank my mother, Evelyn G. Downe and Howard, of Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada.

The phrase, “without whom this research would never have been completed” appears ubiquitously in theses and dissertations around the world. But never has it been truer than in the contribution made here by my wife, Siew-Phaik Loke. She has helped me to score questionnaires, set up spreadsheets and enter data into the computer. She provided thoughtful input into solving even the most baffling problems of multivariate analysis. She sustained me with her constant reassurance throughout the project. And she did it all while excelling at her own PhD studies, starting a business, launching her career as a university lecturer and lovingly, patiently caring for our son. To her, I will be always grateful.

v

DEDICATION In the wee hours of a cold morning on December 5th, 2002 my father, Dr. A.E.R. Downe, Professor Emeritus of Biology at Canada’s Queen’s University passed away in his hospital bed in Kingston, Ontario after suffering a long and debilitating illness. For 47 years, he had been my inspiration and my role model. From him, I learned the value of hard work and family, the excitement that comes from scientific inquiry and the fortitude that evolves in a man’s struggle against adversity. Not a day goes by when I don’t find myself thinking of him.

On that very same day, on the other side of the planet, my little boy Richardson Downe Loke Ken, at ten months of age, took his first unaided steps, launching a jerky trajectory from the sofa to the television set, where he hugged the image of Sir Alex Ferguson. From his birth, I have marveled at Kenny’s boundless energy, his gentle disposition and his ability to fill his mother’s and my existence with one part challenge and nine parts joy. I only hope that I am able to teach him the same lessons that my father taught me.

It is to these two very special people that I dedicate this work.

vi

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

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

4 Risk Theories 2.3.2 2.3.6 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 Concepts.2.2.3 The Individual Differences Approach 2.2 Studies of Causal Factors in Malaysian Roadway Crashes The Professional Background 2.TABLE OF CONTENTS COPYRIGHT PAGE DECLARATION ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS DEDICATION ABSTRACT TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES PREFACE CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1.2 Traffic Psychology: Slow Progress in Theory-Building 2.1 Human Factors in Roadway Crashes: A Vexing Research Challenge 2.3.2.1 Risk Homeostasis Theory (RHT) 2.3 1.1 Accident Proneness 2.2.2 Differential Accident Involvement 2.1.2.3.1 Human Factors and the Motor Vehicle Safety Problem in Malaysia 2. Theories and Models 2.4 1.3 ix .3.1 An Applied Perspective 2.3.3.2 1.2 The Emergence of Traffic Psychology as a Scientific Discipline 2.2.4.3.1 1.3.5 1.2 A Multidisciplinary Approach Theories of Driving Behaviour 2.1 Roadway Crashes in Malaysia and Public Perceptions of Causality 2.

4 Studies of Driving Behaviour Using the Contextual Mediated Model 2.3.4.5.5.1 Type A Behaviour Pattern and Motor Vehicle Crashes 2.5.1 Locus of Control 2.2 Conceptualization and the Research Framework Definition of the Variables 3.4 Hopelessness 3.3.3.1 Demographic Variables 2.2.2 A Contextual Mediated Model of Personality and Behavioral Predictors of Motor Vehicle Crashes 2.2 Gender 2.5.1.3.3 Locus of Control 3.1.2.6.4.5 Aggression 78 78 84 84 84 84 85 85 x .2.2 Zero Risk Theory 2.5.1.2 Locus of Control and Driving Behaviour 2.5.2.1 Experience 2.5 Hierarchical Theories of Driver Adaptation 2.2.3 Psychological Variables 2.5.2 A Conceptual Shift from TAPB to Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) As A Variable 34 35 37 38 38 39 41 41 42 42 43 45 47 49 50 50 50 52 56 58 58 61 63 63 63 64 67 69 71 73 73 75 CHAPTER 3: METHOD OF INVESTIGATION 3.3 Aggression Proximal Variables in the Present Research 2.3.7 Attitude-behaviour Theories 2.1.7.9.4.2.1 Statistical Models 2.2 Demographic Variables: Age.3.2 Driver Characteristics 2.1 Unidimensional and Multidimensional Constructs 2. Gender and Ethnicity 3.5 2.5.2.4.3 Ethnicity 2.4.1.3.4.3.1 The Haddon Matrix 2.2.1 3.5.1 Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) 2.2 Process Models 2.5.6 Task Capability Interface (TCI) Theory 2.2.1.5 Use of the Contextual Mediated Model in Other Research Distal Variables in the Present Study 2.3.4.5.6 2.5.4 2.4.2.2 Driving Frequency and Traffic Exposure 2.3.2 Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) Descriptive Models of Driver Behaviour 2.3.1 Age 2.3 Core Concepts in the Contextual Mediated Model: Moderation and Mediation 2.2 Hopelessness 2.6.2.1 Driver Characteristics: Driver Experience and Driving Frequency 3.3.3 Locus of Control and Ethnicity 2.2.2.5.5.

5 Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) and Comparative Fit Index (CFI) 3.6 Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index (AGFI) 3.7.5 Multiple Regression Analysis 3.7.7.7.1 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) Scale 3.2.7.2 Study 1B 3.7.5.7.1 The Sample 3.5.3.3 3.5.1 Study 1A 3.2.5.4 Study 2 3.7.8 Parsimony Goodness-of-Fit Index (PGFI) 3. p-Value and χ2/df Ratio 3.3 Study 1C 3.3.7 3.3 Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) and Root Mean Square Residual (RMR) 3.7.5.5.6 Personal Information Form (PIF) Procedure 3.2.7.3.2.3.7.2.7.7.6.4 Linear Regression Analysis 3.2.6.7.7.7 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) 3.7.8 Crash Occurrence 3.2.5 3.7.7.3.9 Injury Occurrence Research Design of the Studies 3.3 The General Linear Model (GLM) Univariate Analysis 3.6 Hostile Automatic Thoughts 3.6 Logistic Regression Analysis 3.4 3.7.5 Hostile Automatic Thoughts (HAT) 3.7.1 Independent-sample t-tests 3.4 Aggression Questionnaire (AQ) 3.7 Expected Cross-Validation Index (ECVI) 3.4 Normed Fit Index (NFI) 3.5.7.2.2 Levenson Locus of Control Scale 3.2 Research Instruments 3.6 3.1 Studies 1 and 2 3.2 Degree of freedom (df) 3.8 Kolmogorov-Smirnov One-Sample Test 3.7.7 Structural Equation Modelling 3.9 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 .2 Study 3 Analysis of the Data 3.7.3.2.2 One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) 3.3 Beck Hopelessness Scale (BHS) 3.2.5.7.7.5 Study 3 Formulation of Hypotheses Methods of Data Collection and Analysis 3.1 Chi-Square (χ2).

6.6.12.10 Hypothesis 10: Demographic Factors Influence Aggression 4.CHAPTER 4: ANALYSIS OF DATA 4.1 Hypothesis 1: Behaviour in Traffic Influences Motor Vehicle Crash Outcomes 4.12.2 Externality-chance and Externality-powerful-others as Moderators 4.1 Age.2.4 4.15 Hypothesis 15: Hostile Automatic Thoughts Moderate the 112 112 112 114 115 115 116 116 118 118 119 120 120 121 122 124 126 126 130 132 134 134 135 139 140 142 143 143 145 147 149 151 153 153 154 156 157 4.6.3.3 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the AQ Scale 4.1 Results of Study 1 4.2 Hypothesis 2: Driver Characteristics Influence Behaviour in Traffic 4.3 Validity Test Results 4.3 4.1 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the BIT Scale 4.7 Hypothesis 7: Hopelessness Influences Behaviour in Traffic 4.3 Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 2 4.1 Internality as a Moderator 4.5 Hypothesis 5: Demographic Variables Influence Hopelessness 4.6.6 Hypothesis 6: Locus of control Influences Hopelessness 4.2 Results of Study 2 4.5.2 Parallel-Form Reliability 4.1 Description of the Sample 4.11 Hypothesis 11: Aggression Influences Behaviour in Traffic 4.6 xii .6.1 Reliability Test Results: Cronbach’s Alpha 4.2.6.12 Hypothesis 12: Locus of Control Moderates the Relationship Between Aggression and Behaviour in Traffic 4.6. Gender and Ethnicity 4.2.5.2.2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Levenson Locus of Control Scale 4.6.6.4 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the HAT Scale Normality.5.6.1.2 4.2 Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 1 4.2.1.5 4.3 Results of Study 3 Hypothesis Testing 4.3.6.3 Hypothesis 3: Demographic Variables Influence Behaviour in Traffic 4.1.2.6.3.1.4 Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 3 Reliability and Validity 4.8 Hypothesis 8: Locus of control Influences Behaviour in Traffic 4.2.6.6.6.6.13 Hypothesis 13: Demographic Factors Influence Hostile Automatic Thoughts 4.3.14 Hypothesis 14: Hostile Automatic Thoughts Influence Behaviour In Traffic 4. Skewness and Kurtosis Crash and Injury Occurrence Data Distal and Proximal Variable Data 4.6.9 Hypothesis 9: Hopelessness Moderates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Behaviour in Traffic 4.4 Hypothesis 4: Demographic Variables Influence Locus of Control 4.

7.6.8.2 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Aggression and Crash Outcomes 4.2 Use of Self-Report Methods 5.8 4.1 Differences between Automobile Drivers and Motorcycle Drivers 4.1 Generalisability of Findings 5.4.4.6.1 Internal and External Locus of Control as Determinants of Driving Behaviour 5.2 Study 2 4.1 Study 1C: Automobile Drivers 5.2 Goodness of Fit 5.2 Locus of Control and Ethnicity: Indian-Malaysian Drivers 5.5 5.5.5 What Can be Learned from Testing Contextual Models with SEM? Limitations of the Study and Methodological Considerations 5.9.5.5.6 xiii .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 5.5.3 Differences between Motorcycle Drivers and Taxicab Drivers 158 159 163 163 169 170 173 173 173 174 174 176 176 177 177 179 CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION 5.4.1 5.3 Study 3 Testing Mediational Relationships Using SPSS 4.2 Study 2: Motorcyclists 5.2 Differences between Automobile Drivers and Taxicab Drivers 4.7 4.4.5.6.4 Testing the Contextual Mediated Model 5.1 Advantages of Using SEM 5.5.3.16 Summary of Hypothesis Tests Testing the Contextual Mediated Model Using Structural Equation Modelling (LISREL Analysis) 4.3.7.3 A Contextual Mediated Model for Understanding Factors Influencing Unsafe Driving Hopelessness Locus of Control 5.3 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hostile Automatic Thought and Crash Outcome 4.3 Study 3: Taxicab Drivers 5.2 5.5.8. Motorcycle Drivers and Taxicab Drivers 4.9.8.3 Locus of Control and Ethnicity: Malay and Chinese-Malaysian Drivers Aggression Testing the Contextual Mediated Model Using Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) 5.7.8.6.3.3 Best Fit or Best Model 5.4 5.9 Relationship Between Aggression and Behaviour in Traffic 4.9.4 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Crash Outcomes Comparison of Automobile Drivers.1 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hopelessness and Crash Outcomes 4.5.1 Study 1C 4.

7.7.7 5.2 Engineering Interventions 5.1 Generating and classifying crash prevention interventions 5. Models in Traffic Psychology 5.3 Education 5.7.7.7.4.2 Factors in Behavioural Adaptation (BA) 5.4.6.4.5.3 Driver Selection.4 Enforcement 212 215 215 218 220 221 221 221 229 230 CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION 233 REFERENCES GLOSSARY APPENDICES Appendix A List of Published and Research Scales Appendix B Personal Information (PIF) 237 287 294 297 xiv .7.4.4 Measurement of Driving Frequency Implications and Areas for Further Study 5.7.1 Theory vs. Training and Rehabilitation 5.4 Preventive Measures: “The Three E’s” 5.7.

1 3.3 3.2 Malaysian Roadway Crashes and Casualties.3 3.5 4.5 4.8 111 121 121 122 4.4 3.6 4.9 4.1 4.1 2.LIST OF TABLES No.2 3. 2002-2006 Numbers of Automobile Drivers and Motorcyclists Involved in Road Crashes by Age Group Key Value Clusters for Each Malaysian Ethnic Group Research Hypotheses Dimensions of the BIT scale The Five Subscales of the Aggression Questionnaire The Three Subscales of the Hostile Automatic Thoughts (HAT) Scale Statistical Methods for Hypothesis Testing Gender and Ethnicity of the Sample for Studies 1 and 2 Age. Kurtosis and Skewness Statistics 13 14 57 91 95 97 98 101 112 114 2.3 114 4. Gender and Ethnicity of Participants in Studies 1.4 115 117 118 119 4.2 4.7 4. Table Page 2. 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.11 xv .10 4.

16 128 4. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1B (n=302) Means. Gender and Ethnicity in Study 2 (N=122) 125 Means.14 4.17 129 4. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 3 (n=133) Results of Logistic Regression Analyses Showing the Effects of BIT Component Factors on Crash Occurrence Results of Logistic Regression Analyses Showing the Effects of BIT Component Factors on Injury Occurrence The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores in Study 1A (N=301) The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores in Study 1B (N=302) The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores in Study 1C (N=252) The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores in Study 2 (N=122) The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores in Study 3 (N=133) Effects of Demographic Factors on total BIT Scores Direct effects of hopelessness on BIT scores Direct Effects of Locus of Control on Total BIT Scores 127 4. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1A (n=301) Means.26 138 139 144 145 4.13 4.22 136 4.23 136 4.24 137 4. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 2 (n=122) Means.28 4.21 135 4.25 138 4.27 4.20 134 4. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1C (n=252) Means.19 133 4. Gender and Ethnicity in Study 1 (N=855) 124 125 Crash Occurrence Frequency.29 xvi .12 4.18 131 4.4.15 Crash and Injury Occurrence Crash Occurrence Frequency.

35 4.4.5 209 225 5.37 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 4.4 208 5.1 199 206 207 5.34 4.6 xvii .30 4.41 175 5.36 4.33 4.32 4.40 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Aggression and Crash Outcomes 174 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hostile Automatic Thought and Crash Outcomes BIT Mediates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Crash Outcomes Goodness of Fit Statistics for Model 1C5 and 1C6 (Initial and Subsequent Analyses) Distribution of National Population and Sampled Participants by State State of Origin Compared with Crash Frequency and Vehicle Registrations (Study 1) State of Origin Compared with Crash Frequency and Vehicle Registrations (Study 2) Spearman rank correlations for States of Origin for Participants in Study 1 and Study 2 Engineering Applications for Crash Prevention 174 4.2 5.31 4.39 4.3 5.

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. 1997) Contextual Mediated Model of Personality.3 3. 2000) Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen. Behavioral Predictors and Motor Vehicle Crashes (from Sümer. 2003) Inter-variable Relationships in Mediation Models Inter-variable Relationships in Moderation Models Page 36 37 40 42 44 46 47 2.8 Proposed Contextual Mediated Model for Safety Research in Agriculture (from Downe.10 64 80 81 82 83 146 3. 1996.2 147 148 4.3 2. 2007) 50 Hierarchical Levels of Driving Behavior (after Keskinen.6 2.4 148 xviii .1 3.LIST OF FIGURES No.7 2.1 2. 1996) Task-Capability Theory (after Fuller.3 4. 2.4 4.1 4.2 2.9 59 2. 1989) The Haddon Matrix (Noy.2 3. Hatakka.5 Figure Task Cube (from Summala.4 2.

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 4.5 4.12 4.6 4.8 4.4.10 4.13 xix .7 4.9 4.

are factors that influence the likelihood of occurrence. Her hands and voice quivered.Talib Rothengatter & Raphael Huguenin. She was afraid she had missed too many lectures. programme. I feel like it each time I think of that moment. is a matter of debate … Obviously. I got back to work on them. finally. I despair that we may never be able to snare this werewolf. He died instantly and she spent three weeks in the hospital. They were hurrying. at least not with real tears. like encounters with fairies and werewolves. LISREL couldn’t.PREFACE Accidents occur. He’d sent me a nice card at Christmas. The behaviour of the traveller. But. I knew the fellow. She had been badly injured. I’m a fairly big guy. But sometimes. I feel like it a bit right now. I’m pretty happy with it. He was driving. and this thesis is the result. They quarreled and then left on his motorbike. they were focused on the errand. I sure felt like it as I sat there beside her. things were not going well. xx . I told her not to worry. Then one evening into my office came a student from my first-year Critical Thinking class. Her face and arms had been bruised and lacerated. And they crashed. I hope it makes a contribution. or wouldn’t. only a trimester or two earlier. just every so often. How important these factors are. externally-focused frustration.D. He was very popular with other students. they are prone to other types of error as well. and his mental state. 2004 Some three years or so into my Ph. He didn’t want to go. I was confused by the results I was getting. I didn’t recognise her at first. I wanted to throw in the towel. The factors she described that evening were the same ones I’d been trying to study – freeway urgency. She told me about the motorcycle crash that had claimed the life of her cousin. . but she’d nagged him. to the weary traveler. I like to watch boxing. they cut across a lane too quickly. he’d taken the same course as she. but accidents or encounters with fairies or werewolves are random events. when humans are prone to imagine fairies or werewolves. She had needed to go on an errand. lane deviation and all the rest. I don’t cry much any more. they were frustrated and angry with each other. My research design needed a serious re-working. she was riding pillion. handle the latent variables I wanted to include in my structural equation model. She started crying and couldn’t stop.

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

behavioural and attitudinal characteristics of drivers and the environmental situations in which they find themselves (Haight. with the intent to determine the degree to which measures of aggression. McKenna. 21). A total of 10. “the literature on personality has a long history. There was a total of 341. The chapter 1.790.112). 2003).252 accidents in 2006 and over 6.732 motor vehicles were registered in 2006. 2005). and as a “major public health problem” (Subramaniam. p.2 Road Safety in Malaysia Malaysia is a nation of motor vehicle users. More challenging has been the attempt to link personality and psychosocial variables to driver behaviour and performance. often labelled as “tragic” (Koh. there are conflicting findings and associated problems with this research” (p. hopelessness and other variables interacted to affect attitudes toward driving and the severity and frequency of participants’ self-reported involvement in motor vehicle crashes. Very early initial attempts to identify an “accident proneness” personality trait (Tiliman & Hobbs. 1983). concludes by noting the delimitations of the research. According to Dewar (2002b). 1949) have since been replaced by more complex explanations that focus on the interaction between emotional. The high rate of roadway accidents and deaths has been described in both scholarly and popular print or internet media in extreme terms. This dissertation is a report of research into relevant psychosocial variables and their effects on self-reported driving behaviour. The research comprised five separate studies of Malaysian drivers aged 18 to 73 years.351. the vehicle and the new technologies that are increasingly being deployed by the road and fitted in vehicles” (Carsten. as a “social menace”(Abdul Kareem. However.000 fatalities were recorded (Ministry of Transport Malaysia. 2007). describes its significance and presents an overview of the methodology used. including the study of a large number of variables. locus of control. 2 . This first chapter of this dissertation presents the background of the study.roadway.332 drivers and 15. 2002. 2004. Malaysia is also a nation with a disproportionately high frequency of motor vehicle accidents. 1989).

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

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

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

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

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

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

where it is argued that the “convenience sample” used in the model-building phases was. In Study 3. Again. After the initial model-building had been completed. with resulting variable relationships compared to the model that had been built from the responses of automobile users in Study 1.are most important in predicting. leaving room for questions about the generalisability of findings to populations within and outside Malaysia. 1. representative of the characteristics of high-risk Malaysian drivers.6 Delimitations All research is confined by the boundaries of its scope and design. In Study 2. Student participants sampled for two of the three studies were selected from an undergraduate population at a single university. This issue is discussed at some length in chapter 5 of the thesis. over the course of 30. two additional studies (Study 2 and Study 3) were undertaken to test the resilience of selected components of the resulting structural equation model with different driver populations. in fact. verbally administered psychometric instruments. These are discussed in detail in chapter 5 of the thesis but relevant issues are introduced here. Such predictive capabilities were considered to be of importance in any examination of the dynamics leading to risks of roadway crashes and fatalities. A team of researchers flagged down taxi drivers at random and. behavioural inventories and personal profile questionnaires.to 45-minute trips. this time sampling professional taxicab drivers in the Kuala Lumpur area. a model was constructed using a sample of undergraduate participants for whom motorcycles were the primary mode of transport. 9 . a third model was constructed. Generalisability of the present study may be constrained by the single-setting of the subject pool and the limitations of the particular methods selected. data were collected through classroom-based group administration of research instruments.

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

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”. 2007). they indicated “angry”.252 motor vehicle accidents in Malaysia. but when asked to “describe what Malaysian drivers are like”. Downe and Loke (2004) reported that. inconsiderate and aggressive. a sample of 348 first-year university students indicated. 2005). In newspaper reports. These are thought to have contributed. The high rate of roadway accidents and deaths has been described in scholarly and popular print or internet media in extreme terms. 2006). economic expansion. industrialisation and motorisation. “obnoxious” and “cowardly” (“Cowardly Malaysian Drivers”. “peaceful”. as a social “menace”(Abdul Kareem.CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 2. in order of frequency. pointing out that annual fatalities exceed the total deaths among American combat personnel over four years of fighting in Iraq (Zolkepli. when asked to provide five adjectives which would “describe what Malaysians are like”. “ugly motorists” (“Rude Drivers”.1 2. “patient”.1 Human Factors and the Motor Vehicle Safety Problem in Malaysia Roadway Crashes in Malaysia and Public Perceptions of Causality In 2006. in aggregate. 2005). Malaysia has experienced remarkable increases in population.000 fatalities were recorded (Ministry of Transport Malaysia.1. or as “negligent” (“Malaysia Records Highest Single-Day Death Toll”. A succession of online weblogs and internet sites authored by tourists and local writers alike have condemned Malaysian drivers as dangerous. 2007). 2007). A developing country in Southeast Asia. Nation-wide statistics seem to underscore the popular concern over safety issues. and as a “major public health problem” (Subramaniam. Over 6. Recently. to a rapid increase 12 . “reckless”. 2007). “friendly”. “discourteous” (Davin Arul. “impatient”. “laid-back” and “considerate”. “selfish” (“Our Roads are Filled”. 1989). the Minister of Health characterised Malaysian roads as “worse than a war zone”. 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. Malaysian drivers have been consistently characterized as “confrontational”. 2005). often labelled as “tragic” (Koh. 2003). there were 341.

to 25-year-old age group (see table 2.741 38.in the number of road traffic crashes (Abdul Kareem.200 9.1: Malaysian Roadway Crashes and Casualties.417 47.000 vehicles in 2006. 2005). The number of road fatalities has decreased slightly from 6.252 Motor Vehicle Casualties 2002 Fatalities Severe Injuries Minor Injuries Total 35. but still lags behind frequencies in developed countries which generally fall below 3 deaths per 10. one- third of all crashes in Malaysia involve automobile users or motorcyclists within the 16. Abdul Rahman.000 vehicles (Law.395 2006 6.425 5.000 vehicles in 1996 to 3. the number of crashes has increased 80% over the past ten years. Mohd Zulkiflee. 2002-2006 Motor Vehicle Crashes 2002 Total 279.012 19.98 deaths per 10.815 2005 328. 2007). 2003.425 2003 6. Studies 13 . In Malaysia.286 9. from 189.264 2006 341.2).891 8.228 9.20 deaths per 10.7111 2003 298. Generally.1 summarises the five-year incidence of crashes and injuries. 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.304 in 1994 to 6.091 37.252 in 2006 (Ministry of Transport Malaysia.287 in 2006. Subramaniam & Law.218 2005 6.040 2004 6.552 37. & Wong. 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.653 2004 326.109 in 1996 to a total of 341.415 52.236 49. This suggests that studies. Table 2. in Malaysia. higher than any other age grouping or combination of consecutive age groupings.287 9. 2005). 2005).885 35.645 54. Table 2. Radin Umar.253 source: Royal Malaysian Police (2007) The road accident death rate in Malaysia dropped from 8.

48 323 1. Palamara.37 337 1.469 15. 2005).94 2. or an average of RM4.23 2. or about 2. Morrison & Ryan.997 14.65 121 0.551 12.11 2.10 3. Recent international analyses have placed the total economic burden at around RM7 billion yearly.50 979 4.67 206 0.64 135 0.620 7.005 15.61 99 0.21 3.08 1.15 572 2.67 billion.16 90 0.29 2.84 1. 2001. in 1999 alone.45 30 0.086 9.92 2.049 15. and particularly among younger drivers.378 11.038 13.05 2.921 100 20.85 2.4% of the Gross Domestic Product (Asian Development Bank.341 12.315 17.of university-aged drivers are critical to understanding behavioural and situational factors that predict the most commonly occurring class of crashes (Stevenson.110 10.29 708 3.06 608 3.54 708 3.49 450 2.72 554 2.416 6.81 2.91 984 4. 2002.81 3.309 10.6 million a day on motor claims (Abdul Kareem.68 3. with one road accident victim admitted to hospital every six minutes (Bernama.31 3. It has been reported that.023 5.803 9.07 2.180 10.48 105 0.2: Numbers of Automobile Drivers and Motorcyclists Involved in Road Crashes by Age Group 2000 2001 2002 2003 Number % Number % Number % Number % 37 0. 2001).80 203 0.05 1.4 billion to RM5.947 10. 2003) Age 0-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-50 51-55 56-60 61-65 66-70 71-75 >75 Krishnan and Radin Umar (1997) pointed out that the prevalence of traffic injuries and fatalities among drivers.99 164 0.205 11.07 2.08 585 2.216 10.41 302 1.08 541 2. Table 2.65 2. 2003). Some Ministry of Health estimates of medical costs alone have been as high as RM5.389 6.593 11.448 17.820 13.329 100 source:Royal Malaysian Police (2000.15 43 0.22 150 0.953 17.90 159 0.82 1.68 128 0.025 9.034 4.7 billion.85 147 0.15 3. 2006).431 7.40 1.94 625 3. general insurers paid RM1. 14 .418 100 19.77 3.71 543 2.92 1. has resulted in considerable economic loss for the country.08 2.05 2.47 280 1.94 1.81 1.967 100 19.97 1.63 160 0.26 463 2.76 22.56 3.178 15.709 8.27 458 2.

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

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

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

however. generalising to all driving environments and situations. “many Malaysians claim that as drivers. a capacity that makes them distinct as a society” (p. 1996). motivated largely by the government’s fear of unregulated public assembly. He argued that. including speeding and falling asleep at the wheel (“N-S Highway”. resulted in a myriad of problems.Williamson (2003) offered a number of socio-political explanations for roadway safety issues in Malaysia as part of his analysis of the social effects of the national north-south expressway that. This. The very monotony of the road surface. Although the expressway was meant to avoid both traffic and accidents. the factor that made the high speeds possible. 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. since 1994. they are accident prone. According to Williamson. has linked peninsular communities. 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. 121-122). he argued that national leadership intended it to be both a symbol of progress. these conflicting aims of speed and safety seemed to exacerbate them. Describing the expressway as a “stunning infrastructural achievement” (p. 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.122). 18 . 110). 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. road engineers devoted their efforts to creating a public artery in which speed and limited stoppage were design priorities.

784). roadway engineering has a much greater influence than automotive engineering (p. driver experience and skill and the relationship between risk and factors such as speed choice and alcohol consumption” (p. etc. driver behaviour (what the driver chooses to do) has much greater influence on safety than driver performance (what the driver can do). the largest opportunities for harm reduction: A clear hierarchy of factors can be specified. According to the Commission for Global Road Safety (2006). Because at least one driver is involved in every traffic crash. The majority of accidents are not caused by problems of the vehicle. by far. Åberg. 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. Panosch and Bukasa (2004) argued that: Road safety is less a technical but rather a human factors problem. personality characteristics (Elander. 1993. Among human factors. 62). Christ. Among engineering factors. 1993). Lajunen and Summala (1997) noted that traffic safety researchers have attempted to identify the relationships between drivers’ individual characteristics and their involvement in motor vehicle crashes. but rather 19 .2.2 2. levels of driving experience and. personality and behavioural characteristics of drivers has not been exclusive to the Malaysian scene. bad road conditions. experiential. This has included the examination of age and gender. West and French.1 The Professional Background Human Factors in Roadway Crashes: A Vexing Research Challenge Attention to the demographic. particularly. 1991). “human behaviour makes a direct contribution to crash risk through the extent of knowledge and understanding of traffic systems.2. Human factors are far more important than engineering factors. Evans (1996) further argued that changes in driver behaviour offer.

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

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

Ochando. 3). but that complex traffic 22 . 2002).) 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. 4) and describes it as an “interdisciplinary. in a Spanish survey.2. Groeger (2002) argued that there is “no psychology which is specific to. conferences and coordination of professional affiliations ever since (Groeger. This includes the research that serves this purpose” (p. According to Rothengatter (2001).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. These interrelationshps provide a vast terrain for psychological research (pp. transportation planning. Indeed. Temes and Hermida (2001) found. or peculiar to. 4). psychology. attitudes about the origin and destination of the trip and resources for choosing alternative travel modes and schedules. “the task of traffic psychology is to understand.654-655. that individuals tend to combine their interests in traffic psychology with some other area of specialisation such as educational psychology. or the psychological support for intervention. as a general objective to minimise the harmful effects of traffic participation” (p. ergonomics. in the field of traffic. predict and provide measures to modify road user behaviour at the levels identified with. anthropology and sociology. traffic and transportation. Huguenin (2005) defines traffic psychology as “the psychological intervention. 246).2. 2.2 A Multidisciplinary Approach From the outset.” (p. traffic psychology has drawn from multidisciplinary perspectives. integrative and international viewpoint based on application in order to address changing situations and objectives” (p. To wit. medicine. eoncompassing engineering.

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

though. in which the goal is to manage automation and dynamic function allocations. 2001). 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.3 2. a paradigm that Boff (2006) described as “Generation One” ergonomics.tasks to human capabilities and limitations. Stanton & Young. predict and modify road user behaviour. According to Barjonet & Tortosa (2001). 2. Jannssen. error and cognitive modelling. 1997. 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. This involves the coherent grouping of general propositions for use as principles in explaining various classes of driving phenomena.1 Theories of Driving Behaviour Concepts. Noy. These applications are consistent with the paradigms Boff (2006) has described as “Generation Two” ergonomics. Neerincx & Schriebers. “This school of though. 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. Concepts are the building blocks for theory and may be defined as: 24 . traffic psychologists frequently engage in theory-building. Increasingly. Walker. 26). 2006. which assumes a necessary communication between person and machine led to a dialogue between the various designers of car interiors. road signs and all the difference infrastructure and hence to a greater flexibility in their hitherto purely engineering approach which supposed that people would adapt to the machine” (p. which focuses on symbiotic technologies that amplify human physical and cognitive capabilities. 2004). Theories and Models In attempting to understand. and “Generation Three” ergonomics.3. particularly the notions of mental load.

2005.2 Traffic Psychology: Slow Progress in Theory-Building Theory development in traffic psychology has not progressed well (Summala. which may be defined as: A set of interrelated principles and definitions that present a systematic view of phenomena by specifying relationships among variables with the purpose of explaining natural phenomena (Kerlinger. To a degree. or both. 1995). which is then followed by a process of generalisation (Schneider. Reasons for this are likely several.3. in traffic psychology. Concepts are formed by a process of mental abstraction. 2. “theory” is a term used interchangeably with the word “model”. p. whether theories should explain everyday driving.A word or set of words that expresses a general idea concerning the nature of something or the relations between things. often providing a category for the classification of phenomena (Theodorson & Theodorson. which attempts to provide a generalised working construct that can account for empirical data or relationships” (Chaplin. 1969). many models have been proposed. 8) Any set of systematically interrelated concepts or hypotheses that purports to explain and predict phenomena (Robbins. In traffic psychology. each ordering driving reality from its own particular set of empirical observations. Many of the theories that have been proposed have failed to generate testable hypotheses. 2005). 1985). Ranney (1994) pointed out that it has never been clear. Concepts can be linked together to form a theory. there is no generally accepted theory which elucidates principles from which a broad. or accident-causing behaviours. but for the purposes of this thesis. Healy. the latter is defined more narrowly as “a set of assumptions or postulates. this may be due to 25 .. generalisable understanding of the driving process can be deduced. 2000. often in mathematical form. On the other hand. p. Ericsson & Bourne Jr. A-18) Often.

feel in control. … Just because we as investigators have an understanding of safety as a goal. but it is also a reflection that the driving task is a highly sophisticated multi-factorial process involving perceptual. five areas of theory attempt to explain and predict driving behaviour. risk adaptation theories. 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. hierarchical theories of driver adaptation. taskcapability frameworks and attitude-behaviour models (Keskinen et al. motives and personalities (Robbins. 2004.the imprecise definition of concepts. attitudes. social. Instead. 2002). and emotional determinants. or ever had sufficient knowledge of possible outcomes on which to base a deliberate action (p. not all people act exactly alike and this is a function of their differing values. I believe it is but one of the goals a driver has. Notwithstanding these difficulties. the driver’s aspirations are to reach destinations. it is highly improbable that a single theoretical stance is likely to be sufficient to account for behaviour in traffic. 26 . it does not mean that the driver had safety as a primary goal. given the complexity of human behaviour.. Rothengatter. and most of the time is not especially influential. Groeger (2000) took a similar position with regard to the range of driver motivations: Although any rational analysis would surely place preservation of one’s own personal safety at the heart of the concerns of a driver. These may be classified as: theories of individual differences. 2. 2005). 189). For over ninety years. enjoy driving.3 The Individual Differences Approach Placed in similar situations. etc. perceptions. avoid obstacles. minimise delay and driving time.3. Groeger and Rothengatter (1998) argued that. cognitive.

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

it should be a reasonably simple matter to find 28 . “irrespective of environment. but persists today. The designation of a high-λ individual as “accident prone” implied that. an idea that has had an uneven level of acceptance by ergonomists and traffic psychologists through the years.3. but none have attempted a more general integration” (Elander. p. sensori-motor skill. According to Haight (2004). that individual is more likely at all times to incur an accident than his colleagues even though exposed to equal risk. the average number of accidents. The individual values of each worker’s λ became known as the degree of accident proneness. his or her accident proneness. λ. the British government established the British Industrial Fatigue Research Board. If each individual has a unique λ-value. found first that the frequency of accidents. could be modelled almost exactly by the Poisson distribution but then that.152).3. 1962.1 Accident Proneness One concept that sought to integrate individual differences within a predictive theory relates to the “accident-prone personality”. 1984). The difficulty was that no one knew how to determine its value for a given individual. weight and perhaps even intelligence. West & French. personality. and that this is due to some characteristic or summation of characteristics associated with corporeal dexterity. 1920).finding. during and following the war years. In 1917. It provided a challenge to the psychology profession to devise a way to measure it. 290). differed from person to person (Greenwood & Yule. 1993. occupational and otherwise. in certain cases. or higher conative or cognitive function” (Cresswell & Froggat. ‘Accident proneness’ had a nice ring to it. Research by board statisticians. just as one can meaure height. 2. in response to concern over the number of accidental deaths and injuries in World War I production industries (Blackler & Shimmin. p.

inappropriate. produced a positive. with a series of tests constructed by Greenwood and Woods (1919). as well. inadequate or irrelevant. A study by Salminen and Heiskanen (1997) provided empirical support for this position. subjects reported significant. in traffic or when playing 29 . in successive years. made an assumption that. The theory of the accident-prone individual also came under attack on a conceptual basis. motivated largely by a desire to select lorry drivers in Europe who were less likely to become involved in costly roadway crashes (Barjonet & Tortosa. Arbous and Kerrich (1951) and much later McKenna (1983) systematically destroyed the supportive literature. None of the experiments. a certain percentage would experience a higher accident frequency than would other groups year after year. replicable result that correlated substantially with the accident experience of individuals (Haight. 1997). 1929.out what that value is. 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. 422). 2004). but very low correlations between accident frequency at work. at home. with extensive critiques that concluded statistical analyses were almost all invalid. 1956). 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. more probably psychological (p. 1991. 1939) and many others. 294). in any sample. Farmer and Chambers (1926. “Because crashes are so infrequent. 2004). Scores on the λ dimension. that high-λ group would be comprised of the same individuals or of an entirely new cohort (Haight. perhaps physiological. however. by devising clever tests. p. but did not take into consideration whether. Early work on the concept attempted to do just that. in a Finnish telephone survey. Hale and Glendon (1987) concluded that the evidence for the transfer of accident liability differences across different work tasks or different working environments is quite weak so that accident proneness would appear to be largely task specific. it was pointed out are highly sensitive to the length of the survey period. noting that. The accident-prone concept. with shorter periods giving sharper contrasts (Moore. 195). Johnson (1946).

Visser. therefore. 2. screened for operational and prevalence rates related to accident proneness within work. because individuals can experience multiple accidents because of chance alone and also because of a higher exposure to risk independent of personal factors” (p. no stable personality characteristics that can be identified with accident-proneness have been discovered. 1993). in no case did correlations between traffic crashes and other types of accidents exceed r =. 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. Despite the low repute in which many have regarded the accident proneness concept. Neeleman and Rosmalen (2007) have published a meta-review of 79 studies. it denotes an area of study rather than a theory. “it is still difficult to identify the accident prone individuals that compose this group.2 Differential Accident Involvement McKenna (1983) suggested that the accident proneness concept should be replaced by the less historically loaded term “differential accident involvement”. pp. So. roadway. While their stated conclusion was that an accident prone group definitely existed. Stolk. Only 15% of the studies included in their analysis had been conducted on road user crash experience. and assumes that individuals may vary along a continuum with regard to factors that affect their risk of crash (Elander et al. 562). 1980.sports. moving away from the main conceptual criticism of traditional 30 .3. It is seen as preferable to earlier formulations because it places more emphasis on contributing factors outside the person. 1998). the consensus position became that: Accident proneness as a concept has little use in practical accident prevention. Pijl.3. 8-9).. but the authors reported that the heterogeneous nature of sub-groups did not permit comparisons. The concept itself is ill-defined. Alternative explanations must be found for persons experiencing multiple accidents (Lindsey. This concept does not prejudge the issue of causation. Ultimately. sports and family settings.05. it is still generating research and controversy (Vavrik.

1988) proposed that a control mechanism operates to keep overall risk per unit time constant. Summala and Mersalo (1980) demonstrated that drivers using studded tyres increased their speed to a level where the skid margin approached that of drivers using normal tyres.4. compulsory seatbelts and vehicle design improvements reduced motor vehicle crash fatalities. suddenly confronted with uneven pavement. Dewar (2002b) noted that the notion of differential liability allows for the observation that some individuals do. That is.3. 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. in a study of driving on icy roads. experience more accidents than others. they adjust their behaviour to eliminate the discrepancy. in fact. large earth-moving 31 . 2. The introduction of divided highways. 2.3.. following their review of the literature.accident proneness (Chmiel. crash barriers. people strive to maintain a target level of risk all the time and. However. A driver who enters a construction zone. Wilde (1982.1 Risk Homeostasis Theory (RHT) In an attempt to explain these findings. concluded that differential crash risk is not readily accounted for by previous crash rates. substantially.4 Risk Theories Rothengatter (2002) has argued that a major factor in the growth of traffic psychology can be attributed to the law of diminishing returns with respect to engineering interventions designed to increase road safety. but avoids the assumption of a stable phenomenon that accounts for more accidents in all situations. when they perceive a discrepancy between the observed level of risk and the desired target level of risk. researchers began to turn their attention to not-so-easy measures for changing driver behaviour. For example. albeit not crash occurrence. 2000). After the relatively easy engineering measures were implemented to reduce the seriousness of the consequences of driver behaviour. Elander et al. and that transient factors probably interact with stable traits of the individual in their causation.

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

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

81). increasing safety margins” (Brown & Noy. a necessary and highly controversial assumption in Wilde’s theory. 26). Summala (1986) suggested that estimating time-to-collision. Michon (1989) noted that most studies attempting to support the RHT deal with data only at the aggregate level. 1987. and 34 . is a very basic human skill that can be carried out in the absence of extensive conscious processing. 92). Summala’s zero-risk model of driver behaviour (Summala & Näätänen. Rothengatter (2002) has questioned how drivers can determine that a threshold has been exceeded if they do not constantly assess risk. Fuller (2005) has argued that the theory’s premise that safe margins are learned creates an implausible requirement to recognise. experience ‘zero-risk’) when they drive by anticipating.3. In addition. 2. p. While overcoming many of the criticisms levied at RHT with regard to the concepts of target risk and the risk discrepancy comparative process. At this point. 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. some degree of risk during the performance of this task. In other words.2 Zero Risk Theory Another risk-based theory. 1988) proposed that drivers do not constantly assess risk while driving. drivers compare the distance from hazards or time-tocollision to a subjective safety margin threshold and take action only when the threshold is exceeded. or expecting. 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. they experience uncomfortable feelings of fear and abruptly change behaviour. 2004. Only when the subjective risk reaches a level that was not anticipated will the drivers change their behaviour. Summala. Rather. O’Neill and Williams (1998). after a similar review.(1986) concluded that “risk homeostasis theory should be rejected because there is no convincing evidence supporting it and much evidence refuting it” (p. zero-risk theory still retains some of its conceptual shortcomings.4. for example. drivers avoid ‘feeling fear’ (hence.

such as time pressure. In an attempt to deal with this and to expand on the role of extrinsic and intrinsic motivators. Meijman & Roghengatter. 35 . 1998. in which he introduced a “task cube” to explain the driving process. Van der Hulst. The cube presented three dimensions of driver behaviour: a functional hierarchy. Reeder et al. and specific driver actions. much of which arises from personality. 2. Hataaka. their behaviour becomes less adaptive to prevailing circumstances (Delhomme & Meyer. and when confronted with various environmental conditions or psychological processes. pre-meditated decision not to wear seatbelts. Glad & Hernetkoskis. Gregersen. what is a virtually infinite number of roads and traffic scenarios. 1999). do appear to affect drivers’ willingness to accept risk levels that approach thresholds and. 1996. Keskinen. Summala (1996. for instance. it may not manifest itself as a less cautious speed or headway choice but rather as a conscious.1). very little if any research has been carried out with respect to intrinsic motivation. If behavioural adaptation were to take place in response to the presence of a supplementary restraint system (SRS).learn how to respond safety to. A major element in the zero risk theory was the influence of motivation. age and social variables. as a result. would vary depending on the combination of factors from the three dimensions. used to explain drivers’ tendencies to approach as closely as possible to the risk threshold. Summala argued that behavioural adaptation.5 Hierarchical Theories of Driver Adaptation Huguenin (2001) has argued that the main problem with considering driver behaviour within a risk-based framework is that drivers tend to adapt their behaviour in different way on differing strategic levels. On the other hand. 2002.3. level of psychological processing and a functional taxonomy of driving actions (see Figure 2. 1997) refined his earlier theory into a hierarchical model of driver behavioural adaptation. A large number of studies show that external motives.

a property absent within the task cube concept. pointing out that a task hierarchy assumes that successful completion of the task at a lower level is required for successful performance of a higher-level task. Headway control Obstacle avoidance Crossing management Passing and other maneuvers FUNCTIONAL TAXONOMY Figure 2. 1996) Keskinen et al. Automated) Navigation Speed and time control Guidance Vehicle control Lane keeping etc.1: Task Cube (from Summala. (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. for example. seemingly concurrently. 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. at the same time. criticised the model for being overly complicated and resembling “more a description or a list of important variables than a solid model” (p. but that is not 36 . Even though it is true that the performance on one task can bear consequences for the performance for the other. Rothengatter (2002) questioned the concept of a hierarchy.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. 15).

2: Task-Capability Theory (after Fuller.sufficient reason to presume they are two distinct levels of the same task rather than two different tasks (p. 2005) integrated competing components of the RHT (Wilde. Most of the time. 1976) by proposing that drivers attempt to match task demands with their capability to maintain control. 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.1). this becomes more difficult when factors external to the driving task (e. Safety Compensatory action by others Crash! Capability (C) Loss of control C>D Control C<D Task Demands (D) Safety Figure 2. 252). drivers are able to manage the interface between demands and capabilities (see Figure 2. either by modifying task demand or by altering their capability.6 Task Capability Interface (TCI) Theory In perhaps the most ambitious of the leading driving behaviour theories. However. 2000) 37 . Fuller (2000.3. unexpected changes in task demand (decreased visibility. 2. affective states). 1988) and the zero risk theory (Näätänen & Summala. high speeds. Fuller argued that loss of control occurs when task demands exceed drivers’ capabilities. 1982.g. Loss of control occurs at the point where capability is less than that required to carry out the task safely..

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

which can usually be performed (or not performed) at will. 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”).7.3.2 Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) Complications hindered the application of the TRA in circumstances where behaviours were not fully under volitional control. Ajzen and Fishbein (2000) argued that intention is the best predictor of behaviour.2). are sometimes subject to the influence of factors beyond one’s control. however (Sharma & Kanekar. p. “Even very mundane activities. subjective norms (“do others feel this is a good thing for me to do?”). and a meta-analysis carried out by Sheppard. and perceived control (“do I really believe that I can do this?”). see Figure 2. 24). 39 . such that every intended behaviour is a goal whose attainment is subject to some degree of uncertainty. 1985. To deal with this uncertainty.” (Azjen. According to the TPB. then. This extended framework was introduced as the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB. Hartwick and Warshaw (1988) found that the theory had strong predictive utility. denoting the subjective degree of control which individuals perceive themselves having over the performance of a behaviour. 2. 2007).judgement with respect to behavioural performance (“accelerating to pass through a cross-junction against an amber light is bad/good”). he incorporated the concept of “perceived behavioural control” (PBC). behavioural intention is the result of attitudes (“do I feel like this is a good thing to do?”).

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

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

1999). This model has been instrumental in stimulating research designs and accident interventions for the last thirty yeasrs (Williams.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). One way of accomplishing this may be through the creation of models that stress the mediational role played by certain V. 1994). concealing the interactions that underlie the behaviour of real traffic systems (Noy. 2.2. 2000). within specific situational contexts. however. 1998. the vehicle (V). 1997. More recently. R. Nguntra.4. and have proposed expanding the matrix to better provide for the analysis of inter-relationships between each of the four basic elements. Haddon (1970) proposed a framework in which each of these elements could be examined as part of an analytical matrix (see Figure 2. E and especially H factors. Koonchote & Tantiratna.g. Swaddiwudhipong. PRE-CRASH CRASH POST-CRASH BASIC ELEMENTS OF A HIGHWAY EVENT Human (H) Vehicle (V) Road (R) Environment (E) Figure 2.locations and settings (e. Seow & Lim. 1997) 42 .4). the road (R) and the environment (E). Richardson & Downe. some researchers have argued that the Haddon Matrix is limited by the way it considers each element independently.4..4: The Haddon Matrix (Noy. Mahasakpan.2 Process Models 2. Law.

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

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

Heppner & Mallinckrodt. for instance. such that path c′ is zero. 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. process or transformation exists through which one variable influences another (Frazier. which in turn exerts an effect on Y through path b (Baron & Kenny. 45 .6(i). Regression analyses can be used to test these causal paths to the outcome variable. Tix and Barron. 2006).4. driver impairment and so on) were hypothesised to mediate the effect of distal variables on the frequency or likelihood of crash outcomes. called the outcome. then the significance level of path c would be reduced to insignificance or a less significant level (path c’). Figure 2.2.2. proximal variables (including safety skill levels. In the case where X no longer affects Y after M has been controlled. M. 1986). mediators are variables that represent constructs proposed to explain the association between two variables (Hoyle & Robinson. If. 2004). in which there are two causal paths feeding into the outcome variable: path c′ depicts the direct effect of X on Y. moderating or mediating effects. Also termed intervening variables. 2004) and a distinction can be drawn between partial mediation and complete mediation (Wei.6(ii) illustrates the basic causal chain involved in mediation. the variable X is called the initial or predictor variable and it causes the variable Y. then it can be concluded that complete mediation occurs. drivers’ safety skills were a mediator of the effects of personality or cultural background on crash frequency. 2003). Mediation can be said to occur when some mechanism.3 Core Concepts in the Contextual Mediated Model: Moderation and Mediation Inter-variable relationships within the contextual mediated model can have direct. driver propensities to commit errors or violations. while path a represents the effect of X on some mediator variable. In Figure 2. In Sümer’s (2003) generic contextual mediated model.

or testing the moderating effect. or independent variable (path a). a moderating variable is one that has a strong contingent effect on the relationship between independent and dependent variable (Sekaran. and the interaction or product of these two (path c). these are not directly relevant conceptually to testing the moderator hypothesis. the impact of a moderator (path b).7): the impact of a predictor. 46 . can the moderator hypothesis be concluded as supported (Baron & Kenny. variable (see Figure 2. 2003). 1986). or dependent. Baron and Kenny have further added that although the predictor and moderator can have significant effects on the outcome variable.(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 2.6: 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.

In turn. mostly from taxi and heavy trucking. His sample of 321 participants combined both professional drivers. hostility. and non-professional students who were mostly students. anxiety. they did have a significant association with both dysfunctional alcohol use and aberrant driving behaviours. sensationseeking and risk-taking (novelty. However. A number of questions may be raised about Sümer’s (2003) analysis. Further. while psychological factors did not predict speed choice. Using structured equation modelling. he found that. anger). more relevant to the model he proposed. Sümer (2003) identified three classes of distal variables: psychological symptoms (depression. errors). He examined their effects on three proximal variables: aberrant driving behaviour (violations. choice of speed and alcohol use (antisocial drinking. psychoticism). No attempt was made to differentiate between these two groups. Sümer also find that aberrant driving behaviour.7: Inter-variable Relationships in Moderation Model 2. given wide 47 .Predictor Variable X a Moderator Z b Y Outcome Variable c Predictor X Moderator Figure 2. intensity) and aggression (physical aggression. dangerous drinking). verbal aggression.4 Studies of Driving Behaviour Using the Contextual Mediated Model In his initial study. a proximal variable significantly mediated the relationship between the three distal variables and the frequency of crashes.2.4. hostility. the effects of the proximal variables on the number of crashes experienced within a three-year period was examined.

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

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

Williams & Shabanova.Downe (2007).1 Distal Variables in the Present Study Demographic Variables 2. uncertainty avoidance)  temperamental factors (e.. 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.8).1. proposed the use of a contextual mediated model for further research on agricultural safety (see Figure 2.5.5. in a study of safety training methods and personality factors in Malaysian rubber and palm oil plantations..5 2. they have been less well studied than other groups and the general understanding of age effects is not clear.g.g. aggression) Safe Work Practices  hazard identification and reporting  risk avoidance  procedural compliance  use of safety devices and equipment  occupational hygiene  help-seeking and teamwork behaviour Experiential     safety awareness domain-specific skill years of work experience prior accident experience Figure 2. Weinstein & Solomon. but young drivers are more likely to sustain crash-related injuries and to die in vehicular crashes (Massie. 2003). Retting. Not only are they the most likely age group to be involved in crashes.. 2007) 2. 2002. Yet. 1995). 2003. 1997. Type A.8: Proposed Contextual Mediated Model for Safety Research in Agriculture (from Downe. Campbell & Williams. Odero et al.1 Age Young drivers are significantly over-represented among those injured or killed in road traffic crashes (Ballesteros & Dischinger. heterogeneity in group composition: Part of this may be due to 50 .

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

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

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

and (c) female drivers are involved in more motor vehicle crashes than ever before. Welsh. (a) the number of female drivers is increasing. worldwide. found that while male drivers. state of Washington. 1997.S. Male drivers drove too fast and under the influence of alcohol more often in loss-of-control crashes. Flyte & Garner. Dobson. This is important.usually led to a single-vehicle crash. which typically took place during evenings and nights. Woodcock. 2001). While there is much of value in such an approach. Female drivers’ loss-of-control crashes usually took place under slippery road conditions and were more likely due to deficient vehicle handling skills. Lenard. but for female drivers the loss of control usually resulted in a collision with another car. as marked changes in the roles of women in society have profound implications for the design of transportation systems (Waller. Laapotti and Keskinen (2004a) indicated that. they did not differ from female drivers in reported driving 54 . Lonczak. Ball. Powers and McFadden (1999) noted that: The relevance of gender to road safety has long been recognised but it has been the contribution of men drivers to fatal and serious crashes which has. Neighbors and Donovan (2007). (b) females drive increasingly more. 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. to date. At the same time. 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. 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. reported more traffic citations and injuries. in a sample taken in the U. for instance. Brown. 525526).

involved in proportionally more crashes connected to speeding. 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. just as they had in 1978. Since previous research had highlighted the association between males. as per the traditional pattern.anger. (1998) and Laapotti and Keskinen (2004). showing that male drivers were. Justification of gender-related hypotheses. Keskinen and Rajalin (2003) reported that Finnish females in 2001 drove less than males. Forward. gender was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. on the other hand. indirectly. 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. it was hypothesised that males and females would differ on measures of behaviour in traffic. McKenna.. 55 . Lourens et al. though. Female drivers. had proportionally more crashes connected to inadequate vehicle manoeuvring. alcohol consumption and for risky driving. Consistent with the findings of McKenna et al. control of traffic situations. 2006. were less frequently involved in crash situations. In a subsequent report. Linderholm and Järmark (1998) reviewed studies dating from 1970 to 1984 and compared them to results obtained between 1985 and 1997. evaluated their driving skill lower. In a study of Dutch drivers. and loss-of-control incidents. 11). on crash and injury occurrence. commenting that “despite the fact that there has been a massive shift in the population of women drivers. et al. crash frequency and risky or aggressive driving behaviour (Monárrez-Espino. Turner & McClure. committed fewer traffic offences and had a more positive attitude toward traffic safety and rules than males. Laapotti. there is little evidence that the sex difference in the pattern of accident involvement is changing over the years” (p. In other research. (1999) corrected for variation in annual mileage when performing multivariate analysis on a disaggregated data base and found that crash involvement differences between males and females disappeared. Laapotti and Keskinen (2004b) provided evidence in support of this view. Waylen and Burke (1998) disagreed. In a study of male and female drivers in Finland. 2003). In the present study.

finding that the former group had higher fatality rates. 2005). A few studies have endeavoured to compare national driving cultures in terms of crash risk. traffic safety regulations and traffic fatalities. Lezotte and Lowenstein (2000) compared Hispanic and non-Hispanic white motorists in the state of Colorado. To a large degree. White and Hispanic drivers regarding red light violations.2. Being a non-wealthy Catholic country was associated with higher fatality rates than being a wealthy Catholic country. In one of the few studies reported. But. Romano.3 Ethnicity A growing number of studies have examined the effect of ethnic differences on driving behaviour and crash outcomes. Summala and Hartley (1998). Corry. Haliburton. Harper. Levine.5. that expanded the standards for collection of data on race and ethnicity in 1999 (Briggs.1. Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS). Melinder (2007) compared 15 Western European countries with regard to the relation between different sociocultural factors. nonCatholic countries. On the other hand. Lajunen. Melinder concluded that the type of religion and wealth were important distal factors. Tippetts and Voas (2005) found no differences between African-American. differences in fatalities persisted. Garrett. Goldweig and Warren. for instance. Despite the fact that countries’ regulatory frameworks were becoming increasingly similar. Conducting curb-side inspections of taxicabs in Kuala Lumpur. Very little cross-cultural research related to traffic safety has been carried out in Southeast Asia. this has been the result of a change in reporting protocols within the U. Hauswald (1999) studied the incidence of covert non-compliance with seat belt regulations among Malaysian taxi drivers. reported few differences between Australians and Finns. he found that 60% of drivers had positioned belts or shoulder straps in a manner that appeared to 56 . Marine. lower rates of safety belt use.S. more frequent histories of speeding offences and more extreme alcohol use. being a wealthy Catholic country was associated with more traffic fatalities than were wealthy. Schlundt.

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

2001).behaviour in traffic.2 Driver Characteristics 2. journey lengths. Allied to this. and as such. Given the absence of relevant prior research on Malaysian cultural groups. with different weather conditions. and indicating that those recording higher mileage per year have fewer accidents per mile (Pelz & Schuman. Keskinen. As experience grows. 1971). 2. directionality of the effect was not predicted. passenger distractions different vehicles. A large number of studies have shown that. although not always. as drivers become more experienced. Hatakka and Katila. 2002). the motorist is less likely to encounter situations very different from those they have encountered before (p. implies the driver has had a broader variety of driving experiences. Laapotti.g.1 Experience Driver experience makes a difference in crash risk.5.. 1995. (b) not know how to carry out a particular manoeuvre correctly.5. 166).2. inexperienced drivers may (a) not know the correct manoeuvre so they try a different manoeuvre which turns out to be unsafe. A useful way of conceptualising the experience effect is to draw on a cognitive framework proposed by Mikkonen and Keskinen (1983) and later extended 58 . (c) not have had enough practice in carrying out the manoeuvre correctly. they are less likely to make errors and commit violations that result in crashes (e. in a given road and traffic scenario. or (d) not have had enough experience of dealing safety with the effects of human factors on their performance (Fuller. etc. On the other hand. increased experience usually. Lajunen & Summala. Groeger (2000) reviewed the reasons for this: … the weight of practice more experienced drivers have makes much of what they do routine. such as driving at different times of the day or days of the week. allows many otherwise incompatible tasks to be performed together.

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

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

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

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

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. Based on this multidimensional conceptualisation.1 Locus of Control 2. believe that very few events are outside the realm of human influence and that even cataclysmic situations may be altered through human action. one to reflect the influence of fate or chance (C) and the second to reflect the influence of powerful others (P).2.g. Levenson (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. Rotter’s (1966) original I-E conceptualisation of the locus of control construct viewed it as a unidimensional. 1991. 15). Hyman..5. 1981) extended this concept in two ways: first. according to the strength of their tendencies toward making attributions of internal or external control. people are thought to vary on a continuum between the two extremes of external and internal locus of control. 1990). view most events as dependent on chance or controlled by powers beyond human reach. Holder & Levi. Stanley & Burrows. or externals .3.1. bipolar continuum along which individuals could be placed. and second. people who attribute behaviour to an internal locus of control. such that it could be possible for an individual to score high on all three (see Figure 2. or internals. Originally conceptualised by Rotter (1966.5. 1975.10). she assumed that the three resulting dimensions were conceptually independent.3. 63 .3 Psychological Variables 2.5. 2006. Levenson constructed a scale has been used widely in studies of locus of control (e. 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. In contrast. she separated the externality dimension into two. 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. 1999).

Liverant and Scodel (1960) studied betting preferences using a simple dice-throwing task. 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. 64 . They found that subjects with high internal control seemed to prefer intermediate probability bets or extremely safe bets over so-called long shots.10: Contrast between Rotter’s Unidimensional and Levenson’s Multidimensional Conceptualisations of Locus of Control 2. According to Phares (1976). these results supported the idea that internals would be more cautious in their control efforts while externals would engage in riskier behaviour.2 Locus of Control and Driving Behaviour Very early studies examined a link between locus of control and risk taking. Sinha & Watson.Luckner.3. 1989. luck. They also tended to bet more on safe outcomes than did the more externally oriented subjects.1. E Unidimensional Model I Externalizers Individuals believe that what happens is determined by fate.5. 2007) and has given rise to a number of other instruments measuring multi-dimensional locus of control. Multidimensional Model Low Internality High Low Externality .Chance High Low Externality – Powerful Others High Figure 2.

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

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

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

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

Beresford & Neilly. locus of control was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and.3. 1987. 1995. (2003). but there are two conceptual arguments for doing so. Cases usually 69 . 2.2 Hopelessness Rothengatter (2002) and Groeger (1997) have both noted the paucity of research on affect and driver behaviour. 1991. Sinha & Watson. anticipate a negative outcome to any attempts that may be made to attain the individual’s major objectives or goals (Beck. Träskman-Bendz & Alsén. on crash and injury occurrence. Kovacs and Weissman. without objective basis. Personality traits closely aligned with given mood states might well be expected to have an impact on the performance on driving tasks. Given the strong research evidence suggesting an association between internal locus of control and less risky driving behaviour (Lajunen & Summala. Niméus. In the present study. indirectly. 1997. hopelessness has been consistently shown to be a predictor of suicidal intent (Beck. given the large number of studies indicating ethnic differences in locus of control (Crittendon. it was hypothesised that Chinese participants would tend toward higher externality scores while Indian participants would tend toward higher internality. Pentilla and Lonnqvist (1997) studied all fatal car crashes in Finland from 1987 to 1991 and found that 5. Gilbody. 2005). Based on the findings reported by Gidron et al. Weissman. while the two dimensions of externality would have positive associations. 1975. 1973). 2007.5.9% could be classified as having an intentional suicidal component. McMillan. Özkan & Lajunen. et al. Fox & Klerman. it was hypothesised that internality would have a negative association with unsafe behaviour in traffic. 1975). Hopelessness has not been previously studied as a predictor either of driving behaviour or of crash risk. Hopelessness is one such trait in which the behaviour of individuals is derived from specific cognitive distortions that systematically misconstrue experiences in a negative way and.Justification of hypotheses about locus of control. Montag & Comrey. it was hypothesised that locus of control would moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic. Finally. Ohberg. 2007). First.

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

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

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

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

Raikkonen. Chastang. Nabi et al. West. 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. for instance. but not with accident risk. Other authors have examined which of the behavioural dimensions of TAPB has the strongest impact on driving outcomes. focused on the time urgency component 74 . socio-professional category. 1979) and number of accidents. Lafont and Lagarde (2005). 1990). however. was driving frequency. violations and self-reported driving impatience in a sample of 54 American students. Perry (1986) fond significant simple correations between scores on a commonly used measure of TAPB. however.DeLorenzo and Sacco (1997). (2003) with respect to data collection time periods. Elander and French (1993) found that TAPB had a strong association with excessive driving speed. alcohol consumption. Perry and Baldwin (2000) argued that it was the tendency of Type A drivers toward a heightened sense of urgency and impatience that created crash risk. In a correlational study of British drivers. gender. Consoli. Zzanski & Rosenman. They found a robust association between scores on a measure of TAPB and later serious crashes. Chiron. category of vehicle. did control for the effects of a range of potential confounding variables – annual mileage. it may have been flawed by methodological deficiencies discussed by af Wählberg (2003) and by Elander et al. 1989. studied police officers in Italy. driving style. Although there is some evidence as to the long-term stability of TAPB (Keltikangas-Jarninen. traffic exposure or driver gender controlled as variables. particularly in driving situations that require prudence. In none of these studies. and drivers’ attitudes toward traffic regulations – when examining the association between motor vehicle crashes and Type A scores in a prospective study of 20. (1998). similarly. where Type A drivers were 4. Karlberg et al. the Jenkins Activity Survey (Jenkins. Nabi. tested drivers on a TABP questionnaire in 1993 and then tracked their driving behaviour to record crash history from 1994 to 2001. age.000 employees of a French oil and gas company. Although their research design accounted for the influence of potential confounds.2 times more likely to have an accident than others.

emphasising the four individual dimensions of behaviour in traffic rather than the composite BIT total score. freeway urgency (excessive speed choice). namely “externally-focused frustration”. If all four BIT factors contribute to accident proneness. with higher BIT scores reflecting a stronger Type A orientation. 1977). as measured by the student version of the SJAS. stressed the relationship between Type A individuals and the tendency to engage in more aggressive acts while driving as the key factor in the relationship between TAPB and crashes. Of the four BIT factors. Using an instrument with items at extreme ends of the Type A/B continuum. specifically measuring the effects of drivers’ usurpation of right-of-way (lane violations and reluctance to yield). they examined the influence of TAPB on a number of driving outcomes. The BIT scale was positively correlated with the student version of the Jenkins Activity Survey (SJAS.6. on the other hand. Gender. Glass. then use of the Type A/B 75 .2 A Conceptual Shift from TAPB to Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) as a Variable Synodinos and Papacostas (1985) also attempted to examine the TAPB dimensions that related to driving behaviour in a sample of Hawaiian university students. In a subsequent study. Papacostas and Synodinos concluded that: Type A/B behaviour is consistently related to only one of the four driving factors obtained by the BIT. driving exposure and the place where they had learned to drive all had direct effects on Type A results. all four BIT factors significantly predicted participants’ self-reported driving characteristics. 2. ethnicity. only externally-focused frustration was consistently correlated with Type A behaviour.of TAPB that had the most significant influence on driving risks. At the same time. Miles and Johnson (2003). Papacostas and Synodinos (1988) reported several further analyses of their original data. 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).

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

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

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

In Study 2, using motorcycle drivers as units of analysis, the research model was tested to investigate the effects of demographic (driver age, gender and ethnicity) and psychological factors (locus of control and hopelessness) in predicting self-reported BIT and then on self-reported crash and injury occurrence (see Figure 3.2).

In Study 3, using taxicab drivers as units of analysis, the research model was tested to study the effects of demographic (driver age, gender and ethnicity) and psychological factors (locus of control, hopelessness and aggression) in predicting self-reported BIT and then on self-reported crash and injury occurrence (see Figure 3.4).

79

DISTAL CONTEXT H2

PROXIMAL CONTEXT

OUTCOME

Driver Characteristics
 Driver experience  Driving frequency

Demographic Variables
 Gender  Ethnicity  Age

H3

H5

H4
Locus of Control
 Internality  Externality (chance)  Externality (Powerful Other)

H8
Behaviour in Traffic (BIT)
    Usurpation of right-of-way Freeway urgency Externally-focused frustration Destination-activity orientation

H1.1

Crash Occurrence Injury Occurrence

H6
Hopelessness (BHS)

H7

H1.2

BHS x Locus of Control

H9

Figure 3.1: Research Model (Study 1A and Study 2)

80

DISTAL CONTEXT
Driver Characteristics
 Driver experience  Driving frequency

PROXIMAL CONTEXT

OUTCOME

H2

Demographic Variables
 Gender  Ethnicity  Age

H3

H10
Aggression (AQ)
     Physical aggression Verbal aggression Anger Hostility Indirect aggression

Behaviour in Traffic (BIT)

Crash Occurrence

H4 H5

H11

   

Usurpation of right-of-way Freeway urgency Externally-focused frustration Destination-activity orientation

H1.1
Injury Occurrence

Locus of Control
 Internality  Externality (chance)  Externality (Powerful Other)

H1.2

H8

H6
Hopelessness (BHS)

H7 H12 H9

Locus of Control x AQ

BHS x Locus of Control

Figure 3.2: Research Model (Study 1B)

81

DISTAL CONTEXT
Driver Characteristics
 Driver experience  Driving frequency

PROXIMAL CONTEXT

OUTCOME

H2

Demographic Variables Gender, Ethnicity & Age

H3

H13
Hostile Automatic Thoughts (HAT)
 Physical Aggression  Derogation of Others  Revenge

H14
Behaviour in Traffic (BIT)
    Usurpation of right-of-way Freeway urgency Externally-focused frustration Destination-activity orientation

H1.1

Crash Occurrence

H10

Aggression Questionnaire (AQ) Locus of Control

H11

H1.2 H8

Injury Occurrence

H4

H5
Locus of Control x AQ

H6
Hopelessness

H7 H12

BHS x Locus of Control

H9 H15

HAT x AQ

Figure 3.3: Research Model (Study 1C)

82

DISTAL CONTEXT

PROXIMAL CONTEXT

OUTCOME

Driver Characteristics
 Driver experience  Taxicab experience

H2

Demographic Variables
Ethnicity & Age

H3

H10 H4
Aggression (AQ)
     Physical Aggression Verbal Aggression Anger Hostility Indirect Aggression

Behaviour in Traffic (BIT)

Crash Occurrence

H11

   

Usurpation of right-of-way Freeway urgency Externally-focused frustration Destination-activity orientation

H1.1
Injury Occurrence

H1.2

Locus of Control
 Internality  Externality (chance)  Externality (Powerful Other)

H8

Locus of Control x AQ

H12

Figure 3.4: Research Model (Study 3)

83

3.2

Definition of the Variables This section identifies, classifies and provides an operational definition of each

of the variables used in the present research. Variables included (a) self-reported driving characteristics; (b) demographic variables; (c) locus of control; (d) hopelessness; (e) aggression; (f) hostile automatic thoughts; (g) self-reported behaviour in traffic; (h) selfreported crash occurrence; and (i) self-reported injury occurrence. Variables (a) through (f) were grouped within a super-ordinate class as distal variables. Variable (g) was considered as a proximal variable. Variables (h) and (i) were grouped within a superordinate class as outcome variables.

3.2.1

Driver Characteristics: Driver Experience and Driving Frequency Driver experience was defined as the length of time, in months, that participants

reported they had held a valid driving licence, consistent with the approach used in earlier research by Synodinos and Papacostas (1985). Frequency of travel was measured by asking participants to respond to the question, “how often do you travel in a car” as a driver, using a six-point Likert-type scale.

3.2.2

Demographic Variables: Age, Gender and Ethnicity Participants reported their age in years, their gender and chose a descriptor of

their “ethnic background” from a list including “Malay”, “Chinese-Malaysian”, “IndianMalaysian” and “Other, please specify”. The use of ethnic self-identification has been the most frequently used means of establishing cultural affiliation in previous studies of driving behaviour (Ey, Klesges, Patterson, Patterson, Hadley, Barnard & Alpert, 2000; Romano, Tippetts & Voas, 2005a, 2005b).

3.2.3

Locus of Control Locus of control refers to the extent to which individuals believe that they are in

control of the events that affect them (Rotter, 1966). The present research, adopted Levenson’s (1973) assumption that there are three independent dimensions to locus of control: internality; chance and powerful others. Within this model, one can endorse

84

It functions as a feeling of despair and discouragement. For each of the five studies undertaken. 3.2. anger was defined as a negative internal state of physiological arousal and cognition that involves interactions between physiological.each of these dimensions independently and at the same time. such that an individual might simultaneously believe that oneself and powerful others control an outcome. affective. consistent with the way the variable has been described by Beck (1987a) and Beck. a separate score for internality (I). 25). According to Farran et al (1995): Hopelessness constitutes an essential experience of the human condition.5 Aggression Spielberger et al (1995). 1999). cognitive. externality related to chance (C) and externality related to the influence of powerful others (P) was obtained. but not chance. While Beck (1999) and others have reserved the term anger for the feeling that accompanies such an internal state. a thought process that expects nothing.4 Hopelessness Hopelessness has been defined as a cognitive or motivational state characterised by negative expectancies. Galovski et al (2006) and others have noted that the definitions of anger. and a behavioural process in which the person attempts little or takes inappropriate action (p. motoric and verbal components (Sharkin. aggression is regarded here as referring to the hostile behaviour that occurs as a result of it. Lester and Trexler (1974). a future directed information-processing bias or schema which functions to distort individuals’ subjective experience of external reality (Velting. In the present research. Weissman. 1988) and tends to manifest itself under antagonistic conditions (Novaco. hopelessness was measured as a unidimensional construct. For the purposes of the present research.2. It has been accepted for a long time that aggression finds its 85 . hostility and aggression are often inconsistent. overlapping and ambiguous. 1994). 3.

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

not allowing others to merge or overtake. (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. competitiveness. 3. motorcyclists and taxicab drivers sampled in the five successive studies undertaken. degraded or wished to be rid of another individual. and. hostility and time pressure (Karlberg et al. (b) derogation of others – cognitive self-talk that contained content which belittled. the BIT score.g. (c) externally-focused frustration – consisting of emotional reactions to the actions of other drivers on the road (e. being irritated by slow drivers) and of directive behaviours toward 87 . 1998). characterised by excessive impatience.7 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) The present research attempted to determine the effects of variables related to the self-reported patterns of driving behaviour among car drivers. was defined as indicative of Type A Behaviour Pattern (TABP). driving consistently in the fast lane and travelling above the speed limit. frequent lane changing. 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.2.(a) physical aggression – cognitive self-talk that contained content indicating an intent or desire to violently attack. A global measure of selfreported driving tendencies. and an expressed preference for operating powerful vehicles. (b) freeway urgency – including an expressed preference for freeway driving...

the interrelationships between the demographic variables.9 Injury Occurrence Participants also indicated whether they had been forced to seek medical treatment for an injury incurred during the reported crash. gender and ethnicity) and two psychological variables (locus of control and hopelessness) on BIT was tested. the influence of driving experience.g.them (e. in Study 1A. Then.2. a “1” was scored if the participant reported that they had sought treatment at a medical clinic or had required hospitalisation as a result of physical injury sustained during the crash and a “0” was scored if the participant reported that the crash had resulted in no damage or only damage to the vehicle. In the resulting measure of this variable. urging others to move faster or out of the way by sounding the horn).8 Crash Occurrence Participants reported whether or not they had experienced a motor vehicle crash. a “1” was scored if the participant reported a crash and a “0” was scored if the participant did not report a crash. 3.2.3 3. three demographic variables (driver age. 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. (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. to the extent of inattention conditions. In the resulting measure of this variable.1 Research Design of the Study Study 1A Specifically. travel frequency.. and. 88 .3. within the preceding twelve months and provided details about the nature of the crash. while driving. Then. to contemporaneous roadway and traffic 3. 3.

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

3. or the length of time they had been licensed to operate a taxicab.1 illustrates the research design for Study 2. Then. the influence of experience. Figure 3. the mediating effect of the BIT on the relations between psychological variables and crash occurrence and injury occurrence was tested. or the length of time they had held a valid automobile operator’s licence. This was justified for three reasons. 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. Two measures of experience were included: (a) driving experience. 90 . the interrelationships between the demographic variables. the moderating effect of locus of control on the relationship between aggression and BIT was assessed.4 illustrates the research design for Study 3. Then. In Study 3. Variables and analyses in Study 2 were the same as those carried out in Study 1A. 3. Finally.3. three demographic variables (driver age and ethnicity) and two psychological variables (locus of control and aggression) on BIT was tested.3.5 Study 3 The final study used a sample of on-duty taxicab drivers. and (b) taxi experience. In Study 3. 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. using a sample that indicated motorcycles as their primary mode of transportation.3 illustrates the research design for Study 1C. First. Finally. and (c) the moderating effect of hostile automatic thoughts on the relationship between aggression and BIT.4 Study 2 The research design for Study 1A was replicated. Figure 3. Figure 3.of control on the relationship between aggression and BIT. 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.

4:Destination-Activity orientation will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1. 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 H2.2: Travel frequency will have a negative influence on total BIT score H2.4: 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 H2.4 Formulation of Hypotheses Based on the conceptualisation and research framework. potentially raising questions of reliability and validity. Second. the measurement of hopelessness and hostile automatic thoughts would have required a level of attention and concentration on the part of the drivers that could have distracted them from the safe operation of their taxicabs.1: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on crash 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 injury occurrence H1.1.2 :Freeway urgency will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.2: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1. Gender was not included as a demographic variable in Study 3 because all taxicab drivers in the sample were male.1: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1. 3.1: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1. a risk that would have been unethical to impose both on the drivers and on the research assistants who were collecting the data.2.2.2.1.1.2.1: 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.3: Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1. the following fifteen hypotheses and sixty sub-hypotheses were formulated: Table 3.3: Taxicab experience will have a negative influence on total BIT score 91 .1. Third.3:Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.

1: Gender will influence total BIT score H3.3: Aggression will have a positive influence on Externally-focused Frustration H11.2: Gender will influences Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.1: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Usurpation of Right-of Way H7.2: Ethnicity will influence Hopelessness H5.1: Aggression will have a positive influence on Usurpation of Right-of Way H11.2: Ethnicity will influence total BIT score H3.3: Ethnicity will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H4.3: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Externally-focused Frustration H7.2.3.Table 3.1.2: Externality-Chance will have a positive influence on total BIT score H8.2.3: Age will have a negative influence on Hopelessness H6.3: Age will have a negative influence on total BIT score Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y H4: Demographic variables will influence locus of control H4.3: Externality-Powerful-Others will have a positive influence on Hopelessness H7: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on behaviour in traffic H7.1.2: Hopelessness will moderate the Externality(Chance)-BIT relationship H9.2: Ethnicity will influence Aggression H10.1: Hopelessness will moderate the Internality-BIT relationship H9.3.2: Aggression will have a positive influence on Freeway Urgency H11.3: Hopelessness will moderate the Externality(Powerful-Other)-BIT relationship H10: Demographic variables will influence aggression H10.4: Aggression will have a positive influence on Destination-Activity Orientation 92 .2: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Freeway Urgency H7.3: Externality-Powerful-Others will have a positive influence on total BIT score H9: Hopelessness will moderate the locus of control-BIT Relationship H9.1: Gender will influence Hopelessness H5.1: Internality will have a negative influence on Hopelessness H6.1: Age will influence Locus of Control: Internality H4.3: Age will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others Y Y Y Y Y Y H5: Demographic variables will influence hopelessness H5.2: Externality-Chance will have a positive influence on Hopelessness H6.1: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Internality H4.4: Hopelessness will have positive influence on Destination-Activity Orientation H8: Locus of Control will influence behaviour in traffic H8.3: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H4.1: Gender will influence Aggression H10.1: Ethnicity will influence Locus of Control: Internality H4.3.3: 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 (continued) STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 3 H3: Demographic variables will influence behaviour in traffic H3.1: Internality will have a negative influence on total BIT score H8.2.2: Age will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.2: Ethnicity will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.1.

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

3. Participants were recruited during a curb-side introduction of the study by one of a group of four research assistants.5.1 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) Scale This 52-item measures time-urgent behaviour. participation was voluntary and confidentiality was assured.2. 1978). For inclusion in the study.g. Stokals & Campbell. while participants were driving. This sample was combined from all three rounds of classroom data collection. 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. with one of the items in each pair written to measure a TABP response and the other a contradictory statement (e. although results were used to demonstrate teaching points related to the syllabus at a point later in the trimester. Stokols. by postal mail. all of whom possessed a valid driving licence and a commercial permit for the operation of a taxicab.2 Research Instruments 3.. Participants in Study 3 received the meter or negotiated fare for the trip. in the case of Study 3 participants. “ When a traffic light turns green and the car in front of me doesn’t get going immediately. during a point to point trip. 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. Data collection took place within the taxicab. Synodinos and Papacostas (1985) developed 26 pairs of two-alternative items. consistent with of a Type A Behaviour Pattern (TAPB) when driving (see Appendix A). Participants in Study 3 were taxicab drivers in the Kuala Lumpur area. Participants in Studies 1 and 2 were not remunerated. Novaco. Drawing from the earlier Driving Habits Questionnaire (DHQ. 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.time when they travelled.5. I try to urge its driver to move 94 .

of items 24 Sample items “When I am in a traffic jam and the lane next to mine starts to move. I usually drive a few kilometres above the speed limit. Synodinos and Papacostas reported that Form A and Form B (which correlated . In a later study. I usually feel like pushing them off the road. then the item of the pair representing the opposite end of the continuum was placed in Form B and vice versa. with a coefficient alpha of .on” versus “When a traffic light turns green and the car in front of me doesn’t get going immediately. Items in Form A and Form B are presented in random order. 20 items are answered on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from “most like me” to “least like me”. Externally-focused frustration 6 IV. to school or to an appointment with someone.80. On each form. Usurpation of right-ofway No. Six of the items are answered on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree”.” “I often find myself checking the time while driving to work. Their analysis revealed four dimensions. Table 3. Papacostas and Synodinos (1988) provided additional psychometric parameters of the BIT scale.91) were found to be internally consistent.2: Dimensions of the BIT scale Factor I.” “I often blow my horn at someone as a way of expressing my frustration.” II. Items were presented in two alternate forms (Form A and Form B). as indicated in table 3. Freeway urgency 14 III.” “I usually get upset at drivers who do not signal their driving intentions.” “On a clear highway. based on a principal components analysis of earlier-reported data. I usually think about what I have to do when I get there. I just wait for a while until it moves”) for a total of 52 item stems.” “When a motor vehicle cuts in front of me.” “While travelling to work (or to school). Destination-activity orientation 8 Total 52 95 .2.” “I get extremely irritated when I am travelling behind a slow moving vehicle. such that if the TABP alternative of an item pair was placed in Form A. I try to move that lane as soon as possible.

A sample item is “Although I might have good ability. ranging from +3 (“agree strongly”) to –3 (“disagree strongly”).2 Levenson Locus of Control Scale This widely-used questionnaire is based on Levenson’s (1981) multidimensional view of locus of control. References to the “gas pedal” were replaced by “accelerator”. The phrase “cross-junction” was added to items pertaining to behaviour at intersections. A sample item is “When I get what I want. References to the faster. passing lane were changed from “left lane” to “right lane” and the word “pass” was replaced with “overtake”. it’s usually because I worked hard for it”. References to “miles per hour” were changed to “kilometres per hour”. A sample item is “I have often found that what is going to happen will happen”. Participants scored all 24 items on a 6-point scale. 96 . High scores on the externality-powerful-others (P) scale indicate that respondents expect that powerful others exert a high degree of control over their lives. Luckner (1989) noted that this instrument has among the highest reliability and validity of all locus of control tests and is particularly applicable when gearing instruments to broad linguistic structures and varying academic levels. I will not be given leadership responsibility without appealing to those in positions of power”.5.Certain items in the original American version were re-worded to make them relevant to the Malaysian context and driving jargon.2. 3. High scores on the internality (I) scale indicate that respondents expect to have a high degree of control over their own lives. It contains three 8-item sub-scales that measure perceptions about the level of control exercised over the events and circumstances in their lives. High scores on the externality-chance (C) scale indicate that respondents expect expect chance forces or luck to have control over their lives.

3).” “I often find myself disagreeing with people. I may mess up someone’s work. Tanaka et al.” 97 . A total aggression score can be calculated from summed item responses. Durham. or 0.” “At times I feel like a bomb ready to explode. Item scores are summed to yield a total score ranging from 0 to 20.” “I get into fights more than most people. I may tell them what I think of them.” “I sometimes feel that people are laughing at me behind my back. Of the 20 true-false statements. Table 3.5. High internal consistency has been reported across a range of samples (Benzein & Berg. verbal aggression.2. Participants indicate a response on a five-point Likert-type scale (1 = “not at all like me”. 5 = “completely like me”) that best represent how well the item describe them.2.3: The Five Subscales of the Aggression Questionnaire Subscale Physical Aggression (PHY) Verbal Aggression (VER) Anger (ANG) Hostility (HOS) Indirect Aggression (IND) Total No. Beck et al. and five subscales measure physical aggression. if endorsed.” “At times I feel I have gotten a raw deal out of life. High scores are taken to indicate a generally pessimistic view of the future and a high degree of hopelessness. 9 are keyed false to indicate optimism about the future. I might give him or her the silent treatment. if not. Eleven items are keyed true to indicate pessimism about the future.3.4 Aggression Questionnaire (AQ) This questionnaire is a 34-item scale measuring constructs related to the expression of aggression.” “I let my anger show when I do not get what I want. 3. hostility and indirect aggression (see Table 3. 1996). anger. 2005. 1974). a sample item of which is “I look forward to the future with hope and enthusiasm”. 1982. 1993.” “When people annoy me. of items 8 5 7 8 6 34 Sample Items: “At times I can’t control the urge to hit someone.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. Each of the 20 statements is scored 1. 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”.” “When someone really irritates me.5.” “If I’m angry enough.

Three factors – physical aggression. Questions included details about the participant’s licensing and driving background.” “I just want to hurt this person as bad as s/he hurt me.88 for the five subscales (Buss & Warren. Table 3. 1997. 98 .” Participants responded on a 5point Likert-type scale (1 = “not at all”. Snyder et al. Shapiro. derogation of others and revenge respectively. gender. Williams. Boyd. 1996).6 Personal Information Form (PIF) Participants also completed a 4-page questionnaire recording personal information.4). 2000) and discriminant validity (Archer & Haigh.5 Hostile Automatic Thoughts (HAT) This 30-item self-report index measures the frequency of recurring hostile thoughts.” 3. Each item includes a statement expressing some hostile thought and respondents are asked to indicate “whether that thought (or one like it) has occurred to you about another driver when you have been driving.91 for physical aggression.2. Previous studies have established high levels of concurrent validity (Harris.2. 1997. Cascardi & Pythress. I’d kill this person!” “I’d like to knock his/her teeth out” “What an idiot!” “This person is a loser.71 to .” “I want to get back at this person. 5 = “all the time”). (1997) reported high internal consistency for all three sub-scales. ethnicity and history of motor vehicle crashes and injuries. 3. of Items 11 10 9 30 Sample Items “If I could get away with it. .92.94 for the total aggression scores and ranging from .High internal consistency has been reported with a coefficient alpha of . 2000).5. High scores on a sub-scale indicated that type of hostile thinking had occurred to the participant frequently. with coefficient alpha values of .4: The Three Subscales of the Hostile Automatic Thoughts (HAT) Scale Factor Physical aggression Derogation of others Revenge Total No.5. derogation of others and revenge – were identified and are included as subscales (see table 3.88 and . age.

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

each research assistant hired a taxicab to drive to some location elsewhere in the Kuala Lumpur area. Confirmatory Factor Analyses (CFA) were performed on the BIT. data collection was confined to times between 8:00 am and 9:00 pm. rel. 8. rel.7 Analysis of the Data Data collected were entered and processed using Statistical Package for the Social Science (SPSS for Windows. Two to four times daily. 13. Data collection took place in taxicabs. aged 22 to 24 years. For safety reasons. AQ and HAT to determine validity using LInear Structural RElations software (LISREL. 2004). Specific statistical tests have been summarised in Table 3. Over the course of the trip. The PIF was always administered first. Structural equation models and path analyses were estimated using the same version of LISREL. All four research assistants spoke fluent English and Bahasa Malaysia. 2002). with prior research experience were retained to assist in the study.5. Reliability coefficients of all instruments were calculated using SPSS.6. with the team of research assistants meeting regularly three times each week to calibrate administration procedures. research assistants verbally administered the PIF. 3. four female final-year undergraduate students. BIT. approached at a taxi stand or booked over the telephone. Taxis were flagged down at roadside. Single-word substitutions in items were made in English or the driver’s first language if comprehension difficulties arose. as well as at least two additional Malaysian languages. provided assurance of confidentiality and secured participation. as well.2 Study 3 For study 3. Levenson Locus of Control scale.0. the research assistant informed the taxicab driver about the study. with the remaining instruments administered in random order. 100 . Independent-sample t-tests. AQ and Levenson scales.3.5. linear and multiple regression analyses and logistic regression analyses were used to test the hypotheses. At initial contact. This section provides a brief example of each one and details its use in the present research. analyses of variance (ANOVA).

1: Internality is negatively related to hopelessness H6.2: Hopelessness influence the level of Freeway Urgency H7.1: “Length of having driving licence” influence the level of BIT H2.2: Ethnicity background influence the level of BIT H3.1: The level of BIT influence the crash occurrence H1.2: Ethnicity background influence the level of Hopelessness H5.2: “Frequency of traveling” influence the level of BIT H2.2: Externality (Chance) is positively related to Hopelessness H6.5: 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 H7.4: Hopelessness influence the level of Destination-activity Orientation Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression 101 .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: Gender influence the level of Hopelessness H5.3: Externality (Powerful-Other) is positively related to Hopelessness Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression The Direct Effect of Hopelessness on BIT H7.3: Hopelessness influence the level of Externally-focused Frustration H7.3: “Access to a motor vehicle” influence the level of BIT Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance The Direct Effect of Demographic Factors on BIT H3.3: Age influence the level of 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 H4.1: Gender influence the level of BIT H3.Table 3.1: Gender influence the Locus of Control H4.2: 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 level of Hopelessness Independent Sample t-Test Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance The Direct Effect of Locus of Control on Hopelessness H6.

5 (continued) Data Analysis Methods The Direct Effect of Locus of Control on BIT H8.1: Gender has a positive influence on hostile automatic thoughts H13.2: Aggression influence the level of Freeway Urgency H11.1: Internality moderates the Aggression-BIT relation H12. the lower the BIT level H8.Table 3.1: Gender influences the level of Aggression H10.2: Hopelessness moderates the Externality(Chance)-BIT relation H9.2: Externality(Chance) moderates the Aggression-BIT relation H12.1: Hopelessness moderates the Internality-BIT relation Multiple Linear Regression H9.3: Aggression influence the level of Externally-focused Frustration H11.1: 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: Age influences the level of Aggression Independent Sample t-Test Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance The Direct Effect of Aggression on BIT H11.3: Hopelessness moderates the Externality (Powerful-Other)-BIT relation Multiple Linear Regression The Direct Effect of Demographic Factors on Aggression H10.2: Ethnicity background influences the level of Aggression H10.1: The higher the Internality.2: The higher Externality (Chance).4: Aggression influence the level of Destination-activity Orientation Additional Analysis: Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression The Interaction Effect of Ethnicity and Aggression on BIT GLM Univariate Analysis of Variance The Moderating Effect of Locus of Control on AggressionBIT Relation H12.3: The higher Externality (Powerful-Other). the higher the BIT level H8. the higher the BIT level Additional Analysis: Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression GLM Univariate Analysis of Variance The Interaction Effect of Ethnicity and Locus of Control on BIT The Moderating Effect of Hopelessness on Locus of ControlBIT Relation Multiple Linear Regression H9.3: Age has a negative influence on hostile automatic thoughts Independent Sample t-Test Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance 102 .2: Ethnicity influences hostile automatic thoughts H13.

aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) differed for male and female drivers. ANOVA was used to determine whether participants’ scores on psychological variables (BIT. When significant differences were observed.Table 3. locus of control. hopelessness.7. In the present study.2: Thoughts of Derogation-of-Others have a positive influence on BIT H14.3: Thoughts of Revenge have a positive influence on BIT Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression The Moderating Effect of HAT on the Aggression-BIT Relation H15.1 Independent-sample t-tests Generally.5 (continued) Data Analysis Methods The Direct Effect of HAT on BIT H14. 3.1: Thoughts of Physical Aggression have a positive influence on BIT H14. t-tests were used to determine whether participants’ scores on psychological variables (BIT. hopelessness.2: Thoughts of Derogation-of-Others will moderate the AggressionBIT relation H1353: Thoughts of Revenge will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation Multiple Linear Regression Multiple Linear Regression Multiple Linear Regression 3. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) differed for drivers with different ethnic backgrounds. 103 . post hoc analyses were carried out using the Scheffé method (Klockars & Hancock. t-tests are used to compare the means of two groups.7.1: Thoughts of Physical Aggression will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation H15. 2000). locus of control. In the present research.2 One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) ANOVA is used to compare means for more than two groups.

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

using LISREL. The validity of this measurement model was dependent on its goodness-of-fit and on the construct validity of its component variables. Since driver experience and travel frequency were expected to have an influence on the outcome variables. seeks to determine the odds that an event will or will not occur.7 Structural Equation Modelling. “1” was scored if a crash injury had occurred and “0” if no crash injury had occurred. “1” was scored if a crash had occurred and “0” if no crash had occurred. 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. these variables were controlled as covariates in the logistic regression equation. That is. on the other hand. Hair et al (2006) has defined structural equation modelling (SEM) as a “multivariate technique combining aspects of factor analysis and multiple regression that enables the research to simultaneously examine a series of interrelated dependent relationships among the measured variables and latent constructs (variates). the purpose of which was to distinguish the distal and proximal contextual factors related to crash outcomes. Linear or multiple regression seek to measure the degree of influence that variables will have on a dependent variable.7. The result was a measurement model described as a contextual-mediated model.3. In the present research. Goodness-of-fit indicates how 105 .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. 3. 710). Path coefficients were calculated to demonstrate correlates of unsafe driving according to their contextual proximity to crash and injury occurrence. and (b) examine the interrelationships among variables included in the research design. to (a) assess the validity of the instruments. logistic regression. In the present research. SEM was carried out. each of the two outcome variables (crash occurrence and injury occurrence) was framed as a binary variable.7. as well as between several latent constructs” (p.

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

an insignificant p-value is expected. Thus. Carmines and McIver (1981) have noted that. the normed fit index (NFI).00 in which values greater than . (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. the ratio indicates a good fit.7. the parsimony goodness-of-fit index (PGFI). 1998). 112).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. and a measure of parsimony fit. 107 . an insignificant p-value can result in good fit. when the ratio of χ2 to df yields a value of less than 3.0. 1998. the higher the probability associated with χ2. However.10 indicate poor fit.validation index (ECVI). 3. 2006).7.1 Chi-Square (χ2).7.7. RMSEA values can range from zero to 1. 3. 2006). Hair et al. pp. the closer the fit between the hypothesized model (established under the null hypothesis). with unknown but optimally chosen parameter values. 3. one incremental index.7. For a sample size less than 250 (and with number of observed variables that is less than 12). fit the population covariance matrix if it were available” (Byrne..3 Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) and Root Mean Square Residual (RMR) This index measures the error of approximation in the population and to question “how well would the model. 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.

it is known as one of the most widely used indices (Hair et al. 3. Tanaka & Huba.00 with value closes to 1. and a model with perfect fit would produce an NFI of 1. Since the CFI is insensitive to model complexity.00. 2006). 1980) represents a ratio of the difference in the χ2 value for the fitted model and a null model divided by the χ2 value for the null model. Thus.5 Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) and Comparative Fit Index (CFI) The GFI can range from zero to 1.7. the normed fit index (NFI. CFI is an improved version of the normed fit index. Bentler & Bonnet. The index ranges between zero and 1..00 with value more than .7. 3. 3.4 Normed Fit Index (NFI) One of the original incremental measures of fit.7.7. an RMR greater than . Values range from zero to 1.00 being indicative of good fit.90 is usually associated with a model that fits well.Root mean square residual (RMR) is another badness-of-fit measure. but AGFI values are typically lower than GFI values in proportion to model complexity. The index can range from zero to 1. 1985) accounts for differing degrees of model complexity by adjusting the GFI by a ratio of the degrees of freedom used in a model to the total degrees of freedom available.6 Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index (AGFI) An adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI. 108 .10 usually suggests a poor fit of the data for the model.00. The AGFI penalises more complex models and favours those with a minimum number of free paths.00.7.7. with higher values indicating better fit.

750). Although values range from zero to 1. In such cases. the model with the higher ECVI value is generally regarded as presenting a better fit. 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.. James. “a PGFI taken alone is not a useful indicator of a single model’s fit.3.7.7. based on the combination of fit and parsimony represented by the index.7 Expected Cross-Validation Index (ECVI) The expected cross-validation index (ECVI. The ECVI also takes into account the number of estimated parameters for a given model. Values range between zero and 1.7. in this case. 2006). Like other parsimony fit indices. it takes into account the actual sample size and the difference that could be expected in another sample. a PGFI value is meant only to be used in comparing it to another model’s PGFI value” (Hair et al. A parsimony fit measure is improved by a better fit and/or a simpler model which. considering its fit relative to its complexity. Mulaik & Brett. designed specifically to provide information about which model among a competing set of models is best. The parsimony goodness-of-fit index (PGFI.7. Browne & Cudeck. means a model with fewer estimated parameter paths (Hair et al. The parsimony ratio is calculated as the ratio of degrees of freedom used by a model to the total degrees of freedom available (Marsh & Balla. 3.00. It should be noted that. p. 1982) uses the parsimony ratio to adjust the GFI in order to compare two models.8 Parsimony Goodness-of-Fit Index (PGFI) A third class of measures is sometimes recognised as the parsimony indices.00. 1994). it is most commonly used when comparing the performance of one model to another. 2006. 109 .. and the model with the higher PGFI is considered preferable.

in this case.3. which means that it falls between leptokurtic and platykurtic distributions” (Ferguson.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. 2000). the distribution is said to be negatively skewed (Ferguson. p. 1976). 3. the distribution of test scores to the normal distribution. 1956). The normal distribution is spoken of as mesokurtic. then it is possible to conclude the the data do not violate the normality assumption (Carver & Nash. When p-values for the Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic are greater than our α=. 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. it is said to be positively skewed. In this case.7. Kurtosis refers to the flatness or peakedness of one distribution in relation to another.05. 37).7. and platykurtic if it is less peaked. It determines whether the scores in the sample can reasonably thought to have come from a population having the theoretical distribution (Siegel. 1976.9 Skewness and Kurtosis Skewness refers to the symmetry or asymmetry of a frequency distribution. “It is conventional to speak of a distribution as leptokurtic if is more peaked than … the normal distribution. the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to assess whether there was a significant departure from normality in the distribution of variable scores. the larger frequencies being concentrated toward the high end of the variable and the smaller frequencies toward the low end. If the opposite holds. Many parametric statistics assume that variables are distributed approximately normally and SPSS calculates values for skewness and kurtosis to assist in determing 110 .

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

Table 4. descriptive statistics are presented and the results of hypothesis testing are reported.9% 14.5% 6. with results of these tests reported in this chapter. Then. Gender and Ethnicity Participants were 992 undergraduate students at an English-language Malaysian university.55).4% 333 62. The contextual mediated model was tested using (1) regression analysis (SPPS) and (2) structural equation modelling (LISREL). A contextual mediated model showing interrelationships between variables is introduced.3% 8.6% 15.9% 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.1% 121 22.5% 57.4% 269 27.5% Ethnicity MalaysianChinese 229 51.1.1% 34.1% 562 57.4% 146 14.1: 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 33.13 years (SD = 1. 4.1 Description of the Samples Age.9% Total 441 100% 45. Thus 977 participants were included in the analysis. It begins with a discussion of reliability and validity tests of the instruments.1% 536 100% 54.9% 23.5% MalaysianIndian 64 14. with a mean age of 20.1 4.6% 12. Ages of participants ranged from 18 to 29 years.CHAPTER 4 ANALYSIS OF THE DATA This chapter presents the results of the research.1).6% 82 15. There were 855 participants for whom the primary mode of transportation was the automobile and 133 for whom the motorcycle was the primary mode of transportation (see Table 4.5% 27.

range from 18 to 29).5 per cent). Thus. Malaysian-Chinese represented the highest number of participants (57. 301 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode of transportation to be the automobile comprised the sample.5 per cent) and Malaysian-Indian (14. followed by Malay (27. 252 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode of transportation to be the automobile comprised the sample. In Study 2.25 years (SD = 1.01 years (SD = 1. range from 18 to 25). In Study 1B.1) showed that most of the drivers were female Malaysian-Chinese. In Study 3.53.89 years (SD = 1. 149 taxicab drivers participated. 302 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode of transportation to be the automobile comprised the sample. with a mean age of 20. with a mean age of 20. range of 18 to 26). In Study 1C. with a mean age of 19.35.63. 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. In Study 1A.68.43 years (SD = 1. 113 . 122 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode of transportation to be the motorcycle comprised the sample. with a mean age of 20.Female participants (approximately 55 per cent) slightly out-numbered males. A crosstabulation between gender and ethnicity (see Table 4.9 per cent). range from 18 to 27).

3% of the sample. Gender and Ethnicity of Participants in Studies 1. Participants from East Malaysia comprised 5.35 1.responses from 133 taxicab drivers were included in data analysis.19 years (SD = 11. The mean age was 43.25 43.65.4% of the sample.68 1. 2 and 3 Gender STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 3 N 301 302 252 122 133 Mean Age 20.89 20.63 11.2 Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 1 Although participants in Studies 1A.D. Participants who had received their driving licenses in Selangor. SD = standard deviation 4.3 11.1 6.9 2. 1B and 1C were all students at a single Malaysian university.1. 1.3). Table 4.43 19. Kuala Lumpur. Johor or Perak made up 53.2: Age.53 1. range from 23 to 73).19 S.5 8. they hailed from across the country (see table 4.2 7.2. Descriptive data for each sample are provided in Table 4.01 20.7 4.5 114 .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: States from Which Study 1 Participants Had Acquired Their Original Drivers’ Licenses Johor Kedah Kelantan Kuala Lumpur Melaka Negeri Sembilan Pahang N 109 42 20 98 70 61 56 % 12. Table 4.

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.4 0.9 0. Participants who had received their driving licenses in Selangor.1% of the sample.1.1. Participants from East Malaysia comprised 4.2 17.6 1.3 Geographic Distribution of the Sample in Study 2 Participants in Study 2 were all students at a single Malaysian university. Table 4.6 100 4.2 3.0 7. Perak or Penang made up 50.1 9.4).5 14.2 2.0 10.8 9.7 3.5 1.7 11.7 100 4.6 2.9% of the sample. but again they held licenses from various states (see table 4.4: 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. As the sample was 115 .Penang Perak Perlis Sabah Sarawak Selangor Terengganu 67 102 6 27 19 147 31 855 7.4 4.8 11.9 7.8 5.

1978). 116 .1 Reliability and Validity Reliability Test Results: Cronbach’s Alpha Cooper and Schindler (2000) claimed that reliability relates to the accuracy and precision of a measurement procedure. The closer Cronbach’s Alpha is to 1.5).70 or greater is generally considered acceptable (Nunnally. 2000). In the present research. 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. Neuman (2003) defined reliability is defined as “dependability or consistency” and further explained that reliability suggests that the same event is repeated or recurs under identical or very similar conditions. 4. no attempt was made to determine the geographic location in which drivers had originally received noncommercial drivers’ licenses.2 4.intended to be representative of Kuala Lumpur taxicab drivers. A Cronbach’s Alpha of .2. the higher is the internal consistency of the measure. This statistic reflects the consistency of respondents’ answers compared to all the items in a measure (Sekaran. Sekaran (2000) offered a similar definition in which the reliability of a measure indicates the stability and consistency with which the instrument measures a concept and helps to assess the “goodness” of the measure.

727 .733 .737 .707 .781 .783 .808 .817 .830 .Table 4.734 .730 .782 .783 .881 α .749 .715 .786 .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.701 .811 .810 .784 .714 . of Item α Study 2 (N=122) Motorcycle Drivers (student sample) Study 3 (N=133) Taxicab Drivers α .772 α .824 .906 .904 .768 Not Applicable Not Applicable .739 .747 .727 .718 .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 .798 .788 .774 .726 Not Applicable Not Applicable α .910 .715 .703 .740 .890 .742 .735 .754 .827 .741 .740 .887 .720 .756 .782 .702 .720 .711 .808 .738 .701 Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable 117 .

2002) was used to establish evidence of construct validity for various measures. we may be fairly certain that the measures are reasonably reliable. 1985).2.6: Parallel-Form Reliability for Form A and Form B (BIT) Form A & Form B BIT Usurpation of right-of way Freeway Urgency Externally-Focused Frustration Destination-Activity Orientation Study 1A .805 . depending on which is used (Byrne.08 to .953 .05 indicate good fit. 205).876 . 1998.808 Study 2 . In Study 3.6.802 4. confirmatory factor analyses using LISREL (Jöreskog & Sörbom. with minimal error variance caused by wording.806 .10 indicate a mediocre fit.801 . Table 4.804 .4.80 or above).80. 118 .2 Parallel-Form Reliability In the case of the BIT scale. values ranging from . 1998). it was also possible to measure reliability as a coefficient of correlation between Form A and Form B (Synodinos &Papacostas. The root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) index measures the error of approximation in the population and determines whether the model.2. ordering or other test construction factors” (p.800 . Sekaran (2003) notes that “if two comparable forms are highly correlated (. The results of parallel-form reliability for the BIT instrument in different studies are shown in Table 4.916 . and those greater than .804 .857 .804 Study 1C .3 Validity Test Results In the present research.929 .807 . Reliability coefficients in all studies where both forms were used are acceptable since Form A and Form B were highly correlated.903 .807 Study 1B . 1998).958 . 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. RMSEA values less than . more than . Byrne. with unknown but optimally chosen parameter values. fits the population correlation matrix or covariance matrix.10 indicate poor fit (MacCallum et al.803 . 1998). only Form A was used.811 .

92 1.99 .054 .000 .97 1.99 .061 .098 .98 Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation.99 .074 .00 . This reflects that the model fits worse than no model at all. although the GFI index ranges from zero to 1.000 .097 .000 .98 .7.2.077 .048 .024 .047 .000 . externally-focused frustration.90. 1992).00 1.7: Validity of BIT scales – Summary of Confirmatory Factor Analyses Study 1A RMSEA Study 1B CFI RMSEA Study 1C CFI RMSEA GFI GFI GFI CFI Behaviour In Traffic (BIT)  Usurpation of right-of-way  Freeway Urgency  Externally-Focused Frustration  Destination-Activity Orientation . and destination-activity orientation.92 . As shown in Table 4. and both GFI and CFI were more than .91 . GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index.100.96 .00.00 1.000 .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 . freeway urgency.00 1.96 .98 1. drivers’ behaviour in traffic was measured by the four component factors of the BIT scale: usurpation of right-of-way. parameter values for all four of these factors were within acceptable ranges.070 .98 . 4.00 .99 .95 1.90.1 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the BIT Scale In the present research. it is possible to have negative GFI.00 . Table 4.089 .00 .000 . the higher the goodness-of-fit).98 1.97 1.000 .00 1. RMSEA values in each case were less than .99 .92 .00 . the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) is estimated to indicate whether complete covariation in the data is achieved. A third statistic.097 .3. it is generally considered an acceptable fit to the data (Bentler.00 1.96 . If the value of CFI exceeds .00 1.93 .000 . indicating good fits.00 (the closer to 1.96 1.97 . CFI= Comparative Fit Index 119 .00 1.00 1.Jöreskog and Sörbom (1993) reported that.91 .00 .00 1.

96 .95 .100. externality-chance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P).93 .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) . Each component of the locus of control was measured separately.98 Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation.059 .98 .000 . RMSEA values were less than .063 .96 .91 .95 .95 1.073 .93 .98 . anger (ANG).2.92 .98 Study 2 RMSEA Study 3 CFI RMSEA GFI GFI CFI Locus of Control  Internality  Externality (Chance)  Externality (Powerful-Other) . Table 4.91 . verbal aggression (VER).091 .93 .93 .030 .91 .085 .93 . Five component factors of aggression were measured: physical aggression (PHY).2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Levenson Locus of Control Scale Locus of control was measured across three dimensions: internality (I).4.92 .97 .93 . hostility (HOS) and indirect aggression 120 .085 .93 .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). CFA revealed that parameter values for I.90. and both GFI and CFI were more than .096 .92 . under the assumption that locus of control is a multidimensional phenomenon.081 .058 .99 .052 . indicating good fits (See Table 4.071 .96 . C and P scales were all within acceptable ranges.081 .3.3.8.00 .2.96 . GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index.98 .083 . CFI= Comparative Fit Index 4.99 .97 .

10).98 .90.97 .98 .090 .98 .97 . RMSEA values were less than .97 Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation.94 .92 .95 .96 .3.098 .99 .096 .94 . CFA revealed that parameter values for all three measurement scales were within acceptable ranges.2.97 .055 .98 .058 .98 .98 . GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index.047 .97 .98 . RMSEA values were less than . Three classes of hostile automatic thoughts were measured: physical aggression.92 .98 .98 .97 . indicating good fits (See Table 4.089 .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 .070 . A total aggression score was arrived at by summing the five subscale scores.97 .100. indicating good fit (see Table 4.081 .9).93 .070 .97 .96 .96 .088 .97 .98 .96 Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation. Table 4.(IND).4 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the HAT Scale The HAT was only used in Study 1C (with automobile drivers sampled from a student population).97 .098 .98 .088 .025 . and both GFI and CFI were more than .073 .92 .10: Summary of LISREL Results on Validity for HAT (Study 1C) RMSEA Hostile Automatic Thought (HAT)  Physical Aggression  Derogation of Others  Revenge GFI CFI . CFI= Comparative Fit Index 4.95 .083 .98 .100. Table 4. CFI= Comparative Fit Index 121 . derogation of others and revenge.081 .90.095 .97 . GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index. and both GFI and CFI were more than . CFA revealed that parameter values for all five aggression subscales were within acceptable ranges.

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 1.064(.190) 1. Normality can also be assessed by examining sknewness and kurtosis values (Hair et al.278(.082 (.280) -.140) -.560(.582(.280) -. indicating that the distribution of scores did not depart from normality.037(.140) -. 2005.140) .091(.280) . In all cases.140) -.379(.226 (.102) 1.280) -.140) -.183) 1.356 (.920(.120) 1.140) -.203(.351 (.403(.280) -.280) .280) ..241(.260) .428) .239 (.091) 1.560(.191) 1.323 (.085) 1.034 (.408(.280) .875(.126(.280) -.280) -.280) .280) -.099) 1.280) .11: Normality Tests.126(.085) 1.188(.280) .353(.140) . 1997).179(.331(.195 (. Table 4.332 (.140) .080(.05).140) -.280) .105 (.069) 1.280) -.140) -.204(. Table 4.052) 1.010 (.057) 1.179(.140) -.280) . 2006).278(.140) .805(. values for the Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic were non-significant (p>.140) .064(.410(. but with a non-signficant platykurtic tendency for the locus of control data.4.297(.656(. Skewness and kurtosis values of ± 1 are acceptable (Leech et al.140) .091(.297(.219 (.140) -.183) 1.719(.409(.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 .146(.256 (.3 Normality.140) .511(.099(.085 (.297 (.140) .140) .154(.280) .106) 1.140) -.246(.280) . Marcoulides & Hershberger.094 (..107) 1. Skewness and Kurtosis Data were studied to determine whether they were normally distributed and therefore capable of satisfying parametric assumptions.280) .192) 1.186) 1.409(.962 (.192(.099) 1.020 (.140) -.453(.107 (.099(.064) 1.280) -.022 (.085 (.11 indicates that variable distribution fell within these limits.

501(.247) .106(.417) -.153) -.022 (.986 (.219) .099) 1.435) -.414(.053(.306) -.219) -.327 (.360) -.210) -.186(.503(.022 (.435) -.153) -.153) .Table 4.417) -.247) 1.293 (.306) -.359 (.360) .011 (.306) .297 (.265) 1.147(.681(.157) .300(.948(.443(.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 1.135) 1.219) -.110 (.940(.370(.852(.295(.128) .219) .713(.463(.003 (.088 (.210) .423(.807 (.264) .338 (.321) 1.210) .426) .812(.030(.098) 1.210) .051) 1.195 (.915(.306) .024 (.147(.540(.567(.052) 1.102) .210) .276 (.366) 1.467(.913(.417) .153) .210) .070 (.497(.277(.214) 1.052) 1.142(.306) .841(.640(.106 (.210) -.959 (.994(.317) 1.210) .219) .153) .279 (.972(.375) 1.962 (.153) .153) .138) 1.852(.160 (.256(.567(.101) 1.064) 1.919 (.306) -.973(306) .354 (.153) .805 (.219) .104) 1.978(.417) -.106(.209(.001 (.362(.884(.435) .306) -.084) 1.024 (.198(.156(.451(.159(.822 (.360) .062(.417) -.392(.244(.799(.533) .153) .469) 1.259) .057) 1.153) 983(.153) .510) 1.267) .153) .306) .359 (.138(.210) .098) 1.360) .271(.913 (.847 (.006(.210) .629(.435) -.952(.007(.128 (.153) .478(.435) -.719(.417) .154) -.435) -.417) .053(.276(.417) -.306) -.120(.435) -.223 (.219) -.417) -.153) .113 (.435) -.131(.306) .417) -.324(.187) 1.051) .130(.210) -.153) .979(.537(.306) -.048(.417) -.911 (305) 1.715(.266 (.100) .219) .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 .417) .962(.236(.270) 1.

However. whether the accident had resulted in (1) no injuries or injuries insufficiently severe to seek medical attention (see Table 4. Between 10 and 13 per cent of all automobile drivers in Study 1 sought medical treatment at a hospital in the preceding year as a result of motor vehicle crashes.4 Crash and Injury Occurrence Data Participants in all studies indicated whether they had experienced an accident within the preceding twelve months in which their vehicle had sustained more than RM100 damage and. column c). injury occurrence was much higher. column a). Table 4. column b). with 44.3 per cent being hospitalised. males were more than twice as likely to report involvement in two or three automobile crashes. (2) injuries severe enough to require out-patient treatment at a medical clinic (see Table 4. 124 . For motorcycle drivers.13). (3) injuries requiring hospitalisation (see Table 4.12: Crash and Injury Occurrence OUTCOME VARIABLES STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 3 N 301 302 252 122 133 Number of Participants’ Reported Crash 181 255 174 157 22 Vehicle Damage a 84 142 102 45 17 Out-patient Treatment b 68 75 47 58 3 Hospital Admission c 29 38 25 54 2 More than half of the automobile drivers sampled in Studies 1A.12. 1B and 1C selfreported that they had been involved in at least one motor vehicle crash over the preceding year (see Table 4.12.12.4. Male and female automobile drivers reported involvement in one crash with almost the same frequency. if so.

involved in one crash Total Ethnicity No.13: Crash Occurrence Frequency. involved in three crashes Total Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Gender Male Female 20 8 25 13 16 1 61 22 17 4 15 4 11 0 43 8 10 1 6 1 3 0 19 2 Total 28 38 17 83 21 19 11 51 11 7 3 21 125 . involved in one crash Total Ethnicity No.14: Crash Occurrence Frequency. male motorcycle drivers reported higher crash occurrence than female motorcycle drivers. involved in two crashes Total Ethnicity No.14) Regardless of ethnic background.Table 4. 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 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 crash Total Ethnicity No. Table 4.

Most of these correlations were significant (p<. All these correlations were significant (p<.05). and destination-activity orientation. BHS was not significantly correlated with verbal aggression (VER). freeway urgency. All distal and proximal variables were positively correlated except I which was negatively corrected with other variables.15 shows means. VER was not correlated with the total score for behaviour in traffic (BIT) nor with any of the BIT subscales: usurpation of right-of-way. Table 4. 126 . Study 1B. All distal and proximal variables were positively correlated except internality (I) which was negatively corrected with other variables. I was significantly correlated with all variables except with VER and hostility. proximal and outcome variables within the sample of automobile drivers. crash occurrence and crash injury. Table 4.05). standard deviations and relationships between distal. Table 4.5 4.16 shows means. All distal and proximal variables were positively correlated except I which was negatively corrected with other variables. However.1 Distal and Proximal Variable Data Results of Study 1 Study 1A. it was not correlated with injury occurrence.17 shows means. in Study 1B. Most of these correlations were significant (p<. externally-focused frustration.05).4. standard deviations and relationships between distal. proximal and outcome variables within the sample of automobile drivers.5. Hopelessness (BHS) was the only independent variable that was not significantly correlated with crash occurrence and injury occurrence. Also. standard deviations and relationships between distal. 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. Study 1C. proximal and outcome variables within the sample of automobile drivers. Although VER was significantly correlated with crash occurrence.

562** -.396** .662** 1 .147* -.04 26.22 3.3455 .435** . 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.416** 1 .147* .371** .405** .381** .376** .76 3.Table 4.44 4.58 .716** .186** .5 5.191** .D.201** .340** .246** .339** .45 6.901** .471** .64 7.08 2.239** .476 .553** -.442 1 -.434** .00 165.516** 1 -.05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .231** .23 2.155** .533** .342** -.57 4.625** .391** -.306** .209** 1 .97 43.129* .331** 1 * Correlation is significant at .278** .211** .804** .749** .027 1 .818** 1 .15: Means.036 .388** .01 level (2-tailed) 127 .2691 6.942** 1 .376** .152** .513** .566** 1 -.544** -.316** .218** .52 34.345** 1 -.202** .96 19.88 7.78 .247** .482** .280** .69 24. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 9.

341** .272** .84 7.515** .481** .555** .5695 .372** .403** .731** .688**.089 -.172** .324** .408** .85 9.363** .312** 1 -.319** .521** .213** .763** .505** .414** .855** .153** .147** .523** .964** 1 .039 .9 28.400** .00 14 19.103 -.509** .56 2 4.816** .14 4.816** .334** .4624 1 -.531** .847** .380** .586** .602** 1 .53 19.97 4 4.407** 1 -.401** .48 3.162** .86 6. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1B (n=302) Mean S.514** .067 -.516** .172** .518** .3079 .382** 1 -.542** .294** 1 .358** .213** .584** -.84 5.520** .91 15 27.434** .236** .55 9 21.099 .167** .5 6 17.22 4.200** .343** .355** .411** .376** .418** .173* .355** .D.393** .9 12 71.540** .69 8.50 5.43 12.48 5.310** .213** .268** .82 7 13.489**.60 10 16.195** .178** .669** 1 -.071 . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Distal Variables1 1 9.438** 1 .240** .380** .921** .279** .331** .159 -.65 Proximal Variables1 11 170.140* .353** .842** 1 .550** .491** .440**.448** .4960 17 .05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .378** .Table 4.176* .97 Outcome Variables2 16 .41 3.225** .9 13 46.366** .157** .355** .45 5 87.003 .013 1 .779** 1 -.444** .148* .278** 1 -.762** .337** .01 level (2-tailed) 128 .496** .271** .028 .347** 1 -.150** .254** .452** .443** .254** .051 .386** .275** .461** .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 .338** .463** .06 3 2.587** 1 -.331** .491** .343** .254** .462** .342** .697** 1 .16: Means.335** .028 -.276** .103 -.25 8 18.430** .369** .298** .286* .445** .66 3.

379** .141* .392** .402** .166** .221** .545** .78 8.229** .354** 1 5 88.241** .254** .298** .101**.218** .549** 1 Proximal Variables1 15 161.67 7.373** .80 17.70 8.275** .03 -.310** .89 5.615** .98 4.162**.051 .465** .270** .592** .228** .311** .17 -.139** .356** .293** .484** .189** .241** .641** 1 4 4.476** .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 .003 .199**.106 .422** 1 9 22.228** .508** .367** .428** .534** 1 18 19.502** .97 -.296** .167** .304** .286** .271** .-181** .221** .306** .038 .52 7.261** .446** .387** .501 .307**.308** .749** .277** 1 8 19.18 -.423** .131* . Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1C (n=252) Mean S.377** .17: Means.069 .7 -.095 .588** 1 14 20.304** .313** .246** .05 -.291** .348** 1 6 16.075 .340** .11 12.314** .320** .70 3.38 5.804** .530** .292** .270** .277** .158** .288** .483** .565** .323** .355** .378** .186** .725** .03 5.209** .103** .D.230 .151* .01 level (2-tailed) S 129 .235** .150* .227** .178** .343** .278** .342** .292** .91 -.357** .36 -.076 .226** .402** .082 .245** .150* .8 -.69 -.412** .422 -.364** .516 .70 1 2 4.7 28.191** .296** .448** .185** .58 9.251** .281** .130** .856** 1 17 43.183** .199** .258** .212** .747** .250** .395** 1 11 65.81 5.481** .183** .192** .263** .364**.224** .Table 4.735** .192**.306** .838** . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Distal Variables1 1 10.531** 1 10 16.385** .413** .081 .526** .338** .17 -.390** .216** .9 -.366** .9 -.235** .268**.37 6.451** .281** .196** .265** 1 19 25.349** 1 16 67.278** .174** .31 3.193**.345** .210**.264** .401** .057 .424** 1 12 18.079 1 Outcome Variables2 20 .05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .434** .85 19.343** .230** .191** 1 3 .745** 1 7 13.895** 1 13 26.294** .259** .404** .137* .259** .862** .181** .00 -.109 .095 .305** .202** .033 .109 .230** .324** .183** .506** .151* .166** .203** .275** .296** .016 .210** .252** .119* 1 21 .148** .64 -.222** .86 -.110 .456** .277**.81 -.518** .370** .31 -.42 3.49 6.202** .302** .120 .254** .189** .454** .368** .224**.219** .383** .

all BIT subscales. externally-focused frustration. Similar to observed results in study 1A. but it was not correlated with crash occurrence or injury occurrence. 130 . Hostility (HOS) was significantly correlated with all other variables except with crash occurrence and crash injury. 1B and 1C. standard deviations and relationships between distal. BHS was significantly correlated with total BIT score and with all of the BIT subscales. proximal and outcome variables within the sample of motorcycle drivers in Study 2. The BIT subscale measuring destinationactivity orientation was significantly correlated to crash occurrence but not to injury occurrence.5.BHS was significantly correlated to the total BIT score and to BIT subscales: usurpation of right-of-way. crash occurrence and injury occurrence.18 shows means. and destination-activity orientation. All distal and proximal variables were positively correlated except internality (I) which was negatively corrected with the BIT total score. it was not correlated with crash occurrence or with crash injury. 4. freeway urgency. However. Of these negative the BIT subscales measuring freeway urgency and externally-focused frustration were significant.2 Results of Study 2 Table 4.

111 -.500** .76 48. 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.371** -.349** .122 7. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 3.D.269** .251** .06 20.18: Means.139 .232** .183* 1 .01 level (2-tailed) 131 .376** .290** .05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .374** .167 .150 -.200* -.025 -.614** .291** .621 3.179 7.5738 8.415** .233** .413** 1 .485 11.313** 1 .580** 1 .165 .323 23.428** .081 8.750** .028 1 .367** .795** 1 * Correlation is significant at .356** .201* .50 73.880 .192* -.413** .334** .4966 1 .876** .Table 4.240** .325** .562** 1 .55 175.043 .035 3.383** .072 .264** .259** .66 1.4683 .14 27.941** 1 .917 3.226** .317** .758** 1 .314** .212* .418** .48 5.6803 .630** .409** .66 5.535** 1 .219** .182* -.30 .

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

454** .070 -.3 6.018 -.17 20.182* -.061 .07 8.872** .234** .275** .020 .121 .13 3.4 5.257** .82 5.054 .092** .371** .31 8.177 1 .06 2.165 .604** .622** .235** .150** .156 .023 -.225** .646** .152 .84 2.88 1 .418** .091 .072 -.82 11.028 .05 3.255** .271** .112 -.32 3.576** .114 .153** 1 .373** .060 .254** -.35 11.148* .853** .067 .149 .268** .261** .636** .149 .521** .128 .338** 1 .246** .236** .0301 .05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .180** .01 level (2-tailed) 133 .178** .51 3.443** 1 .588** 1 .117 . Distal Variable 1 Internality (I) 2 Externality-Chance (C) 3 Externality –Powerful-Others (P) 4 Total Aggression (AQ) 5 Physical Aggression (PHY) 6 Verbal Aggression (VER) 7 Anger (ANG) 8 Hostility (HOS) 9 Indirect Aggression (IND) Proximal Variables 10 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) 11 Usurpation of right-of-way 12 Freeway Urgency 13 Externally-Focused Frustration 14 Destination-activity Orientation Outcome Variables 15 Crash Occurrence 16 Injury Occurrence 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 12.561** 1 .167** .117 .095 .292** .039 .12 4.204* .116 .200* .235** .197* .807** .74 15.194* .072 .071 .749** .240** .276** .013 . Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 3 (n=133) Mean S.816** .08 15.404 .032 1 .222* .109 -.147** .030 .721** .213** .54 11.43 8.091 -.289** 1 .106 .286* 1 .11 15.141 .528** 1 .643** .023 .658** .2000 .213** .171 .117 .Table 4.99 10.121 .048 .151 -.173* .245** .060 -.10 1.194* 1 .618** 1 .378** 1 .401** -.240** .324** .161 -.025 -.42 66.45 19.193* -.19: Means.263** .32 7.103 .864** 1 .166 .172** .120 .040 .D.229** .15 32.156 .65 75.218* .021 1 * Correlation is significant at .

090. Study 2: B=.01.01.01). p<. Table 4.278.1. Study 1C: B=.117.1.6 Hypothesis Testing This section reports the results of analyses to test the hypotheses formulated in chapter 3 (see Table 3. p<. p<. but not destination-activity orientation. p<. p<.01 B=.3 inclusive.102.1.04. p<.172.146.048. p<.01 Study 3 B=. p<. results from the logistic regression analyses in all studies indicated strong relationships between total BIT scores and the likelihood of a motor vehicle crash occurrence (Study 1A: B=.01 B=.315. p<.4 was not supported.01 B=. freeway urgency. p<. These results supported H1. Study 1B: B=. and externally-focused frustration. H1.01 Study 1B B=.01 B=. p<.01.01 B=. p<. that behaviour in traffic influences crash occurrence.01 B=.229.063.080. p<.135. results of logistic regression analyses indicated that usurpation of right-of way.1 Hypothesis 1: Behaviour in Traffic Influences Motor Vehicle Crash Outcomes First.01 B=.01 B=. p<.01 B=.20). p<. p<.1).01 B=. p<.125.01 Study 1C B=. p<.088 p<. p<.041. For the destination-activity factor.120. were significantly related to crash occurrence (see Table 4. p<.01 and Study 3: B=. 4. While controlling driver experience and driving frequency.01 B=.20: Results of Logistic Regression Analyses Showing the Effects of BIT Component Factors on Crash Occurrence Study 1A Usurpation of Right-of Way Freeway Urgency Externally-focused Frustration Destination-activity Orientation B=.063. analyses were conducted to test whether BIT scores influenced crash occurrence.202.1 through H1.4. p<.6.034. p<.01 B=. When the relationships between the four component factors of the BIT scale and the likelihood of a crash outcome were tested.095.095.01 B=.01 B=.238.1. p<.180. These results supported H1.01 134 .01 Not Significant Study 2 B=.

p<. When driver experience and travel frequency were controlled.091.01. p<.118.24.019. Table 4.01 B=. 135 .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.120.01 Study 1C B=.035.087.Behaviour in traffic also influenced injury occurrence in all studies except Study 3.05 Study 1B B=. logistic regression analyses indicated that usurpation of right-of way. p<.01 B=. p<. Study 1C: B=. p<.21). externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation were significantly related to traffic crash injury in all studies except Study 3 (See Table 4.059.064.075 p<. respectively). When the relationships between the likelihood of injury occurrence and the four component factors of the BIT scale were tested. Table 4.069. 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=.054. 1B and 1C (see Table 4.01 B=.158. p<.033 p<.01 B=.01.035. p<.01 Study 3 Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant 4.21: Results of Logistic Regression Analyses Showing the Effects of BIT Component Factors on Injury Occurrence Study 1A Usurpation of Right-of Way Freeway Urgency Externally-focused Frustration Destination-activity Orientation B=.038. freeway urgency.01).01 B=. p<.01 and Study 2: B=.01 B=. p<.074. p<.23 and Table 4. p<.140.22.01 B=.01 B=.6. p<. p<. p<. p<. Study 1B: B=.01 B=.01 Not Significant Study 2 B=.01 B=.095. that behaviour in traffic would influence injury occurrence.165.01 B=.2. p<. These results supported H1. p<.

074* 110 81 37 45 29 181. N M SD F 221 60 19 2 168.43 20.77 165.56 175.22: 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 8.92 157.05.52 25.89 21.35 4.68 26.82 168.88 28.98 33.32 28.16 3.320** 64 110 41 17 69 173.98 171.64 26.73 170.64 27.35 155.30 22.50 28.Table 4.01.600** Table 4.23: 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<.06 19.31 161.60 185.25 25.35 24.41 167.01 N M SD F 186 88 18 9 161.82 33.35 33.32 147. * p<.184** 136 .15 161.29 21.44 178.48 171.25 5.03 25.

73 157.00 14.05) and about once every two weeks (p<.73 24.06 8.Table 4.29 15. about once every two weeks (p<. 137 . * p<.345* 67 69 33 45 38 170.01).53 17. 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<.88 167.00 16. and those who almost never travelled (p<. the effect of travel frequency on total BIT score was significant.05).05). In Study 1C.14 15.01). Drivers who travelled about once or twice a week had significantly higher total BIT when compared to those who almost never travelled (p<. 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<. motorcycle drivers’ experience was not significantly related to total BIT scores (see Table 4.01).12 161. In Study 2.05).39 19.01).01 14.81 167.52 3.24: 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<. In Study 1B. On the other hand.25).01).060** In Study 1A.77 16.05.01. N M SD F 187 46 16 3 159.06 160.61 165. Drivers who travelled everyday had significantly higher total BIT scores when compared to those who almost never travelled (p<. Drivers who travelled every day had significantly higher total BIT scores when compared to those who travelled several times a week (p<. drivers who travelled everyday had significantly higher total BIT scores when compared to those who travelled several times a week (p<.12 154.

Table 4.65 73. In other words. taxicab driver experience was not statistically related to total BIT score.37 9. * p<.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.71 168. Not significant N M SD F 3 16 23 91 82.05.97 8. N.64 24.50 184.81 175.381 10.52 172. However.68 20.S) 52 32 7 17 14 182.Table 4.859 11.74 77.55 10. that drivers’ demographic characteristics would significantly influence total BIT scores was supported in studies of automobile drivers.26 10.31 78.05. the direction of the difference was opposite to what had 138 .437 (N. N.63 1.26).316 1.62 10. it is concluded that Hypothesis 2.33 78.81 161.31 2.55 73.81 22.27 14.09 15.528** In Study 3.01.S) Therefore.56 3.S.920 (N.50 24.58 188.82 162. It was found that the driver experience was statistically related to total BIT score (see Table 4.S.89 20.01. * p<. Not significant N M SD F 77 31 10 4 174.47 5.753* 38 48 27 20 77.25: 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<.60 72.80 22. both driver experience and taxicab experience were tested.94 20. 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.

1C and 2 differed between different ethnic groups (see Table 4. the observed effect was opposite to what had been predicted by H2. though. the direction of the effect was consistent with the hypothesised relationship between driver experience and total BIT score. ethnicity and age – were investigated. only H2.2 was supported in that travel frequency significantly influenced total BIT score but driver experience had no statistically significant effect. ANOVA results for age. Hypothesis 2 was partially supported in the study of motorcycle drivers.2. Hypothesis 2 was partially supported in the study of taxicab drivers. t-tests indicated that mean total BIT scores differed significantly between male and female participants. ANOVA indicated that mean total BIT scores in Studies 1A.6. travel frequency actually increased total BIT scores.3 Hypothesis 3: Demographic Variables Influence Behaviour in Traffic The direct effects on total BIT scores of three demographic variables – gender. Contrary to the two sub-hypotheses.been predicted by H2. 4. driver experience and travel frequency actually increased total BIT scores. In Study 3. In Study 2.1 was confirmed. however.2. where male automobile and motorcycle drivers scored significantly higher than female drivers. Contrary to the subhypothesis. the lower was the total BIT score. only H2.27). In Studies 1A. the longer the taxicab operator had been driving.1 and H2. Again. indicated no significant differences in mean total BIT scores. 1B. 139 . For ethnicity. 1B. In this case. in that driver experience significantly influenced total BIT score but taxicab experience had no statistically significant effect. 1C and 2.

Study 2 t=3.01 F=8.62. Study 1C t=3.68.99. in that gender and ethnicity significantly influenced total BIT scores. Therefore. p<.01 F=1.12. p<.66. it was found that female automobile drivers scored significantly higher levels on the I dimension when compared to male automobile drivers.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.562. In Study 1C.00.1 and H3. p<.05 F=4.01 F=19. t(250) = 2.74. In all studies.01). Externality-Chance (C).01 F=2.05 F=11.27: Effects of Demographic Factors on total BIT Scores Study 1A Gender Ethnicity Age t=2. p<.6.44. N.9.53.S. 4. In Study 1A and Study 2. H3. N. N. 1C and Study 2.3 was not supported.81. results showed that gender had no influence on the three dimensions of locus of control: Internality (I). p<.Table 4. Malaysian-Indian taxicab drivers had significantly lower total BIT scores than either Malaysian-Chinese taxicab drivers (p<.98. H3. it is concluded that Hypothesis 3 was partially supported in studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers. post hoc analyses indicated that MalaysianChinese automobile drivers and motorcyclists scored significantly lower total BIT scores than either Malaysian-Indian or Malay drivers (p<. and Externality-Powerful-Others (P). p<. p<.S. Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers scored significantly higher total BIT scores than Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers (p<. Note: Not significant In Study 1A.01 F=9.S. however. In Study 1B. p<.05. N. male 140 .01 F=1. p<. age had no statistically significant direct effect on total BIT scores. N. in that ethnicity significantly influenced total BIT scores.S Study 3 Not Applicable F=3. In Study 1B.05. so the null hypothesis could not be rejected and H3. Study 1B t=2.05).56. p<.01 F=.2 were confirmed.S. In Study 3.05). For taxicab drivers studied in Study 3.

p<.01 respectively. For Studies 1A. Post hoc analysis showed that MalaysianIndian automobile drivers scored significantly higher than did Malaysian-Chinese drivers (p<.01 respectively). 2 and 3 the age variable had no significant direct effects on any of the three dimensions of locus of control. ethnic group differences were significant only with respect to mean C and P subscale scores. In Study 1B. 119) = 5. all ethnic groups had significantly different mean I. 299) = 3. F(2. 298) = 3. ethnic group differences were significant only with respect to P subscale scores. 1C. In Study 1C. p<.941.05 respectively. F(2. F(2.05. Post hoc analyses indicated that Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers had significantly lower I scores than did either Malaysian-Chinese or Malay drivers (p<. 298) = 6.527.05).05) and Malaysian-Indian drivers scored significantly higher on the P dimension than did drivers in all other ethnic groups (p<. In Study 1A. t(120) = 2. Consistent with findings in Study 1A. p<. p<. post hoc analyses showed that Malaysian-Indian drivers scored significantly higher on the C and P dimensions than did Malaysian-Chinese drivers (p<. 249) = 3.05 respectively.05 and F(2.462. E and P scores.05 and p<. Malaysian-Indian drivers had significantly higher scores on the C dimension than did Malay drivers (p<. p<. p<.041.566. t(299) = 2.05).476. 1B. Post hoc analyses showed that Malaysian-Indian motorcycle drivers scored significantly lower than all other ethnicity groups on the I dimension (p<. 298) = 3. p<.05 and F(2.01. In Study 2.503.05. 141 .01). p<.490. 299) = 5. ethnic group differences were significant only with respect to I subscale scores. F(2.automobile and motorcycle drivers scored significantly higher on the P dimension than did female automobile and motorcycle drivers. F(2.01).370.

so H4. In addition. was not supported in either Study 1 or Study 2. that ethnicity significantly influenced internality. that age influences hopelessness. However.3.3 were supported.2 and H4. In Study 1.1 and H5.1.1. 142 .2. were supported. Independent sample t-tests on data from Studies 1A.079. ethnicity and age on hopelessness were investigated. H4. 4. In Studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers. that gender and ethnicity influence hopelessness.3. 1B and 1C found no significant differences in mean scores of hopelessness (BHS) between male and female automobile drivers.3. Therefore. H5. p<. Hypothesis 4 was partially supported in studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers.2. externality-chance and externality-powerful-others. 1B or 1C.05. H4. Hypothesis 5 was not supported with respect to automobile drivers in Study 1. Age was found to have no influence on BHS scores with the sample of motorcycle drivers in Study 2. H4.2 and H4.3. it was found that the gender and ethnicity of motorcycle drivers did have a significant direct effect on hopelessness. Malay motorcycle drivers had a significantly higher BHS score when compared to Malaysian-Chinese motorcycle drivers (p<.3 were not supported. H5.6.2. Female motorcycle drivers scored significantly lower than male motorcycle drivers.Therefore. externality-chance and externality-powerfulothers. t(120) = 2. based on the results of t-tests and ANOVA.01). H4. in Study 2.3 was supported.5 Hypothesis 5: Demographic Variables Influence Hopelessness The direct effects of gender. it was observed that age had no significant effect on any of internality. Hypothesis 5 was partially supported in Study 2 with the sample of motorcycle drivers.1. ANOVA results found no significant differences in mean BHS scores between ethnic groups or different age groups among automobile drivers in Studies 1A. in that gender was observed to significantly influence the externalitypowerful-others scores.2.

290.6. with higher levels of internality related to lower levels of hopelessness and higher levels of both externality dimensions associated with higher hopelessness. H6. p<. H6.7 Hypothesis 7: Hopelessness Influences Behaviour in Traffic In studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers. p<.3.6 Hypothesis 6: Locus of Control Influences Hopelessness In Study 1A. that the three locus of control dimensions influence hopelessness. Therefore. that externality-chance and externality-powerful-others would influence hopelessness. were supported. p<.2 and H6.01 respectively).01. was not supported.4. H6.1. respectively). it is concluded that Hypothesis 6 was supported in studies of automobile drivers.312. p<.01 and B = .254.186.6. internality (I) had a significant negative effect on hopelessness (BHS) (B = -. p<.2 and H6. results of linear regression analyses indicated that hopelessness had a significant positive effect on total BIT scores and on scores for each of the four BIT component factors (see table 4.01) but C and P had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = . p<.1.254. In Study 1B. p<. p<. p<. no significant effects were observed between I and BHS scores in the sample of motorcycle drivers. but C and P had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = .01. p<. with the sample of motorcycle drivers.01 and B = .28). respectively).01 and B = .3. In Study 2. 4.342. were supported.306. I had a significant negative effect on BHS scores (B = -. I was found to have a significant negative effect on BHS scores (B = -.239. 143 .01) but C and P had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = . respectively).354.01) but externality-chance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P) had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = . H6. Hypothesis 6 was partially supported in Study 2.01 and (B = . p<. In Study 1C. that internality would influence hopelessness.01.371.341.

287.05 B=.01) and destination-activity orientation (B = .418. p<.153.4. p<. p<. p<. p<. H7.01 B=.01 B=. p<. it is concluded that Hypothesis 7. N. externally-focused frustration (B = . H7.247. freeway urgency (B =. p<.349. In Study 1C.278. p<.01 B=. p<.01). p<.200.05).1.349.01 B=. p<. p<.01 B=. p<. it was observed that the higher the hopelessness (BHS) scores. p<.01).01 B=.141. In Study 1B.254. p<. p<. the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = . that hopelessness would have a significant positive direct effect on usurpation of right-of-way. In Study 2. 144 . p<. that hopelessness would have a significant positive effect on freeway urgency was not supported in Study 1B. p<.415.151. p<. p<.280.232. 1C and 2. Therefore. freeway urgency (B = .099. p<.287.151.Table 4.05).247. that hopelessness would have a significant positive influence on total BIT scores. p<.275.01 B=. p<.3 and H7.157. externally-focused frustration (B = .01 Study 1B B=.01).153. B=.415. the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = . was supported in Studies 1A.01). with both automobile and motorcycle drivers. p<. the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = .280. p<. p<.191.01 B=.01 B=.191. H7.S. freeway urgency (B = .05 Study 1C B=.151.05 Study 2 B=.05) and destinationactivity orientation (B = . externally-focused frustration (B = . p<.05) and destination-activity orientation (B = . meaning that H7 was only partially supported for that study. externallyfocused frustration and destination-activity were supported in both Studies 1 and 2.01). the higher the hopelessness scores.2.01 B=.141.288.232.317.01) and destination-activity orientation (B = .275.01 B=.01 B=.28: Direct effects of hopelessness on BIT scores Total BIT score Usurpation of Right-of-way Freeway Urgency Externally-Focused Frustration Destination-Activity Orientation Study 1A B=. p<. p<. the higher the hopelessness scores. the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = . p<. it was observed that the higher the hopelessness scores.05).151.317.254. p<.05 In Study 1A.05 B=.157. externally-focused frustration (B = .01 B=.01). p<. p<.01). p<.05) but not for freeway urgency.

S. with internality observed to exert a positive effect on BIT and the two externality dimensions to exert negative effects. that locus of control would influence total BIT scores were supported in Study 1.239. Hypothesis 8 was partially supported for motorcycle drivers in Study 2. Table 4.315. Therefore.3.6.077.05 B=. motorcycle and taxicab drivers).168. B=. H8. p<.625.01 B=-.01 B=-. 145 . that the higher the subscale score for I.297.2 and H8. the higher were mean total BIT scores automobile drivers in Study 1. results indicated that the higher were subscale scores for C.01 B=. N. p<. N.336. With regard to H8. B=.178. With regard to H8. p<.753. results indicated that the higher were subscale scores for P. p<.388. but not of the sample of taxicab drivers in Study 3.29). N.2. p<. where only H8.01 B=. that internality would negatively influence total BIT scores was supported. H8. p<. but not H8. p<.01 B=.01 B=.208.01 B=-. that internality and externality-chance would influence total BIT scores were supported. p<. p<. p<.3.S.2.29: Direct Effects of Locus of Control on Total BIT Scores Study 1A I C P Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 Study 3 B=-. it is concluded that Hypothesis 8 was supported for automobile drivers in Study 1.01 B=-. H8.4.006.1.1.01 B=.S.1.1 and H8.044.3 that externality-powerful-others would influence total BIT scores. Hypothesis 8 was partially supported for taxicab drivers in Study 3. but not of the motorcycle and taxicab drivers in Studies 2 and 3 (See Table 4.339. Results of multiple regression analyses (in studies of car.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. the lower were mean total BIT scores. p<. p<. provided support for hypothesis H8.01 B=.01 B=.229. the higher were mean total BIT scores of automobile and motorcycle drivers in Studies 1 and 2.

F=4.1).581. 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. it was found that Malay automobile drivers with high internal locus of control scored significantly lower in total BIT than did Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers with high internal control Malaysian-Indian student car drivers. F=4.2).01 and F=8.01 respectively (see Figure 4. p<.272. results revealed that Malay automobile drivers with high internal control had significantly lower scores on BIT subscales measuring usurpation of right-of-way. Mean Score on Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) 175 Ethnicty Malay MalaysianChinese 170 MalaysianIndian 165 160 155 150 low high Internality Figure 4. p<. p<. it was found that Malay automobile drivers with high externalitychance scores had significantly higher BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of way than did Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers with low externality-chance scores. p<.710. In Study 1C. Further. freeway urgency and externally-focused frustration than did Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers with high internal control. p<.704.909.01 (see Figure 4. F=7. Scores for the three locus of control dimensions – internality.01 (see Figure 4.05.1). 146 .1: Interaction Effects between Ethnicity and Internality on BIT In Study 1C.Additional analysis: Interaction of ethnicity and locus of control on BIT. =8.

9 Hypothesis 9: Hopelessness Moderates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Behaviour in Traffic For Studies 1A. However. 147 .00 68. 1B and 1C. p<.2: Interaction Effect between Ethnicity and Externality-Chance on Usurpation of Right-of Way 4. multiple regression showed mixed results.00 Malay MalaysianChinese 72. B = . Hopelessness moderated the relationship between internality and the total BIT score and between externality-chance and to total BIT score.327.00 MalaysianIndian 70. Residuals Normality: Skewness=.033.034.6.282. Kurtosis=-.05. hopelessness did not moderate the relationship between locus of control and BIT.537) and the moderator (hopelessness) showed a significant result. First. F=4.Mean Score on Usurpation of Right-of Way Ethnicty 74.00 66. the results of hierarchical regression indicated that the R2 value changed after the internality x hopelessness interaction was added in the regression model (R2=. 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. in Study 2.444.00 low high Externality (Chance) Figure 4.05. p<.00 64.3).00 62. R2=.

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=. 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. F=18. Kurtosis=-. B = .459.01.4). and the moderator (hopelessness) showed a significant result.608.4: Moderating Effect of BHS on the Externality (Chance) -BIT Relationship 148 . p<. R2=.371).01. Effect for drivers with high hopelessness score BIT Level Effect for drivers with low hopelessness score Externality (Chance) Figure 4.070.BIT Level Effect for drivers with high hopelessness score Effect for drivers with low hopelessness score Internality Figure 4.463. Residuals Normality: Skewness=. p<.167.

mean total AQ scores differed significantly between ethnic groups.2.01 (see table 4. it is concluded that Hypothesis 9 was not supported in Study 1.10 Hypothesis 10: Demographic Factors Influence Aggression Analyses tested whether gender. p<.780.298.31). that hopelessness would moderate the relationship between externalitychance and total BIT scores. ethnicity and age exerted direct effects on drivers’ Aggression Questionnaire (AQ) scores. In Study 1B and Study 3. However. the H9.01 t=4.690. verbal aggression and indirect aggression (see Table 4. p<.820.603. t(300) = 2. F(2. N. In Study 1C. p<. Mean total AQ scores differed significantly between male and female participants in Studies 1B and 1C. 4. ANOVA revealed no significant differences between ethnic groups in mean total AQ scores. male automobile drivers had significantly higher total AQ scores than did female automobile drivers.6.01 t=-. N.S t=1.1.05 t=4.01. p<. When mean subscale scores for the five AQ component factors were tested. Table 4. however.30). 249) = 5. p<.677. p<. p<.032. Post hoc analysis showed that Malaysian-Chinese 149 .S t=2.S.01 t=2. N.467.164.603. Hopelessness did not moderate the locus of control-BIT relation for automobile drivers.05 respectively.S t=2. p<.690.Therefore. In both studies.210. Hypothesis 9 was partially supported in Study 2. p<.05 Study 1C t=2. p<.30: Direct Effects of Gender on AQ Total and Subscale Scores Total Aggression (AQ) score Physical Aggression (PHY) Verbal Aggression (VER) Anger (ANG) Hostility (HOS) Indirect Aggression (IND) Study 1B t=2. With motorcycle drivers.01 The relationship between ethnic background and aggression was tested for automobile drivers in Studies 1B. and H9.05 t=. that hopelessness would moderate the relationship between internality and total BIT scores.01 t=2. were supported. and t(250) = 2. t= . 1C and 3.187. p<. results indicated that male automobile drivers scored significantly higher than female drivers on measures of physical aggression.480. N.521.

Malaysian-Chinese and Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers were significantly different. Malaysian-Chinese and Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers were significantly different.S. 299) = 4.561. N. p<. N.S. F(2. p<.041. F=2. In Study 1B.S.01). N.S. p<. Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers had significantly lower IND scores than drivers from other ethnic groups (p<. N.804. F=4. N. 299) = 5. F(2.398. the mean verbal aggression (VER) scores of Malay. ANOVA revealed no significant differences between ethnic groups in mean scores in any of the AQ subscale scores. F=1.567. N.155. 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. N.05 Study 1C F=5. mixed results were found.422.S. F=2.021. 249) = 10.S.S.182. N.S. p<. N.S. Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers had significantly lower IND scores than drivers from other ethnic groups (p<. p<.632.077.526. Malay automobile drivers scored significantly higher VER scores than drivers from other ethnic groups (p<. F=1.S F=10. Malaysian-Chinese and Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers were also significantly different.432.57.01 F=2. F=2. N. When AQ subscale scores were tested for Study 1B and Study 1C.S. 150 . F(2. p<. Table 4.05.01 Study 3 F=1. F=.S. p<.564.31: 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. In Study 1C.904. N. F=1. N.521.01.01 F=.01).041.01. F=1.01).S. F=5. In Study 3. F=1. Similar to the findings in Study 1B.763. The mean indirect aggression (IND) scores of Malay.629.01). N. F=2. mean IND scores of Malay. N.432.automobile drivers in Study 1C had significantly lower total AQ scores than did Malay or Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers (p<.S.

H11.4. freeway urgency. 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. were supported. it is concluded that Hypothesis 10 was partially supported.3 (that age would negatively influence aggression) was not supported.Therefore. externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation. H10. were all supported. and destination-activity orientation (see Table 4. H10. VER and IND) of five component factors among automobile drivers sampled in both Studies 1B and 1C. however. Therefore.3 and H11.1. VER and IND subscale scores. H11. H10.3 and H11. externally-focused frustration.6. the higher were automobile drivers’ total BIT scores and scores on the four components.2.2 (that ethnicity would influence aggression level) was supported only in Study 1C and only with respect to total AQ.4. 151 .29).1 (that gender would influence aggression) was supported with respect to measures of total aggression and to the same three (PHY. In Studies 1B and 1C.32). with regard to the taxicab drivers sampled in Study 3. In Study 3. that aggression would have a direct positive effect on externally-focused frustration and on destination-activity orientation. However. respectively. that aggression would have a direct positive effect on the usurpation of right-of way. H11. that aggression would have a positive influence on total BIT scores. total BIT scores and scores on usurpation of right-of way and freeway urgency subscales were higher. was supported.11 Hypothesis 11: Aggression Influences Behaviour in Traffic In Study 1B and Study 1C. freeway urgency. it is concluded that Hypothesis 11. This means that when taxicab drivers’ aggression scores were higher. 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 of both automobile drivers and taxicab drivers. only H11. The higher the total aggression scores. 4.

370.520.438. p<. B = . p<.01 Study 3 B=. p<. B = . Study 1C and Study 3.263.01 B=.5).01 B=. Additional analysis: Interaction effects of ethnicity and aggression on BIT.01 B=.05 B=.32: Effect of Aggression on Total BIT Scores and on BIT Component Factors Study 1B B=. Results of regression analyses also showed that anger (ANG) had a significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1B and Study 1C. the higher were total BIT scores.01 respectively.204. Also. N. p<. N. p<. p<. p<.01 B=.491.324. no interaction effects were found in all studies – Study 1A.01. but not in Study 3. Verbal aggression (VER) was found to have no significant influence on total BIT scores. p<.183. p<. B = . This implies that when automobile drivers have higher levels of ANG and IND.370. However. Similarly.01. but that this does not apply to taxi drivers. Malay automobile drivers with high VER scores tended to score 152 . 1B. respectively.01. With both automobile and taxicab drivers. B=. it was found that there was an interaction effect between ethnicity and verbal aggression (VER) on freeway urgency.881. p<.01 and B = . p<. Linear regression analyses indicated that physical aggression (PHY) had a significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1B.01 B=.229.Table 4.483. and B = . p<.01 B=. p<.505. p<.01 B=. their total BIT scores tend to be higher.461.01 respectively. p<.385. Study 2 and Study 3. p<. p<. but not in Study 3. Study 1C and Study 3. p<.387.05 (see Figure 4. indirect aggression (IND) was also found to have significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1B and Study 1C.01.121.01 and B = . the higher the levels of PHY and HOS. 1C.01 B=. p<. respectively.545. p<.565.428.01 B=.05 B=. F=3.01. p<.235.S.S. When the interaction effect of ethnicity and hopelessness was tested on the BIT and its four component factors.216. p<.263. B = . p<. B = . and B = .540.01 Study 1C B=. p<.380. 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. B = . hostility (HOS) was found to have a significant positive influence on BIT in Study 1B.048.01.

p<. The moderating effect of I was significant.271. and B=-.297. B=-.076. Kurtosis=-.172. p<.003.significantly higher on freeway urgency than did Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers with high VER scores. Kurtosis=-. R2=.01.516. Study 1C and Study 3.01. In other words.00 Malay ChineseMalaysian 50.6.00 42.316.961. respectively.00 Low High Verbal Aggression Figure 4.00 46.100.1 Internality as a Moderator Hierarchical regression analyses revealed that internality (I) moderated the relationship between aggression and total BIT score. for Study 1B. Mean Score on Freeway Urgency Ethnicty 52. p<.645.131. R2=.05. and R2 values changed after the I x AQ interaction was added in the regression models (R2=. p<. R2=.01. F=100.12.12 Hypothesis 12: Locus of Control Moderates the Relationship between Aggression and Behaviour in Traffic 4. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-.929.01. F=81. 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. B=-.00 IndianMalaysian 48.5: Interaction of Ethnicity and Verbal Aggression on Freeway Urgency 4.362. Residuals Normality: Skewness=.6. p<. aggressive drivers with low internal locus of control would 153 .00 44.

897.01 and B = . Residuals Normality: Skewness= -.01 respectively.01.387.015. and the moderating effects of C and P were 154 .704.431. respectively). F=78. Kurtosis=.01. Kurtosis=-. F=91. In Study 1B. p<.6.794.01.015. R2=. p<.109.117. Effect for aggressive drivers with low internality score BIT Level Effect for aggressive drivers with high internality score Aggression Level Figure 4. p<. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-463.have higher BIT scores compared to drivers with high internal locus of control (see figure 4.069. and the moderating effects of C and P were significant.12. R2 values changed after both the C x AQ and P x AQ interactions were added in the respective regression models (R2=.360.271. R2=. This applied to both automobile drivers and taxicab drivers.297. R2=.6). R2=.606. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-.271. Kurtosis=-.507.2 Externality-chance and Externality-powerful-others as Moderators In Study 1B and Study 1C. F=94. p<.088. Kurtosis=. B = .6: Moderating Effect of Internality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship 4.757.01.694. respectively). Consistent with the findings from Study 1B. R2=. 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=. F=71. R2=.297.369. p<. p<. the hierarchical regression revealed that externalitychance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P) moderated the relationship between aggression and total BIT score.

7: Moderating Effects of Externality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship However. and H12. with the samples of automobile drivers study for student car drivers.302. p<. R2 values did not change after either the C x AQ or P x AQ interactions were added in the regression models.01 and B = . p<.332. 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.1. externality-chance and externality-powerful-others 155 . hierarchical regression results showed that neither C nor P moderated the relationship between aggression and total BIT scores for taxicab drivers in Study 3.01 respectively. that the internality. B = . and the moderation effect was not significant.3. Therefore.significant. H12. This means that aggressive automobile drivers scoring high on either the C or P locus of control dimensions had higher total BIT scores than automobile drivers scoring low on either the C or P dimensions (see Figure 4.2. Effect for aggressive drivers with high externality scores BIT Level Effect for aggressive drivers with low externality scores Aggression Level Figure 4. it is concluded that the Hypothesis 12 was supported in Studies 1B and 1C. H12.7).

Only H12. 248) = 3.885.13 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. However. that internality moderates the relationship between aggression and total BIT scores was supported.01).1.05). 249) = 4. p<. 156 .01.737. that externality-chance and externality-powerful-others moderates the relationship between aggression and BIT scores were not supported. and about revenge F(2.263. On the subscale measuring statements about revenge.dimensions of locus of control moderate the relationship between aggression and total BIT scores were supported. H122 and H12.01 and revenge: t(249) = 3.314.01. F(2. ANOVA results showed that ethnic groups differed significantly with respect to mean total HAT scores. There were also significant differences between ethnic groups on subscale scores measuring statements about physical aggression F(2. 249) = 5.05). male automobile drivers scored significantly higher on HAT subscales measuring statements about physical aggression. Chinese-Malaysian automobile drivers had significantly lower scores than IndianMalaysian automobile drivers (p<. t(249)=2.3. 4. p<.279. p<.343. p<.05) or Indian-Malaysian automobile drivers (p<. p<. Also.05. 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<.05. with the sample of taxicab drivers. Post hoc analysis indicated that Chinese-Malaysian automobile drivers had significantly lower total HAT scores than either Malay or Indian-Malaysian automobile drivers (p<. Hypothesis 12 was only partially supported in Study 3. t(250) = 3. There were no significant differences between ethnic groups with respect to hostile statements about the derogation of others.01 but not on about the derogation of others. No significant differences were observed between age groups with respect to total HAT scores or to scores on any of the three HAT subscales.6. p<.

H14.01 and B = .01 and destination-activity orientation. on total BIT score were also tested.2.192. was partially supported. (that thoughts about physical aggression.2 and H14. the higher were automobile drivers’ total BIT scores and scores on the four components. 4. that age would influence hostile automatic thoughts. This means that. was not supported. This means that.01. 157 . the higher the scores on the three classes of hostile automatic thought. the higher the total HAT scores.364.14 Hypothesis 14: Hostile Automatic Thoughts Influence Behaviour in Traffic In Study 1C.01.01. linear regression analyses indicated that total HAT scores predicted total BIT scores.1. and also scores measuring the four BIT component factors: usurpation of right-of-way. derogation of others and revenge) positively influence total BIT scores.413. B = .01. were supported. Linear regression analyses indicated that subscales measuring thoughts about physical aggression. H13. p<. B = . p<.379. were supported.307.394. it is concluded that the Hypothesis 14. B = . H13. derogation of others and revenge had a significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1C B =. p<. p<. externally-focused frustration.01. p<.277. respectively. p<. H14. that demographic variables would influence hostile automatic thoughts. p<.01.224.6. B = .3. with the sample of automobile drivers studied. B = . The effects of HAT subscales measuring the three classes of hostile automatic thoughts. B = . freeway urgency. was supported. the higher were total BIT scores. that hostile automatic thoughts would influence behaviour in traffic. Therefore.3.1 and H13.Therefore. it is concluded that the Hypothesis 13. that gender and ethnicity respectively would have significant direct effects on hostile automatic thoughts. p<.

565. p<. In other words. The R2 value changed after the HAT-Physical Aggression x AQ interaction was added in the regression model (R2=.072).085).297.297.4. Physical Aggression and Revenge. F=55. also moderated the relationship between aggression and BIT.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.013. Kurtosis=.002.188. R2=. and the moderating effect of HAT-Physical 158 . Kurtosis=.809. Effect for aggressive drivers with high HAT score BIT Level Effect for aggressive drivers with low HAT score Aggression Level Figure 4. p<.01. F=57. p<.05.8). B = . R2 values changed after the HAT x AQ interaction was added in the regression model (R2=.911. 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. Normality Residuals: Skewness=.-554. This means that the relationship between aggression and BIT would be stronger among automobile drivers with high total HAT scores than it would be among drivers with low total HAT scores.8: Moderating Effect of Externality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship It was observed that two of the HAT subscales. and the moderating effect of HAT was significant. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-.01. R2=.6.

01. Kurtosis=. that hostile statements about the derogation of others moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic. H15.1 and H15. H15. Therefore. B = .297. B = .16 Summary of Hypothesis Testing The following table provides summarised results for the hypotheses and subhypotheses in this study (see Table 4.092). and the moderating effect of HAT-Revenge was significant.246.6.2.33). The R2 value also changed after the HATRevenge x AQ interaction was added in the regression model (R2=.026.294. was not supported. p<. p<.01. that total HAT score would moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic. were supported.Aggression was significant.01. that hostile statements about physical aggression and revenge respectively moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic. it is concluded that Hypothesis 15.475. 159 .207. 4. The HAT subscale measuring thoughts about the derogation of others did not moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic. was supported. However.3. F=59. p<. R2=. Normality Residuals: Skewness=.

S N.3: Ethnicity influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H4.2.2.2.S N.S S S N.S N.2: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.1: Age will influence the Locus of Control: Internality S S S S S S S S S S S S S S P.1: Gender will influence total BIT score H3.S P. S N.S N.2: Traveling frequency will have a negative influence on total BIT score H2.1: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Internality H4.3: Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.S N.1: Driver experience will have a negative influence on total BIT score H2.S N.1.3: Gender will influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H4.1.2: Freeway urgency will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.2.S S S N.S N.2: Ethnicity will influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.33: Summarised Results of the Hypotheses and Sub-hypotheses STUDY 1A H1: BIT will have a positive influence on motor vehicle crash outcomes H1.3.S P.1.S N.S S N.S N.S 2 S S S S S S S S S S S P.S S N.S S S S S N.S N.S N.1.1.S S S N.2.S S S S S S N.4: Destination-activity orientation will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H2: Driver characteristics will influence behaviour in traffic H2.S 1B S S S S S S S S S S S S S S P.S P.S N.S N.S 1C P.2 :Freeway urgency will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.S S N.1: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.S S S S S N.S.1: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.Table 4.S S S N.S N.S P.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 P.3:Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.S S N.S P.2: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.1: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.S S S S P.S N.S S S N.S 160 .S S P.3: Age will have a negative influence on total BIT score H4: Demographic variables will influence the Locus of Control H4.S 3 P.S N.1: Ethnicity will influence the Locus of Control: Internality H4.S N.S N.S N.S N.2.2.S S S N.S N.1.2: Ethnicity will influence total BIT score H3.1.4:Destination-activity orientation will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.

S N.S N. N.1: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Usurpation of right-of way H7.S N.S N.S N.2: Externality-Chance will have a positive influence on total BIT H8. P.S 2 N. blank=Not Applicable N.S S S S S S S N.S N.3: Age will influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H5: Demographic variables will influence Hopelessness H5.2: Age will influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.S P.S N.S P.S N.S S S N.S= Not Supported.S 3 N.S S S N.S N.S P.S N.3: Hopelessness will moderate the Externality-Powerful-Others--BIT relationship H10: Demographic variables will influence aggression H10.S N.S N.S= Partially Supported.3: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Externally-focused frustration H7.S STUDY 1C N.33 (Continued) 1A H4.3.S S S S S P.S S N.1: Gender will influence Hopelessness H5.S P.3.Table 4.2: Hopelessness will moderate the Externality-Chance--BIT relationship H9.S S S S S S S S S S S S S S N.S S S S S S S S P.3: Externality-Powerful-Others will have a positive influence on total BIT score H9: Hopelessness will moderate the Locus of Control-BIT relationship H9.S N.S N.2: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Freeway urgency H7.1: Internality will have a negative influence on total BIT score H8.2: Ethnic background will influence Aggression H10.S N.S N.S S N.1: Gender will influence Aggression H10.S S S N.S N.S N.S N.S N.S 161 .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 N.S S S S S S S S S S S S S S N.S N.S N.S N.S N.2: Ethnic background will influence of Hopelessness H5.S P.S N.S N.S N.3: Age will influence Hopelessness H6: Locus of Control will influence Hopelessness H6.S S N.1: Hopelessness will moderate the Internality-BIT relation H9.S S S N.S N.S P.S N.2: Externality-Chance will have a positive influence on Hopelessness H6.1: Internality will have a negative influence on Hopelessness H6.4: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Destination-activity Orientation H8: Locus of Control will influence behaviour in traffic H8.3: Age will have a negative influence on Aggression S=Supported.S 1B N.

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

AQ. C. F2.38 100.96 . HAT I. Aggression (AQ).087 .93 . All proposed models measured: (1) internality. F4 F1.00000 .96 RMSEA .52 (Jöreskog and Sörbom.060 Note: Internality (I). F2. F2. P I. F2.045 .102 . Hopelessness. Hostile Automatic Thought (HAT).00126 .97 63. F3. 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. freeway urgency.02 d. 163 . P.00000 . P.97 . hopelessness or subtracting the latent variables in order to obtain the optimal goodness-of-fit index.00000 .93 .4. BHS. C. HAT I. 23 28 33 38 24 33 p-value GFI . F4 F1. AQ I. P.93 . externality (Chance) and externality (Powerful-Other) as distal context factors. Table 4.58 35. BHS I. C. Externality Chance (C). F3. AQ. F4 F1. F3 F1. externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation as proximal context factors.34. These models were re-specified by adding different proximal context factors. Externality Powerful-Other (P). F3. Three studies (Study 1C: automobile driver.00111 . AQ. e. BHS.f. (2) usurpation of right-of-way. Usurpation of right-of-way (F1). Study 2: motorcycle driver. freeway urgency (F2). AQ and Hostile Automatic Thought (HAT).34: SEM Comparison (Study 1C) Distal Factors 1C1 1C2 1C3 1C4 1C5 1C6 I. F3. F4 χ2 49. 2002).80 104. F2. externally-focused frustration (F3) and destination-activity orientation (F4) Of the six models tested.068 . HAT Proximal Factors F1.90 110. F4 F1. P.1 Study 1C The contextual mediated model in this study was tested with four distal factors – Locus of Control.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 8.093 . C.g. F3. C. Hopelessness (BHS). C. and (3) crash occurrence and injury occurrence as outcome. F2.05522 . 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. Model 1C5 had better fit but necessitated dropping one of the component factors.7. P.

For Model C6. For Model C5.f.96.23 respectively (see Figure 4. CFI=. of the BIT score.5. 5. RMR=.97. AGFI=.10).42. AGFI=. goodness-of-fit was characterised as excellent (χ2=35.92) on accident involvement.26. Externality (Chance). C6.99) and constituted the best fit of all six of the tested models. The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=. An alternate model.92) on accident involvement. RMSEA=. Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thought had effects on BIT. subsequent additional analysis was carried out to calculate a range of comparative fit indices.32. and PGFI=. 164 . The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that all possible paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant: Internality. For Model C6. . RMSEA=. Externality (Powerful-Other).f. The five distal variables accounted for 70% of the variance in BIT scores. ECVI=.96. but not as good as for C5. Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thought had effects on BIT.26. The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=.060.=24.3. CFI=. Externality (Chance). which are detailed in sect. The five distal variables accounted for 67% of the variance in BIT scores.97. ECVI=.045.94.91. goodness-of-fit was characterised as very good (χ2=63.51 and PGFI=.02. d.48. . with path coefficients = -.=33.13. values for these additional indices were: NFI=. Making a decision to select one of these models over the other raised a number of interesting points. RMR=.14. GFI=.10).98).29 and . values were: NFI=.043.28 and . with path coefficients = -.043. . . GFI=.22 respectively (see Figure 4.35.destination-activity orientation (F4). . retained all four of the BIT component factors and fit indices were acceptable. Externality (Powerful-Other). To aid this discussion. The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that all possible paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant: Internality.97.42. d. For Model C5. .

57* Injury Occurrence .045 RMR=.29* Aggression (AQ) . BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration.13* Externality (Powerful Other) BIT1 BIT2 BIT3 .58* . BITF4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4.97 GFI=.05 BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way.97 d.f =24 CFI=. BITF2=Freeway Urgency.9: Contextual Mediated Model 1C5 (Three BIT Factors) 165 .79* .99 P-value = .26* Crash Occurrence Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) .92* Accident Involvement . *p<.22* Hostile Automatic Thought Model Statistics χ2=35.32* Externality (Chance) .51* .63* .Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome Internality -.043 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.005522 N=252 RMSEA=.

02 GFI=. *p<. BITF2=Freeway Urgency.26* Crash Occurrence Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) .58* Injury Occurrence .29* Aggression (AQ) .77* .50* .Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome Internality -.98 P-value = .00126 N=252 RMSEA=.31* Externality (Chance) .10: Contextual Mediated Model 1C6 (Four BIT Factors) 166 .92* Accident Involvement . BITF4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4.39* .56* .043 Note: Values showed are path coefficients. BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration.f =33 CFI=.05 BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way.63* .13* Externality (Powerful Other) BIT1 BIT2 BIT3 BIT4 .060 RMR=.22* Hostile Automatic Thought Model Statistics χ2=63.96 d.

IND.00000 GFI RMSEA . externally-focused frustration (F3) and destination-activity orientation (F4) As depicted in Figure 4. HAT-R PHY. F2.081 .92 . Hostile Automatic Thought was found to have a direct effect on the AQ (path coefficient=. F3 F1.00111 . HAT-P. VER. Hostile Automatic Thought-Revenge(HAT-R). F4 F1. IND.91 . HAT-R PHY. HAT-P.13 respectively.66 131. ANG. HOS. IND. Usurpation of right-of-way (F1).f. HAT-D. 167 .084 . 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). ANG.084 . ANG. 42 61 50 61 61 p-value . F2. VER.00000 . HOS. F3. RMSEA=. F4 χ2 108.94 169. Verbal aggression (VER). IND PHY. F3 F1.078 Note: Physical aggression (PHY).41. Hostile Automatic Thought-Physical aggression (HAT-P). F3. F2.f.078. IND.35: Different Contextual Models (Study 1C) Distal Factors PHY.41 d. CFI=. Hostile Automatic Thought-Derogation of others (HAT-D). HOS.35).10. GFI=. F3.=61. ANG.91 . Aggression (AQ). Indirect aggression (IND). HAT-R Proximal Factors F1. the final model has provided a reasonable fit to the data (χ2=153. HAT-D. the contextual mediated model was tested using Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thoughts and their latent variables (component factors) as distal context factors. The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=. HAT-P. Hostility (HOS).080 .00000 .66 153.66). F2.00000 . VER. HAT-R PHY.91. d.In addition. HOS. HAT-D. path coefficients = . HAT-D. HAT-P. HOS. F4 F1. using automobile drivers sampled in Study 1C.80) on the accident involvement. The results for the goodness-offit indexes are shown as follows: Table 4.93 . Angry (ANG). freeway urgency (F2).65 and . F2. The proposed contextual mediated model was tested five times (see Table 4.95). ANG.73 169.91 .

62* .05 .13* Model Statistics χ2=153.058 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.65* .80* Accident Involvement .72* .95 P-value = .000 N=252 RMSEA=.Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome Physical Aggression .61* .60* Injury Occurrence Physical Aggression .11: Contextual Mediated Model Study 1C (Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thoughts) 168 . BIT4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4.66* . *p<.078 RMR=. BIT2=Freeway Urgency.f =61 CFI=.91 d.69* Anger . BIT3=Externally-Focused Frustration.83* .41 GFI=.29* Hostility .58* .65* Crash Occurrence Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) .68* Aggression (AQ) BIT1 BIT2 BIT3 BIT4 .63* Indirect Aggression .90* Derogation of Other Hostile Automatic Thought .82* Revenge BIT1=Usurpation of Right-of way.

the final model for the student motorcycle drivers did not include hopelessness. GFI=. The goodness-of-fit indexes for these models are shown as follow: Table 4.07580 . The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=. Internality and Externality (Chance) the Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) but not Externality (PowerfulOther). F4 39.86 23 28 23 . Externality Powerful-Other (P).17631 .98). F2. P. The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that three paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant. Hopelessness (BHS).94 .4. F2.=28. Externality Chance (C). F3. path coefficients = -. P I. Compared to the Study 1 for student car drivers.12 d. freeway urgency (F2).047. Usurpation of right-of-way (F1).f.f.062 Note: Internality (I). P. BHS I. The contextual mediated model was tested using locus of control and hopelessness as distal context factors.65 and . C.2 Study 2 In Study 2. 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. BHS F1.95 .94.12.36).80 respectively (see Figure 4. F4 F1. F3. C.33 33. F2.36: Different Contextual Models (Study 2) Distal Factors Proximal Factors χ2 29. F3 F1.047 .06722 . p-value GFI RMSEA I. CFI=.7. 169 .66) on the accident involvement. C. The four distal variables accounted for 49% of the variance in BIT. the participants were motorcycle drivers.058 .94 .12). RMSEA=. The proposed contextual mediated model was tested three times (see Table 4. d.

Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome BIT1 BIT2 .78* . *p<.05 Injury Occurrence Model Statistics χ2=29.05 BIT1=Usurpation of Right-of way.95 d.047 RMR=.99 P-value = .f =23 CFI=.66* Accident Involvement Externality (Powerful Other) .12: Contextual Mediated Model Study 2 170 .70* BIT4 . BIT4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4.80* Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) .17631 N=122 RMSEA=.12 GFI=.88* Crash Occurrence .57* Internality -.83* BIT3 .65* Externality (Chance) . BIT3=Externally-Focused Frustration.046 Note: Values showed are path coefficients. BIT2=Freeway Urgency.89* .

I. P.f.39. C. p-value GFI RMSEA Crash Occurrence. C.93 .35265 . The goodness-of-fit indexes for these models are shown as follow: Table 4. Usurpation of right-of-way (F1). F2.13). The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that two out of four possible paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant. d.20 respectively (see Figure 4. F3.95).82 28 . F4 Crash Occurrence 31. Hopelessness (H).068 Injury Occurrence Crash Occurrence. F2. The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=. RMSEA=. externally-focused frustration (F3) and destination-activity orientation (F4) Model included locus of control. F2. F3. F3.59 17 . F4 Outcomes χ2 d. This contextual mediated model was tested four times (see Table 4.95. Internality and AQ.40) on the accident involvement.061 Note: Internality (I). GFI=.95 .3 Study 3 In Study 3.37: Different Contextual Models (Study 3) Distal Factors I.027 I. 37. The contextual mediated model was tested using locus of control and hopelessness as distal context factors.94 .=21. F4 50.03084 . F4 Crash Occurrence 18. The four distal variables accounted for 12% of the variance in BIT. F3. AQ F1. have effects on the Behaviour in Traffic (BIT). Externality Chance (ExC). the participants were taxi drivers.97 .061. but not Externality. 171 .22 23 .06743 . AQ F1. P. Externality Powerful-Other (ExPo).20 and .37).00524 .079 Injury Occurrence I. path coefficients = -. P Proximal Factors F1.f. freeway urgency (F2). C.7. AQ and only crash occurrence as outcome has provided the best goodness-of-fit to the data (χ2=31.4. CFI=. C. F2. AQ F1.39 21 .

053 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.40* Crash Occurrence Externality (Powerful Other) .39 GFI=.06743 N=133 RMSEA=. BIT4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4.74* -.Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome BIT1 BIT2 .13 . BIT3=Externally-Focused Frustration. *p<.20* Externality (Chance) .39* Internality -.95 P-value = .20* Aggression (AQ) Model Statistics χ2=31.061 RMR=.05 BIT1=Usurpation of Right-of way. BIT2=Freeway Urgency.13: Contextual Mediated Model Study 3 172 .63* BIT3 .61* BIT4 .95 d.f =21 CFI=.03 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) .

(4) the relationship between hostile automatic thoughts and accident involvement were tested using the four-step procedure proposed by Baron and Kenny (1986). 4.8 Testing Mediational Relationships Using SPSS The mediating effects of BIT on: (1) the relationship between hopelessness and accident involvement.2 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Aggression and Crash Outcomes The four-step regression analysis showed that BIT strongly mediated the relationship between aggression and crash outcomes (see table 4. consistent with path analysis results. (3) the relationship between aggression and accident involvement. and.1 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hopelessness and Crash Outcomes In all studies. Not applicable = mediating effect could only be tested when conditions in Step1. 4. hopelessness did not significantly influence the crash outcomes (see Table 4. Step 3=mediator has a significant effect on the dependent variable. 173 . the mediating effect of BIT on hopelessness and crash outcomes relationship could not be estimated.39). BIT was a complete mediator for the relationship between AQ total score and crash occurrence. 2 and 3 are satisfied. Step2=independent variable has a significant effect on the dependent variable. Therefore. (2) the relationship between locus of control and accident involvement.8.8. 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.38).4.38: BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hopelessness and Crash Outcomes BIT mediates HopelessnessCrash Occurrence Study 1A Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 BIT mediates the HopelessnessInjury Occurrence Relation Study 1A Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 Step 1 Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 1 Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 2 Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Step 2 Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 4 Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Step 4 Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Notes: Step 1=independent variable has a significant effect on the mediator. Table 4.

where the 174 .41).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 4.3 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. Externality-Chance (C) and Externality-PowerfulOthers – and crash outcomes (See Table 4.8. Exceptions to this were found only with respect to the relationship between P and both crash outcomes in Study 1A.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.BIT was a partial mediator for the relationship between aggression and injury occurrence. Table 4. 1B and 1C. Table 4.4 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Crash Outcomes For automobile drivers. behaviour in traffic (BIT) had complete or partial mediating effects on the relationship between the three locus of control dimensions – Internality (I).40).8. in Studies 1A.

BIT had no mediating effects on the relationship between I. no mediating effect of BIT could be estimated since requisite conditions in the second step of the analysis were not satisfied. With respect to the relationship between I and the crash outcomes and the relationship between P and the crash outcomes. C or P and the two crash outcomes.mediating effect of BIT total scores could not be estimated because requisite conditions in the second step of the analysis were not satisfied. Table 4. For motorcycle drivers in Study 2. For taxicab drivers in Study 3.41: BIT Mediates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Crash Outcomes BIT mediates I-Crash Occurrence Relation Study 1A Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 Study 3 BIT mediates I-Injury Occurrence Relation Study 1A Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 Study 3 BIT mediates C-Crash Occurrence Relation Study 1A Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 Study 3 BIT mediates C-Injury Occurrence Relation Study 1A Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 Study 3 Step 1 Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 1 Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 1 Significant Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Step 1 Significant Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Step 2 Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Not Significant Step 2 Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Not Significant Step 2 Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 2 Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Step 4 Complete Mediator Partial Mediator Partial Mediator Not Applicable Not Applicable Step 4 Complete Mediator Partial Mediator Partial Mediator Not Applicable Not Applicable Step 4 Partial Mediator Complete Mediator Partial Mediator Complete Mediator Not Applicable Step 4 Partial Mediator Complete Mediator Partial Mediator Complete Mediator Not Applicable 175 . BIT had a complete mediating effect on the relationship between C and both crash outcomes.

Study 2: t(372)= -3.9 Comparison of Automobile Drivers. p <. It was found that there were significant differences in scores for hopelessness. p <. Study 1A vs.01.01.665.1 Differences between Automobile Drivers and Motorcycle Drivers In a subsequent analysis. Study 1B vs. Automobile drivers in Studies 1A. There was no significant difference in scores on the P dimension between automobile drivers and motorcycle drivers. Automobile drivers also scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers on C.442. Study 1C vs.01. 1B and 1C scored significantly lower on hopelessness than did motorcycle drivers. Study 2: t(422)= 8.Table 4.837.01. Study 2: t(421)= 7.01.41: 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. scores for distal variables (locus of control and hopelessness). p <. Study 1A vs.426. Study 1B vs. Motorcycle Drivers and Taxicab Drivers 4. Study 2: t(421)= -4. p <. p <. With respect to the three dimensions of locus of control. p <. automobile drivers scored higher than motorcycle drivers on I.9. 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. 176 . Study 2: t(372)= 8. Study 1C vs. Study 2: t(422)= -2.162. Study 2: t(421)= -3. p <. Study 1A vs.663.05.01.993.

861. Study 2: t(372)= -7.837.2 Differences between Automobile Drivers and Taxicab Drivers With respect to locus of control. p <. “freeway urgency”.01. t(253)= 8.433. t(986)= 34.977. Study 1A vs.01.775.01. Study 2: t(421)= -8.01. t(986)= 37.704.01. There were no significant differences scores on either C or P between the automobile drivers and taxicab drivers. p <.01. There were no differences between motorcycle drivers and taxicab drivers on the P dimension. p <. taxicab drivers scored higher than automobile drivers on the I dimension. Study 1A vs. 4. Study 1C vs. Study 2: t(372)= -6.200. Automobile drivers scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers in crash occurrence.687. p <. p <. p <. t(986)= 30. 4.01. p <. p <.01. p <. automobile drivers scored higher than taxicab drivers with respect to crash occurrence. Study 2: t(422)= -4. Study 1B vs. p <. 177 . and to injury occurrence. t(986)= 5.9. Automobile drivers scored higher that taxicab drivers on total BIT scores. Motorcycle drivers scored higher than taxicab drivers on C. p <.577. p <. p <.Automobile drivers scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers with respect to the total BIT score.01. respectively. Study 2: t(421)= -3. p <. Study 1B vs. and t(986)= 35. and on all four BIT subscales: “usurpation of right-of way”.01. Study 1C vs.01.402. p <. t(253) = 2.801.01. p <.01.211. p <. Study 1C vs.9.926.3 Differences between Motorcycle Drivers and Taxicab Drivers Taxicab drivers scored higher than motorcycle drivers on the I locus of control dimension.747. Study 2: t(421)= -7. t(986)= 3.01. t(986)= 7.01.01. Study 2: t(422)= -6.186. Study 2: t(372)= -5.01. Automobile drivers scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers in injury occurrence. “externally-focused frustration” and “destination-activity orientation”.261.614.01. Also. Study 1A vs. t(986)= 6.484. p <.

982.881. p <. p <. t(253)= 8.Motorcycle drivers had higher total BIT scores than taxicab drivers.946. drivers scored higher with respect to crash occurrence.977. t(253)= 35. “externally-focused frustration” and “destination-activity orientation”. p <.567.01.737.01and to injury occurrence. p <. “freeway urgency”. t(253)= 8.01. p <.01. and all four BIT subscales: “usurpation of right-of way”. respectively. t(253)= 31. 178 . t(253)= 11. t(253)= 39. Also. and t(253)= 37. p <.01.01.01.016. p <.

freeway urgency. externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation. age and personality may be the most important factors in crash causation (Bridger. While it has been generally assumed and frequently stated that driver characteristics. in which a set of personality and demographic factors are thought to exert effects. Often. Parker (2004) and others have stressed the importance of examining crash causation from a broader. Composite BIT scores were comprised of measures of usurpation of right-ofway. 2002b). The present research applied Sümer’s concept of a contextual mediated model. Papacostas and Synodinos (1988) investigated four dimensions of driving behaviour conceptually related to the Type A behaviour pattern (TABP). 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. upon examination. 1995. not directly on driving behaviour and crash outcomes but rather on some intervening variable located more proximally to the event (see sect. In an earlier study. in which the roles played by variables in mediating and moderating effects of personality factors are more closely examined than in the past. They found gender. 1993. ethnic and driver experience differences with respect to 179 . exerting weaker influence or more equivocal results than anticipated (Dewar. Elander et al.CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION 5. 2.2.. Elander et. al. including gender. human factors that conceptually might be expected to have a strong influence over driving behaviour and crash occurrence end up. multi-factorial perspective. (1993). researchers have been frequently frustrated when attempting to quantify the effects of psycho-social variables on either driving behaviour or crash outcomes.4.1 A Contextual Mediated Model for Understanding Factors Influencing Unsafe Driving Traffic psychologists.1). Evans. 1991).

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

… the word cause has largely disappeared from the technical literature on safety, and for good reasons. Suppose that on a dark rainy morning a young man argues with his wife about the purchase of a sofa, leaves the house late for work in a rage, drives his poorly-maintained car too fast on a badly-designed, poorly-lit curve. Suppose further that he skids, and is killed in a crash with a truck driven by an older driver. It is of little value to say that the death was caused by the car driver’s youth or maleness, the truck driver’s old age, the car’s bald tires, the high cost of sofas, emotional stress, the non-use of a safety belt, inadequate police enforcement, rain or any other of the many factors which, if different on this particular occasion, would have prevented the death (Evans, 1991; p. 60)

Causative factors, then, are difficult to partial out and, it might be argued, cannot really be studied in isolation. For this reason, the use of a model based on interactive relationships between personality or demographic characteristics of drivers and the components making up a particular pattern of driving behaviour, in this case a Type A behaviour pattern, makes good sense. The model proved useful in describing and

explaining the relationship between distal and proximal variables involved in crash and injury occurrence. Personality and demographic variables had significant effects on a measure of behaviour in traffic which, in turn, had a robust association with selfreported crash and injury occurrence. What may have resulted here is less an identification of causes and their prevention and more a framework in which to consider the complex interactions of several factors that contribute to motor vehicle crashes.

Within the contextual mediated model used here, a significant relationship was observed between the BIT construct and outcome measures, suggesting that the contention of Papacostas and Synodinos (1988), that it may be preferable to existing measures of TABP, is supported. As has been already noted, a range of personality and

181

demographic variables were observed to interact with BIT scores and the remainder of this discussion is devoted to a consideration of these findings.

5.2

Hopelessness It has been noted by several authors that little attention has been paid to affective

characteristics of drivers (Rothengatter, 1998; 2002; Elander et al., 1993). It is widely accepted that emotions alter attention, thought patterns, decision making and memory (Groeger, 1997). Hopelessness is a personality trait with strong affective and cognitive components, characterised by a sense of despair, pessimism about the future, chronic exhaustion and a deep personal orientation that nothing one can do to bring meaning, zest or enthusiasm to life (Farran et al., 1995). Hopeless individuals tend to believe that nothing will turn out right for them, that they will never succeed at what they attempt to do, that their important goals can never be attained, and that their worst problems will never be solved (Beck & Steer, 1993). They score high on scales measuring

neuroticism and low on extraversion, feel as though they lack physical fitness and selfconfidence and are often dissatisfied with their accommodation, marital state and workplace (Tanaka, Sakamoto, Ono, Fujihara & Kitamura, 1996; 1998). Often people with a high degree of hopelessness feel compelled to do more and more as a way of compensating, feeling as though “they must climb a mountain that has no top and that there is no way to end the necessity of climbing” (LeShan, 1989; p.108). Often these efforts are seen as impulsive, irrational and generally without an apparent goal, and are just as frequently prone to premature termination.

Certainly, it is not difficult to see that internal states arising from this interplay of despondency, perceived fatigue and sense of slowing down while feeling compelled to do more, have a strong potential to influence driving behaviour negatively. In the present research, hopelessness was associated with less cautious self-reported behaviour in traffic. The higher were participants’ scores on a measure of hopelessness, the more they indicated they would be likely to engage in BIT that was unsafe. Specifically, persons reporting a high degree of hopelessness had a tendency to disrespect others’

182

right-of-way, to engage in risky lane deviations and to commit lapses or violations at intersections or stoplights. Generally, very little is known about demographic and

personality characteristics of drivers who fail to halt at stop signs or pedestrian crossings, commit red light violations or make risky lane deviation manoeuvres (Brodsky, 2001; Romano et al., 2005a; 2005b). The finding that hopelessness is

associated with risky right-of-way behaviour may be consistent with the attention deficiencies, impulsivity and lack of caring thought to characterise persons with this trait (Farran et al., 1995).

When it comes to the relationship between hopelessness and driving behaviour, motorcyclists present some unique differences. Motorcycle drivers had higher

hopelessness scores than either automobile or taxicab drivers. Among motorcyclists, males were significantly higher than females in hopelessness and Malay motorcycle drivers had higher hopelessness levels than their Chinese-Malaysian or IndianMalaysian counterparts. Motorcyclists generally have a high frequency of right-of-way crashes at three-legged junctions, crossroads and roundabouts where the driving manoeuvres tend to be fairly complex, requiring vehicle control skills and focused attention to avoid conflicting movements with other road users (Pai & Saleh, 2008). Clarke, Ward, Bartle and Truman (2007) have also noted that, because of their configuration, motorcycles are particularly prone to ‘right of way crashes’ and those involving loss of control on curves or bends. With the likelihood of this type of crash already fairly high for motorcyclists, the finding in the present study that hopelessness was strongly associated with driver behaviour involving the usurpation of right of way may signal an exacerbated level of danger that needs to be explored in future research.

For motorcyclists, also, hopelessness moderates the relationship between both I and C locus of control dimensions, such that motorcyclists with a strong internal locus of control who score high on the hopelessness trait tend to report that they engage in less safe behaviour in traffic than do motorcycling internals who score low on the hopelessness trait. On the other hand, motorcyclists with a strong belief that their life is

183

determined by chance or fate and that their future is coloured by feelings of hopelessness tend to report more dangerous driving than do fatalistically-directed externals who are not feeling hopeless.

The relationship between hopelessness and locus of control is complex, in that logically either a high or a low sense of internal control can be a component of hopelessness. Often persons who feel hopeless have a low sense of personal control. They have lost faith in their own ability to achieve some goal and therefore have an image of themselves that they feel has been devalued both by themselves and by other people (Engel, 1968; Isani, 1963; Prociuk et al., 1976). In other cases, however, persons have a high but unrealistic sense of internality. They may feel very responsible for their own fate and may feel that no other help is available to them (Engel, 1971). “In this situation, even though individuals are making some attempt at maintaining control, their goals may be inappropriate or their resources may not be adequate to meet the desired outcome” (Farran et al, 1995; p. 33).

Similarly, either a high or a low sense of external control can also be a component of hopelessness. A person with a high external locus of control may

unrealistically anticipate that help from others or from the external environment will resolve the dilemma (Engel, 1968), thus assuming little or no personal control. However, persons who are feeling hopeless may also have a low sense of external control simply because they believe that others have so frequently failed or frustrated them (Engel, 1971). Farran et al. (1995) called for further studies to explore the nature of hopelessness and other moderating variables like self-esteem, locus of control and self-efficacy. Future research investigating the process through which locus of control interacts with hopelessness in influencing driver behaviour are needed in particular.

184

5.3 5.3.1

Locus of Control Internal and External Locus of Control as Determinants of Driving Behaviour Previous studies investigating the effects of locus of control on driving behaviour

arrived at inconsistent results. For example, Guastello and Guastello (1986) found that internals had been involved in fewer crashes than externals on their transitional scale but that there was no such relation between crashes and scores on the Rotter (1996) I-E scale. Özkan and Lajunen (2005) found that internals reported a higher number of total crashes, ordinary traffic violations and driving errors, although scores on externality dimensions had no effect. In the present study, locus of control was found to play a significant role in influencing driving behaviour. Drivers who had a strong internal locus of control regardless of automobile, motorcycle or taxicab drivers, reported engaging in behaviour in traffic that was relatively safe. This observation was true for all three groups studied: automobile drivers, motorcyclists and taxicab drivers. On the other hand, those who believed life events to be determined by chance or fate reported engaging in behaviour that was far more consistent with a less safe TAPB pattern. This was true for the samples of automobile and motorcycle drivers, all of whom were university students, but not for professional taxicab drivers.

In short, all participants in this study who were internals reported driving more safely than those who were not; and university students who were strongly externally controlled reported driving less safely than those who were not. This finding is exactly what the general body of thought about locus of control and driving would predict it to be. It has been generally assumed that, because externals believe that they have little personal control over what happens to them, they tend to consciously focus less on the driving task (Elander et al., 1993). In cognitive ergonomic terms, it is as if they are willing to cede responsibility for shouldering the mental workload (de Waard, 2002) associated with the driving task because they consider it to be under the control of external forces.

185

It might be expected, though, that this effect would be become less pronounced as drivers become more experienced. Groeger (2002) has pointed out that, with more

experienced drivers, more of what they do becomes routine and, as a result, not under direct conscious control. With increasing automatisation of the driving process, the influence of externality over specific decisions and actions that the driver must make would be diminished. Shiffrin and Schneider (1977) described how automaticity

develops as a function of consistent reactions to a particular stimulus, even to the point where there is little recollection of specific elements of the task (Underwood & Everatt, 1996). Of course, there will always be “black events”, or risk-predisposing circumstances, in which the driver switches from automatic to personally controlled processes but, even at those times, drivers with more experience will have better knowledge and quicker reactions due to their broader exposure to prior stimuli (Brown, 1982).

Because more of the driving task is performed automatically by experienced drivers, cognitive attributions about an internal or external locus of control become less important, unless one makes a basically untestable assumption about sub-conscious factors operating on what is generally described as an open-loop control system (Groeger & Clegg, 1997). Given that this sort of system involves sequences of actions which do not rely on feedback from the results of preceding actions before subsequent actions are performed (Bridger, 1995), even if attributional cognitions could theoretically operate at the sub-conscious level, it is hard to envision the sort of mechanism through which they could influence automaticized driving behaviour.

Further, Laapotti et al. (2001) have argued that novice drivers make errors in applying knowledge models at both the lower (vehicle manoeuvring) and upper dimensions (incorporating lifestyle goals and skills) within the driving process (see Figure 2.8; sect. 2.5.2.1). While it might be assumed that errors at the lower level are caused by skill deficits, abrogation of control over the vehicle due to a belief in externality would be a mental process that occurs at the upper end of the cognitive

186

63. By virtue of their age and occupation.5. respectively).7 months. although driving frequency was not measured for taxicab drivers.2 years.66) than the automobile drivers and motorcyclists (20. SD=11. it might be assumed that taxicab drivers could well have a broader social network. 20. the continued operation of their vehicle is fundamental to their livelihood so motivational factors may take precedence over attributions of external control. traffic exposure and other variables on the effects that internality and externality exert on driving behaviour. it might also be assumed that their traffic exposure was greater than that of the students. taxicab drivers were considerably older (43. there are other possible influences. and 36.53.1 months. affected driving behaviour and decisions about the use of public roads.1. as well. Of course.3. SD=1.2 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. SD=22.6 months as licensed drivers. 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.10) than the automobile drivers and motorcyclists (28. For taxicab drivers. This would be an error more likely to be made by younger novice or less experienced drivers. internals reported that they engaged in safer behaviour in traffic. SD=131.16. social trust and norms that promote coordination and cooperation. SD=1. 5. Further research is needed to examine the influence of driving experience. Hijar and Tovar (2005) have noted that social capital.01years. SD=. Because of occupational demands.25 years.hierarchy. but the externality-chance dimension had no significant effect. They were also more experienced (266. For taxicab drivers. as it did with the less experienced university students in the other groups. the extent to which an individual is connected to others through interpersonal networks. Inclán. In the present study. Malaysian-Indian automobile 187 . respectively).

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

Nandy.3. Salih &Young. 5. 1998. 1966. Indeed.5 million in 1991 to 11. 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. 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. 2002. have been largely limited from participation in social and political processes that would necessitate that sort of social skill development and. (2006) found greater commonalities in personality traits. the reasons for this commonality in outlook are probably multi-factorial. The size of the urban population in Malaysia increased by 4. Sendut. 1999). 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. although they were consistent with more recent research by Sinha & Watson (2007). In reference to Carment’s explanation of the earlier results.5% annually from 9.3 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. by extension. This is consistent with recent findings among Malay and Chinese ethnic groups in Singapore. an internal locus of control. but two possible influences stand out. 1999) where one’s skills at manipulating the system may have fostered a need for greater internal control. Gomez. including locus of control. as a group. and. than between Singaporean-Chinese and Chinese participants from China. Again. as a result. Closer proximity of cultural groups can be assumed to increase contact and transmission of knowledge and awareness of value systems (Hofstede. 1981). Willford (2003) concluded that Indian-Malaysians. 1999.7 in 1996. Armstrong (1987) argued that urbanisation has affected 189 . the proportion of the population residing in urban areas increased from 51% in 1991 to 55. 1999.8 million in 1996. where Cheung et al.Malaysian participants scored lower in internality was contrary to Carment’s earlier conclusions with individuals from India.

Jenkins. Oetting & Salvatore. Parkinson. 2000. Clayton. aggression had a strong influence on behaviour in traffic. there is a large body of evidence that aggression plays a significant role in unsafe driving behaviour and in crash outcomes (Deffenbacher. Lynch. by the enraged driver. driving in a more urgent fashion and concentrating more on destination activities than on road and traffic 190 . 5. Miles & Johnson. Nonetheless. including perhaps attributions about the control of events. Miller & Rodgers. 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. 2008. 2002. 2002). 2001) In the present research. bringing them closer together in outlook. feeling more frustrated at external sources. Huff. The second factor toward reducing differences between ethnic groups may be related to government efforts promoting a multi-cultural scripting of the national identity (Bunnell. 2001. Government initiatives have aimed at re-positioning Malaysia as a highly networked information economy and society. Brown (2007) has examined educational practices in Malaysia within the context of ethnicity and nation-building. King & Parker. participants scoring higher on a measure of total trait aggression reported driving patterns that involved right-ofway violations.4 Aggression Haight (2004) has suggested that the concept of the accident-prone driver may have been replaced in the 1990s by that of the alcohol-impaired driver and. 318). in which members of ethnic groups are encouraged to adopt a ‘Malaysian outlook’ on life. Consistently.women’s friendship patterns. 2003. Dukes. among automobile drivers and motorcyclists. 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. Lawton & Nutter. more recently.

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

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

This last finding replicated and extended earlier research by Gidron et al. “in ergonomics. has a workload associated with it” (Bridger. 1987. who found that the association between road-hostility and drivers’ speed choices and deviant behaviour (passing through a red light and overtaking from the inside) was larger among participants with low rather than with high internality scores. It is moderated by cognitive processes. Finally. and particularly with negative emotion. (2003).e. Similarly. 1977). language comprehension can be regarded as a mental task which. true to operant learning principles. 1979. 1995. has been shown to be difficult to process (Dodge & Coie.. Novaco. or self-talk.. 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. 1994. A driver’s mental workload is increased by the number of task demands with which one must contend in performing a function and.e. Certainly. receive positive reinforcement – when I see the shocked look on his/her face!”). Language loaded with emotional content. the original cognitive behaviourists tended to regard cognitive statements as internal mental stimuli that. evoked specific behavioural responses that then became subject to contingent reinforcement (Kanfer & Goldstein.are determined by chance or fate. this process may be instrumental in the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic (“I’d like to knock his/her teeth out. like any other mental task. Meichenbaum. The relationship between aggression and driving behaviour is both important and complex. aggressive drivers of both automobiles and of taxicabs who had low levels of internality (i. so I’ll overtake him/her at high speed on the inside and feel great – i. 2004. aggressive automobile drivers who believed that outcomes are determined by powerful others were also significantly more likely to report riskier driving patters than were aggressive drivers who did not believe that outcomes are determined by powerful others. 193 . Generally. 1990. and also by attributions regarding locus of control. in the form of hostile automatic thoughts. 401). Hochschild. Downe & Loke. p. but there may be more to it than that.

Tomkins. and at the same time processing feelings of responsibility arising from one’s internal locus of control requires the investment of mental effort. Dien. 2002. so too does the mental effort required (de Waard & Brookhuis. 162). Carretie. Trabasso & Liwag. 2004. 1997). subject to ambiguous interpretation (Chan.. 1996. Performance (e. As the costs of achieving or maintaining a certain target level of performance increase. Tavris (1989) referred to anger as the “misunderstood emotion”. Stein. Mercado & Tapia. As drivers contend with heightened feelings of aggression and increased internal chatter. hostile automatic thoughts.Robbins. lane control in driving) will drop if effort investment is insufficient or ceases.1 Advantages of Using SEM Harlow (2005. aggressive emotionality. As de Waard (2002) has argued: There are limits to the investment of effort. 1993).g. internal locus of control and tendencies toward more dangerous behaviour in traffic. p. an overburdening of cognitive workload capacity or both.5. In fact. as well as other task demands of driving in traffic. 2000. Lambie & Marcel. 5. This can happen both in conditions of very high task demand and in conditions where the driver’s state is affected (p. Watson & Wan. they may well reach a “red line” at which more mental effort is required than is available. 2000. 1999. MartinLoeches. Taylor & Fragopanagos. and attempting to exercise control over. The present research has demonstrated linkages between hostile automatic thoughts.5 Testing the Contextual Mediated Model Using Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) 5.1) defined multivariate thinking as “a body of thought processes that illuminate interrelatedness between and within sets of variables” and proposed that 194 . 1979) and disruptive to attentional processing of external stimuli (Adolphs. Martin. Making sense of. Additional studies are needed to investigate whether this relationship is best explained through an internal stimulus-response process. 2002. Hinojosa. 2005).

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

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

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

Both models were judged to have an excellent or very good fit. they can in no way reflect the extent to which the model is plausible. assessment of model adequacy must be based on multiple criteria that take into account theoretical. 4. as suggested by Byrne (2001). a finding that was further supported by additional subsequent analyses using a further series of goodness-of-fit indices.9) included all four components of the BIT scale.7.10) excluded the fourth factor. In some cases. destination-activity orientation. 88). 158). this judgment rests squarely on the shoulders of the research. statistical.soundness. when taking into consideration “practical considerations”. More importantly. the choice between the two would be Model 1C6 given its superior index coefficients.1. If selection criteria were to be based solely on goodness-of-fit parameters. Thus. it is concluded that the selection of Model 1C5 would be preferable 198 . However. In the case at hand. Index coefficients from the original and subsequent analysis are shown in Table 5. while Model 1C6 (see Figure 4.3). provided the chosen one meets pre-determined standards for goodness-of-fit. Sobel and Bohrnstedt (1985) pointed out that exclusive reliance on goodness-of-fit indices is unacceptable. two structural equation models. Model 1C5 (see Figure 4. stating that. it makes sense to choose a model with a slightly poorer fit but more useful information over the best-fitting model. There is some support for this position in the literature. and practical considerations (p. 1C5 and 1C6. “Scientific progress could be impeded if fit coefficients (even appropriate ones) are used as the primary criterion for judging the adequacy of the model” (p. of intervariable relationships for high-risk undergraduate automobile drivers were compared using an initial set of goodness-of-fit indices (see sect. Byrne (2001) argued that: Fit indexes yield information bearing only on the model’s lack of fit.

045 0. F2.42 11. Given that multivariate analysis revealed a significant association between this BIT component and crash outcomes.499 0. Injury Occurrence Degrees of Freedom RMSEA GFI Chi-sq/Df RMR AIC NFI CFI AGFI PGFI NCP ECVI Overall model fit 63.1: Goodness of Fit Statistics for Model 1C5 and 1C6 (Initial and Subsequent Analyses) Model 1C5 Distal Context: I. BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration.97 0.909 0. 199 . AQ. BITF2=Freeway Urgency. 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. F3 BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way. HAT Proximal Context: BITF1. BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration. HAT Proximal Context: BITF1.Table 5.02 0. C.02 0.94 0.51 Very Good Model 1C6 Distal Context: I.39 Best because it includes important information about destination-activity orientation behaviour that would be lost if Model 1C6 were chosen.97 0.060 0.034 97.02 0.48 30. P.97 0.96 0. C.99 0. Fit Statistics (Threshold values) Outcomes: Crash Occurrence.96 1. F3 & F4 BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way.91 0.98 0. Injury Occurrence 35.97 1. F2. BITF4=DestinationActivity Orientation Outcomes: Crash Occurrence. BITF2=Freeway Urgency. P. AQ.043 129.97 0.

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

.1). They appeared to be the strongest predictors among the five distal factors (path coefficients = -. The results suggested that the alternative model. via BIT. aggression. externally-focused frustration.29). Evans.4 Testing the Contextual Mediated Models Using SEM 5.28 respectively).21). 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.35 and . This suggested that automobile drivers with high levels of 201 .23 respectively) and the BIT displayed a significant effect on crash outcomes (path coefficient = .66). and hostile automatic thoughts). Internality was significantly but negatively correlated with BIT (r = -. freeway urgency.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. Examination of the predictive relationship between distal and proximal variables yielded support for the contextual model and were consistent with previous findings (e. crash occurrence (r = -. Total scores of BIT were significantly correlated with crash occurrence (r = .5.5.34) and injury occurrence (r = . externality-powerful other. the base model (with only locus of control variables) was compared against five alternative models (see section 4. Rothengatter.45). . . In Study 1C. externality-chance. 1991. indicating that driving behaviour is closely related to involvement in motor vehicle crashes. 2003). externalitychance. Distal factors (locus of control: internality.g. with five distal factors (internality.6.4. indicating the importance of this factor in crash outcomes. As observed from the investigation of structural paths. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) had significant effects on BIT scores (path coefficients = . internality and aggression had direct effects on BIT and indirect effects.26. four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way. Findings in this study underscored the strong role of BIT in predicting accidents. externality-powerful other.14.5. for automobile drivers sampled. on crash outcomes.35.18) and injury occurrence (r = -. 2001.28 and . Sümer.

Aggressive automobile drivers tended to have high level of BIT scores. 5. on the other hand. externally-focused frustration.4.20) and injury occurrence (r = . This suggests that motorcyclists who believed that outcomes were determined by fate or chance tended to report engaging in riskier behaviour in traffic and had greater crash accident involvement. externality-powerful other and hopelessness).55). crash occurrence (r = . The first alternative model had four distal factors (locus of control: internality. freeway urgency.5.25). Aggression. with hopelessness removed as a distal factor but four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way. Investigation of the path parameters revealed that only two of the distal factors.2 Study 2: Motorcyclists In Study 2. and destination-activity orientation) comprising the proximal factor and two latent constructs (crash and injury occurrence) comprising the crash outcome variable. the base model (with only the locus of control variable) was compared against two alternative models. Results indicated that the first alternative model. and destination-activity orientation) as proximal factors. externally-focused frustration. freeway urgency. internality and externality-chance (path coefficients = -. 202 . freeway urgency and externally-focused frustration) for the proximal factor.24).80) indirectly and the proximal factor-BIT (path coefficient = . externality-chance.23) and injury occurrence (r = .internality were more likely to have low total BIT scores. was significantly and positively correlated with BIT (r = . as well as low probability of crash and injury occurrence. One of the most compelling findings in Study 2 was that externalitychance scores had the highest correlations with BIT (r = . and high probabilities of crash and injury occurrence. which sampled motorcyclists.66) directly predicted crash outcomes. had a better fit than other alternative models. and four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way. crash occurrence (r = .65 and . The second alternative model also had four distal factors but only three latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way.41).

externality-chance. had a better fit than alternative models.3 Study 3: Taxicab Drivers In Study 3. Both dimensions of external locus of control had insignificant results. their crash occurrence. externality-chance. The second and third alternative models only had one latent construct. aggression). had significant direct effects on the four latent constructs that comprised the proximal variable (BIT) and. for the sample of taxicab drivers. internality and aggression (path coefficients = -.5. four latent constructs (usurpation of right-ofway. crash occurrence. had no significant effect on BIT scores. 203 . However. This suggested that internality and aggression play important roles in affecting the behaviour in traffic of taxicab drivers and. freeway urgency.5 What Can be Learned from Testing Contextual Models with SEM? The use of SEM provided support for the contextual mediated model. such as internality. to measure outcome. externality-powerful other and aggression). the bestfitting model used only a single latent construct. The first alternative included four distal factors (internality. in turn and indirectly. For motorcyclists. 4. Distal factors. and destination-activity orientation) as proximal factors. for crash outcomes. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts.24 respectively) that had direct effects on the proximal factor and a simultaneous indirect effect on crash occurrence. the results of measurement model analysis showed that one of the distal factors. via BIT. freeway urgency.4. Results indicated that the third alternative model. and destination-activity orientation) comprising the proximal factor and one latent construct (crash occurrence) comprising the outcome variable. the result was slightly different as a belief in chance as an outcome determinant had a significant effect on BIT scores. externality-powerful other. hopelessness. with the sample of taxicab drivers. crash occurrence. All models included four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way.5.3).5. the base model (with only the locus of control variable) was compared against three alternative models (see sect. externally-focused frustration. Finally. on the two latent variables comprising crash outcomes. with four distal factors (internality. externally-focused frustration. Investigation of the path parameters revealed that there were only two of the four distal factors. as a result. 5.20 and .6.

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

Based alone on the number of residents living in each state.2 compares the percentage of the national population located in each state and the percentage of the participants in the total sample coming from each state. with a mean age of 20.13 years (SD = 1. Approximately one-third of all automobile crashes. in Malaysia. young drivers are among the most likely to experience a motor vehicle crash. 205 . involved drivers aged 16 to 25 years. contributed the largest proportion of the sample. the sample does not appear to be very repreresentative of the Malaysian population. while Malacca and Negeri Sembilan were overrepresented. individuals usually obtain their license in the state in which they are registered as resident. Study 1C: 99. Ages of participants in this research ranged from 18 to 29 years.to 25-year old high-risk group was 99. The Spearman rank correlation coefficient for these two sets of scores is rs=. Selangor. With regard to whether the sample was representative of peoples of the various states and regions of Malaysia.55). it is helpful to examine the distribution by state in which research participants obtained their driving licenses.2).31. The most populous state. Sabah. Sarawak and Kelantan were under-represented in the sample. Study 1B: 100%.In Malaysia.6%. as elsewhere. 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. making it the single highest risk age group (see Table 2.2%).6% (Study 1A: 99.2% and Study 2: 99. during the interval from 2000 to 2003. The proportion of the total sample for Studies 1 and 2 falling within the 16. Since. Table 5.

000 2.300.4 provides similar comparisons for the state of origin of the sample of motorcyclists.2 7.004.500 1.880 3. Not all states have the same number of drivers. 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. in this case.6 (10) 7.2 (1) 3.9 9.500. the state of origin is defined as the state in which the participants’ driving licenses were issued.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) 7.807 733.0 12.674 1.9 (3) 2.2 (5) 0.6 5.260.7 (14) But.6 0.6 2.188 1. attempting to determine sample representativeness based on only state population would be flawed. high-risk drivers in Malaysia.887.100. For that reason.000 1.000 215.000 2.2 (11) 12.818.Table 5.0 4.0 8.8 6.000 3. 206 .503.3 (12) 11. and there are different crash frequencies in each one.6 6.396.1 (7) 8.2 (13) 11.2 11.9 (9) 7.7 (2) 2.8 (6) 6. It is important to remember that the purpose of this research was to study the population of young.000 Per cent of national population 26. Table 5.4 5.19 Per cent (rank) of participants sampled 17.150.3 compares the state of origin of participants in Study 1 with the more relevant measures of vehicle registrations and crash occurrence. Table 5. In both cases.5 (4) 4.286 1.576 2.2 3.200.387.000 1.5 (8) 3.

45 9.170 13.97 12.88 3.19 3.93 0.198 156.041 92.84 11.490 525.617 10.768 6.003 10.89 3.428.98 0.467 25.34 3.735 165.24 2.600 135.137 698.230 266.Table 5.20 12.46 8.588.029 273.496 187.70 12.55 7.88 2.4 4.85 1.163 10.251 324.19 7.064 9.3: State of Origin Compared with Crash Frequency and Vehicle Registrations (Study 1) Average Motor Vehicle Crash Frequency (2000-2003) 34.27 14.24 0.43 2.76 3.920 181.91 2.212 39.093 5.22 17.19 4.496 Private Automobile Registrations (until 2003) 703.93 9.96 3.104 6.36 8.34 11.785 393.75 4.90 5.144 12.68 7.28 3.725 70.16 2.561 1.026 10.63 207 .50 29.70 3.92 25.635 1.35 4.606 24.05 2.13 6.37 3.774 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.

66 11.35 4.722 255.656 821.75 5.133 705.93 7.98 0.03 4.88 3.212 39.615.20 15.029 273.79 13.989 6.496 % Private Vehicle Registrations (until 2003) 933.76 3.27 14.46 5.144 12.112 347.45 2.43 2.36 8.49 0.Table 5.995 233.10 9.88 2.288 444.49 12.727 161.82 9.026 10.992 776.93 9.283 770.856 310.958 % 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 12.63 11.4: State of Origin Compared with Crash Frequency and Vehicle Registrations (Study 2) Average Motor Vehicle Crash Frequency (2000-2003) 34.104 6.467 25.003 10.561 1.606 24.170 13.59 12.4 4.064 9.15 5.725 70.37 3.74 208 .02 7.768 6.38 0.305 276.617 10.679 90.221 36.92 25.22 3.38 4.63 13.64 2.59 1.46 14.02 10.33 4.14 7.64 1.28 3.48 1.

5: Spearman rank correlations for States of Origin for Participants in Study 1 and Study 2 1 2 3 Study 1: Automobile Drivers 1 Automobile crash frequency (by state) 1 2 Vehicle registrations (by state) . participants came from – or. Table 5.814** 1 . it can be argued that they were. at least.903** . both for the studies of automobile drivers and for the study of motorcyclists.3 and 5.908** 1 3 Participants’ state of origin . Future studies of Malaysian driving behaviour will need to expand the range participant 209 .Table 5.824** . At least on these dimensions.796** 1 Were the participants studied in this research representative of high-risk Malaysian drivers? In terms of their age and their regional origin. 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. This sample was comprised of individuals within the age group that has the most motor vehicle crashes. were licensed as drivers in – the states with the most registered vehicles and the highest numbers of crashes.5 shows the The Spearman rank correlation coefficient (rs) for the variables in Tables 5. it is possible to say that sampling. Even though data collection was carried out at a single university location. was representative of a high risk driver population. 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.701** 1 Study 2: Motorcyclists Motorcycle crash frequency (by state) Vehicle registrations (by state) Participants’ state of origin 1 2 3 1 . Of course.4.

1998. However.characteristics used as a basis for sample-to-population comparisons. Katila and Laapotti (1997) have argued that. Hatakka.g. Again. violations and accidents should be linked together. in studying driving behaviour. Keskinen. accident distributions by age. demographic factors. 1998. None of these variables can be substituted by group means. Additional studies should be carried out in order to validate findings within the broader population. The problem. the data has to be disaggregated. accidents. 1979). however. 2001). We can also get rough data of exposure by age. social desirability response sets and fakeability (Aiken. Elander et al. attitudinal factors. 5.6. e.2 Use of self-report methods The use of self-report methods in traffic psychology has been strongly criticised by af Wählberg (2002). (1993) have similarly argued that other methods for studying the 210 . Much important data is available in official statistics. 296). Exposure. The issue becomes even harder to resolve when dealing with cognitive variables that cannot be observed directly (Groeger & Rothengatter. unless the variation within the group is very small. Self-report data are prone to inaccuracy due to participant memory lapses. 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. the easiest way to get data on several factors from the same subjects is by simply asking the subjects (p.. as in other psychological research. the use of questionnaire data provides the only practical possibility for gathering data at a low cost. is that this kind of data is usually aggregated … From aggregated data we cannot study the connections between accidents and age and exposure. Rothengatter.

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

Mercer. in that the measure tells us little about the circumstances under which participants drove other than their perceived use against some unstated. and the hypothesis (H2. Results were used as a measure of driving frequency for Studies 1 and 2. Traits included in the contextual mediated model as distal variables have been found to be relatively consistent and resistant to change over this interval. 1997. It must be noted here that there are certain problems with measuring driving frequency in this manner and that there were other alternative methods that could have been built into the research design instead. First. 5. Unfortunately. it has to be acknowledged that the measure is subjective. Second. 1999). The driving frequency measure was alaso used a co-variate in analyses of relationships between other distal variables and proximal variables.2) that higher levels would result in less risky behaviour in traffic was supported. there is a certain imprecision to the measure. 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. Some authors have asked participants to estimate the distrance travelled during a particular period (Lajunen & Summala. 2002). The problem with this approach is that it is every bit as subjective as the categorical judgements of 212 . 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. a timeframe that is consistent with reasonably accurate recall (Haber & Haber. as well. other measures of driving frequency present as many or more problems. individual standard.4 Measurement of Driving Frequency One of the self-report measures used in this research requires particular discussion. This method has been used in previous studies by other authors (Pelz & Schuman.6. 1971).In the present research.

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

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

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

The second question is whether we need traffic psychology models. in particular to structure data. or represent processes. at times. there has beeen an ongoing discussion and. Wilde (1982) has expressed concern that the study of traffic safety “is characterised by a sparsity of comprehensive and articulate conceptions” (p. Throughout the development of traffic psychology. if they aim to illuminate and encourage research on specific topics rather than the 216 . 94). 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. stating that. check facts. create links to other fields of knowledge or to explain or predict circumstances. Grayson (1997) agreed. and while any data collection procedure must have some element of theory if it is to have real purpose. The answer to this question is possibly yes. Hauer (1987). debate as to whether the greater need exists for more theory or for more data. the fact remains that we have enough guidance already from mainstream psychology. 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”. The answer is probably not. Huguenin (1997) has similarly argued that theories are necessary to treat a subject scientifically. Attempts to develop ‘traffic- specific’ theories have proved far less fruitful than has the importation of established theories from other areas of psychology. The first question is whether we need traffic psychology theories. 32). p. if they are modest in ambition.patterns of relationships. 294). 1997. on the other hand. often in graphical form (Grayson.

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

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

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

7. can be focused specifically on combinations of risk factors at both the distal and proximal levels. 1997. The treatment or rehabilitation of dangerous drivers has relied heavily on cognitive behaviour modification applications (Deffenbacher et. could be screened out. 2004). Further research should focus on the role played by locus of control in influencing patterns of BA.In the present research. Coupled with simulated or actual driving experience and methods to modify patterns of hostile selftalk. Gidron & Davidson. task capability (Fuller. scarce resources for screening drivers. these approaches require special therapeutic training and large efforts on behalf of drivers. Findings from the present research can guide planners of remedial courses and counsellors to teach methods for increasing internal attributions. an area of increasing importance in fleet management (Barjonet & Tortosa. 1996). external locus of control and hostile attributions. Programmes with content focused on building internal attributions and a sense of personal responsibility would enhance training outcomes. Specifically. 2002. Drivers with combinations of TABP and aggression. Christ et al.3 Driver Selection. (2003) to moderate the effects of aggression on driving outcomes. 220 . Summala. locus of control was found to exert effects on Type A driving patterns and. 1982). 5. 2006) or cognitive processing (Keskinen. Training and Rehabilitation The results of the present research have important implications for the improvement of driving behaviour. whether that adaptation is the result of perceived risk (Wilde. 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. once identified. 1996). Luckner (1989) and others have successfully developed training curricula that encourage internality. 2005. which may mitigate the negative effects of roadway hostility. al. consistent with the earlier findings of Gidron et al. though. changes in driver behaviour might be better targeted. Typically..

or legal intervention. the Haddon Matrix (Haddon.2 Engineering Interventions Engineering applications in transportation have become increasingly cogniscent of human thinking processes. 1961. 5. These have been euphemistically termed the “three E’s”. recognised that the cardinal bases of accident prevention fall into three categories: engineering. Matthews and Guest (1999) have argued that traffic engineering has also undergone a transition in emphasis over the last decade. Specific measures aimed at reducing accident occurrence or injury can be classed according to whether they are predominantly based on engineering principles. Cooke and Durso (2008) have noted that: Most industrial tasks require human operators to interact with various technologies.4. 1957.4.4 Preventive Measures: “The Three E’s” 5. and the effective enforcement of regulatory legislation (Wheatley.7. 1). Slinn. the tasks we ask operators to perform today are highly cognitie. the technologies sophisticated and the interactions among humans. Unlike 100 years ago. At the same time. teams of humans. educational programming (including public awareness and driver training). This framework can be integrated with the “Three E’s” to identify specific crash prevention measures arising from the findings of the present research. From this has emerged the growing 221 . 1957). for the last fifty years. and machines are highly intricate (p.5. 1970) provides another system for classifying highway events for the purposes of research or accident prevention (see Figure 2. World Health Organisation.1 Generating and classifying crash prevention interventions Ergonomists and safety scientists have. education. in the the traffic engineer’s role has increasingly become one of improving the efficiency of an existing roadway system rather than building new higher capacity roads.7.7.4).

2005). depending on environmental factors. The aim should be to assist drivers by making routine actions simpler. Bishop (2005) has noted that there is still a lack of knowledge about the threshold levels at which to set in-vehicle modifications. Stough. there is an adaptive and cooperative relationship between the driver and the vehicle in ensuring that lane deviation and roadway departure are controlled. as well as other in-vehicle technologies now being tested for future implementation in automobiles and other vehicles (see Table 5.6). or the adaptive automation concept. (Bishop.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. not to overwhelm them with complicated or difficult override processes. there may be limits to the number and level of sophistication of devices installed in motor vehicles. 2001). The findings of the present research that usurpation of right-of-way. Such systems are based on a shared control paradigm. At the same time. for instance. roadway and environmental settings (see Table 5. Several intelligent in-car systems have been developed to assist lane manoeuvring and to control lateral deviation in the forward motion track. Lane-keeping Assist Systems (LKA). Other authors have cautioned against engineering so many devices and signals that driver attention becomes diverted from vehicle control tasks. These have been applied to in-car. 222 . is strongly associated with crash outcomes would support the importance of further development of LKA systems. In the case of LKA. 2003). Suda & Ono. Maggio & Jin. in which in which the control of functions shifts between machines and human beings dynamically. with the resulting transport systems generally referred to as Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS. so the systems are easily overridden by even the weakest drivers when needed (Kawazoe. operator workload and performance (Inagaki.application of computer and information technology to transportation infrastructure and vehicles. Murazami. Holzmann (2008) argues that there is considerable potential for crash reduction in this sort of technology. The amount of toque needed to adjust vehicle direction at highway speeds is quite small. 2001). Sadano.

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

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

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. – 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. reversible corrections through a motorlanes. “rumble strips” in expressways. 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.1. infrastructure. the systems vision sensing technology to transmit information to combine lane and road drivers about traffic flow. traffic drivers when their speed is definition. 225 . variable speed warning systems advise lane conspicuity and message signs (VMS).1 Vehicle Road Environment  lane departure warning  lane marker improvements –  integrated traffic systems (LDWS) – have the using plastic. and likelihood of.Table 5. Integrated with combination of radar and roadside sensors. traffic and systems (RDWS) – curve different materials to increase weather sesors. management centers (TMCs)  integrated lane marker with closed-circuit television  road departure warning applications – these combine (CCTV) camersas. 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. unsafe  blind spot monitoring systems lane deviation. created intelligent traffic of impending hazards. departure warning. to allow easier lanes and synchronised actuated increase in steering overtaking and lane signals decreases the need as the vehicle nears a lane.6: Engineering Applications for Crash Prevention Finding Drivers who usurp the right-ofway and commit lane violations are more likely to experience crash outcomes. lane road conditions. blind spot sensing and lange change assist. keeping. transitions for. etc.

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

signs with calming or vehicles. The use of properly designed humps are effective in causing vehicles to reduce speed in their vicinity. measures that can reduce by driver interactions with congestion and other  contrary messages – roadroad.3  vertical displacement. at which the whole road space at an intersection is raised. coupled with stress vegetation to reduce traffic signals. “Speed tables”. Such devices include chicanes. H 1.  horizontal displacement – these design features cause the driver to change direction quite sharply and change the visual cues presented by the roadway. environment and other frustrating stimuli.  automated speed enforcement – the use of high-volume speed cameras to regulate the speed of motor vehicles on roadways. traffic flow management training to better frustration and effect a moderation and other cope with frustration caused calming influence on drivers.  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. humorous content to evoke a contradictory affective response to frustration.(continued) Externally-frustrated drivers are more likely to experience crash outcomes. has an advantage over intersection redesign by saving space.1. pinchpoints and gateways or arches. 227 .

 dedicated broadcast of safety messages – radio or broadband messages with reminder to focus attention on driving tasks at hand. H 1.  driver assistance systems – capable of providing information about destination conditions or journey progress. Destination-activity orientation is associated with a higher risk of crash outcomes.4  in-vehicle biofeedback devices – systems that measure driver arousal and eye focal points and cue the driver when measures do not calibrate with attention to road conditions.(continued)  electronic variable message signs (VMSs) – roadside signboards which change messages to provide updated information about traffic congestion. This information allows drivers to avoid or. notification of construction ahead. notice of future road construction and notice of public events. to reduce wandering thoughts and focus attention on driving tasks at hand. 228 . at least. weather-related road conditions. prepare for stress-provoking conditions and external frustration. safety messages.1.

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

and driving within safe legal limits could be included within future public information campaigns. 1978. and (3) legal measures providing rules governing the interaction of pedestrians and traffic. from the findings of the present research. evoke the least expectation and are least often evaluated in terms of their effect on accidents” (p. or the tendency to attribute one’s own attitudes and behaviour to others. and penalties for infringement to ensure that the rules are obeyed. The results of the present research would suggest that messages about the link between personal responsibility for one’s action. one practical and the other touching on the development of theory. Yergil (2005) has discussed a number of cognitive biases that tend to enhance a false sense of safety among drivers. 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. legal measures change least often. Second.4.7. The bias of false consensus. 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. They also stated. First. (2) exhortatory and educational measures to encourage the development of appropriate skills and attitudes. p. 265). road safety campaigns and media coverage” (Cheah. such as visibility of enforcement. N6).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. however. Siegrist and Roskova (2001) have called for an integration of social science views arising from traffic psychology with legislation and enforcement pertaining to traffic. Success of the yearly Ops Sitak safety campaign by the Royal Malaysian Police and other regulatory bodies has been attributed to several “cumulative factors. was studied in a 230 .5. that “Of these three approaches. 1030). or an internal locus of control. This twinning of psychological and legal perspectives derives two implications. 2007.

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

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

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

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

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

a multi-disciplinary approach leads not only to the greater level of understanding described by Rothe (2002). 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. 313). 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. Indeed. management. Additional studies should aim toward a conceptual common ground and further examination of models and theories from which broader understanding can be derived.form a complex traffic-safety reality in which systems form a web of interdependent fields (p. regulatory and social science specialists should be encouraged. but it also opens the door for a wider range of preventive measures. Continued sharing between professional associations and between design. educational and enforcement spheres. injuries and death. 236 . significant impacts can be made in reducing motor vehicle crashes. In the present research. findings with regard to four components of behaviour in traffic gave rise to a number of interventions in the engineering.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-L. Retrieved October 15. 10(2). Brazil.[77] Carver.0. November 12). Taiwan. 2008 from http://www. W. 2007 from http:www. Visser. (1985). Sunway Campus. and Yeh. 467-477. Traffic management and road safety along federal roads in Malaysia. S. R.W. Campo Grande. (2007.F. Paper presented at the Traffic Engineering and Management in Malaysia workshop. Proceedings of the International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT) Extra Workshop. gender and risky behaviors in Taipei. Cheung. Pacific Grove CA: Duxbury. (2006). and Denis. (2004). [82] Chaplin. P. March 20-22. Personality and Individual Difference. (2000). Self-consciousness in Chinese college students in Hong Kong.H. Amsterdam: Elsevier. 21(4). Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. New York: Dell. 109-122. Driving: through the eyes of teens. Monash University. Personality across the ethnic divide in Singapore: are “Chinese traits” uniquely Chinese? Personality and Individual Differences. Matto Grosso do Sul. [86] Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and State Farm Insurance (2007). Kuala Lumpur. R. (Eds. H.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. R. J. 557-562. [84] Cheah.pdf 244 . The Star. [79] Chaloupka-Risser (2005).com/statefarm/chop/youngdriversurvey/PDF/NYD_Survey_FIN. [81] Chang. (2007).G. (1996).M. November).ictct. and Nash. In Rothengatter.ghipr. Dictionary of Psychology. [83] Che Ali bin Che Hitam (2001. T. Howard.. S. Retrieved March 31.-H.P. J. Malaysia.D. 41. N6. what can we know – traffic psychological analysis of Driver Behaviour.. Cognitive effects of environmental knowledge on urban route planning strategies. T. Motorists more careful because of Ops Sitak.. 61-71). D. and Lim. R. Motorcyclist accident involvement by age. and Huguenin. F. [78] Chalmé. Doing data analysis with SPSS 10. Y.-H.org/workshops/05CampoGrande [80] Chan. What are we allowed to ask. [85] Cheung. M.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[173]

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

[174]

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

[175]

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

[176]

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

[177]

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

[178]

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

[179]

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

[180]

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

[181]

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

253

[182]

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

[183]

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

[184]

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

[185]

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

[186]

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

[187]

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

[188]

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

[189]

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

[190]

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

[191]

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

[192]

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

254

[193]

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

[194]

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

[195]

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

[196]

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

[197]

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

[198]

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

[199]

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

[200]

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

[201]

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

[202]

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

[203]

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

255

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

[204]

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

[205]

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

[206]

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

[207]

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

[208]

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

[209]

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

[210]

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

[211]

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

[212]

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

[213]

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

256

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

[215]

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

[216]

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

[217]

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

[218]

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

[219]

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

[220]

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

[221]

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

[222]

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

[223]

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

[224]

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

257

[225]

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

[226]

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

[227]

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

[228]

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

[229]

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

[230]

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

[231]

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

[232]

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

[233]

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

[234]

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

[235]

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

258

[236]

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

[237]

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

[238]

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

[239]

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

[240]

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

[241]

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

[242]

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

[243]

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

[244]

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

[245]

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

[246]

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

259

[247]

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

[248]

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

[249]

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

[250]

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

[251]

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

[252]

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

[253]

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

[254]

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

[255]

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

[256]

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

260

[257]

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

[258]

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

[259]

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

[260]

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

[261]

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

[262]

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

[263]

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

[264]

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

[265]

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

261

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

37(1). [350] Parsons. D. O. S.G..R. Dimensions of driving behaviour and driver characteristics.. (Eds. Accident Analysis & Prevention. Manstead.org/workshops/05Helsinki/P1_Ozkan. T. L. Lajunen. R. Hebl. [345] Papacostas. and Schneider. W. driving skills and attitudes toward in-vehicle technologies (ISA & ACC).S. N. C. (2005). (2008). Applied Psychology: An International Review. Journal of Environmental Psychology. M.ictct. (pp. T. (1988). [351] Parsons. and Lajunen (2005). H. Lajunen. Road safety: what has social psychology to offer? In Rothengatter.. 3-13. 456-461. and Saleh. driving violations and accident involvement. 113-140. [349] Parkinson. [343] Özkan. B. Multidimensional Traffic Locus of Control Scale (T-LOC): factor structure and relationship to risky driving. 38(5).E.R and Stradling. 533-545. Ergonomics. 479-486. J. 507-526.[342] Özkan. D.. Finland. The view from the road: implications for stress recovery and immunisation. M. Anger and aggression among drivers in three European countries. Ulrich. (2004). 125-134). J. (1995).T. R. 229-235. 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. J. British Journal of Psychology.G. Locus of control in university students from eastern and western societies. T. (2001). Tassinary.. (1998). 1036-1048. (1974). (2002). D. 42. Helsinki.S. 2007 from www. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. Retrieved December 20. Accident Analysis & Prevention. Personality and Individual Difference. [348] Parker. Amsterdam: Elsevier. [347] Parker.D. C. Traffic locus of control.M. R.. and Grossman-Alexander. and Synodinos.W.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application. Poster session presented at the 18th International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT). 269 . 18. A.A. Reason. 40.S. T. and Summala. 92.pdf - [344] Pai.. and Kaistinen. Anger on and off the road. T. 34. 38(3). [346] Parker. and Huguenin. Driving errors.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(3) the benefits expected from cautious behaviour alternatives. Individuals will undertake behaviour to ensure that the level of risk in which they are engaged. Intentions are influenced by: (a) attitudes (the positive or negative evaluation of the behaviour). The TPB has been applied to a wide range of research problems in traffic psychology. derived from Summala’s (1996) hierarchical adaptation theory of driver behaviour. the TPB posits that a given behaviour is determined by individuals’ intentions. Target risk: a core concept in Wilde’s risk homeostasis theory. instrument panel and windshield of a motorcar. risk homeostasis theory) Task cube. (see also. These are energy absorbing buffers designed to protect drivers from injury during collision by preventing the head and upper body from striking the steering wheel. and Icek Ajzen at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst. which are the best predictors of behaviour. The theory of reasoned action (TRA) proposes that behaviour is a function of intentions. According to Wilde (1994). (see also. (see also. it is a level of risk that each individual is willing to accept. Each cell of the matrix represents a combination of the three dimensions which form the basis of the theory. theory of planned behavriour) 292 . where i represents the number of factors defining the functional taxonomy dimension. 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. On dry roads.when manoeuvring on icy or hard-packed snowy surfaces. (2) the costs expected from cautious behaviour alternatives. target risk is determined by four “classes of utility factors”: (1) the benefits expected from risky behaviour alternatives. and (c) perceived behavioural control (PBC) over the performance of the behaviour (which jointly influences both the intention and behavioural performance). behaviour control) (see also. which in turn are a function of attitudes and subjective norms. (b) subjective norms (opinions about what significant others would think of the behaviour). remains constant at the target level. theory of reasoned action. hierarchical adaptation theory) Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB): as proposed by Icek Ajzen of the University of MassachusettsAmherst. Supplementary restraint system (SRS): Also referred to as “airbags”. 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. and (4) the costs expected from risky behaviour alternatives. studded tyres actually increase braking distances and decrease lateral control of the vehicle. A complex 3 X 5 X i matrix. According to RHT proponents.

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

Appendix A: List of Published and Research Scales 294 .

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

Kansas 66045 USA www.psych. Crowson.edu/hope. Snyder.R.Hostile Automatic Thoughts Scale (HAT.ukans. C. Correspondence regarding this scale or the associated hope theory should be directed to: Graduate Training Program in Clinical Psychology The Department of Psychology 340 Fraser Hall University of Kansas 1415 Jayhawk Boulevard Lawrence. Kurylo & Poirier) Obtained with permission from the late Dr. Houston. Snyder. 296 .

Appendix B: Personal Information Form (PIF) 297 .

__________ (city/town) (state) (country) 5. Most of the time when you travel. 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 . 250 cc) ______________ ___ other (please specify: _________________) 7. Proton Wira) _______________ ___ motorcycle – what engine size (e. For how long have you had your driver’s licence? __________ years and ___________months (number) (number) 3. sitting behind driver) ___ car (passenger) ___ bicycle (non-motorized) ___ walk ___ other (please specify: _______________) 6.. so please answer all questions as truthfully as you can.CONFIDENTIAL Personal Information Form Please answer the following questions about Please answer the following questions about YOURSELF. _________. In what city/town did you learn to drive? _______________.g. 1. Do you presently have a driver’s licence? (circle one) yes no If yes.g. __________ (city/town) (state) (country) 4. please answer the following questions: 2. In what city/town have you lived most of your life? _______________. _________.. What type of motor vehicle do you most often drive? (please check only one) ___ car -.what manufacturer & model (e. We are not asking for your name. what kind of transportation do you use? (please check only one) ___ bus ___ motorcycle (driver) ___ car (driver) ___motorcycle (pillion.

have you been in a motor vehicle accident that required you to be hospitalised for injuries? yes no If yes. all the time ___ yes. When you want to use a motorcycle. Within the last twelve (12) months. in what kind of vehicle were you travelling when the accident occurred? ___ bus ___ motorcycle (driver) ___ car (driver) ___motorcycle (pillion. do you have ready ACCESS to a car? (please check only one) ___ yes. some of the time ___ yes. most of the time ___ no 10.8. 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. When you want to use a car. 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 . How often do you travel on a motorcycle: as a driver (please check only one): ___ every day ___ several times a week ___ about once or twice a week ___ about once every two weeks ___ almost never ___ never as a passenger (please check only one) ___ every day ___ several times a week ___ about once or twice a week ___ about once every two weeks ___ almost never ___ never 9. do you have ready ACCESS to a motorcycle? (please check only one) ___ yes.

12. what phrase best describes what happened? (please check only one): ___ my vehicle was changing lanes and hit (or was hit by) another vehicle ___ my vehicle hit (or was hit by) another vehicle that was changing lanes ___ my vehicle went out of control and went off the side of the road ___ my vehicle went through a red light (or sign) at an intersection (junction) ___ the other vehicle went through a red light (or sign) at an intersection ___ my vehicle hit another vehicle from behind ___ my vehicle was hit from behind by another vehicle ___ other (please specify:__________________________________________ ) 13. What is your age? ___ male _____ years ___ female 17. in what kind of vehicle were you travelling when the accident occurred? ___ bus ___ motorcycle (driver) ___ car (driver) ___motorcycle (pillion. 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 . Within the last twelve months. have you been in a motor vehicle accident that required you to go to a medical clinic for minor injuries? yes no If yes. what phrase best describes what happened? (please check only one): ___ my vehicle was changing lanes and hit (or was hit by) another vehicle ___ my vehicle hit (or was hit by) another vehicle that was changing lanes ___ my vehicle went out of control and went off the side of the road ___ my vehicle went through a red light (or sign) at an intersection (junction) ___ the other vehicle went through a red light (or sign) at an intersection ___ my vehicle hit another vehicle from behind ___ my vehicle was hit from behind by another vehicle ___ other (please specify:__________________________________________ ) 15. have you been in a motor vehicle accident that resulted in damage over RM100 to your vehicle. Within the last twelve months. What is your gender? 16. sitting behind driver) ___ car (passenger) ___ bicycle (non-motorized) ___ I was walking ___ other (please specify: _______________) If yes. but no injuries? If yes. in what kind of vehicle were you travelling when the accident occurred? ___ bus ___ motorcycle (driver) ___ car (driver) ___motorcycle (pillion. sitting behind driver) ___ car (passenger) ___ bicycle (non-motorized) ___ I was walking ___ other (please specify: _______________) If yes.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful