This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
ALAN GIFFIN DOWNE
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY MULTIMEDIA UNIVERSITY APRIL 2008
Siti Hasmah Digital Library
Digitally signed by Siti Hasmah Digital Library DN: cn=Siti Hasmah Digital Library, c=MY, o=Multimedia University, ou=Research Library, email=kamal. firstname.lastname@example.org Date: 2009.07.02 11:55:19 +08'00'
The copyright of this thesis belongs to the author under the terms of the Copyright Act 1987 as qualified by Regulation 4(1) of the Multimedia University Intellectual Property Regulations. Due acknowledgement shall always be made of the use of any material contained in, or derived from, this thesis.
Alan Giffin Downe, April 2008 All rights reserved
I hereby declare that the work contained herein has been done by myself and that no portion of the work contained in this thesis has been submitted in support of any application for any other degree or qualification of this or any other university or institute of learning.
______________________ Alan Giffin Downe
First, I wish to acknowledge the contribution of my supervisor, Dr. Stanley Richardson, whose guidance, wisdom and high standards have motivated me and kept me on track throughout all phases of the project. I also thank my former employer, Multimedia University, for permitting me to undertake doctoral studies during my time as a lecturer in the Faculty of Management. In this regard, I would like to express my gratitude for the gracious support and encouragement I have received from Prof. Dr. A. Seetharaman, current Dean of Management and from Prof. Dr. Hj. Mohd. Ismail Sayyed Ahmad, former Dean of Management. I also wish to thank Dr. A.S. Santhapparaj, Dr. V. Anantaraman and especially Dr. Sayed Hossain for coordinating and serving as panelists, respectively, when I presented this research to the faculty during my work completion seminar.
Several researchers at other institutions have provided assistance in the form of test instruments, unpublished papers and guidance over the course of this project. I especially thank Dr. Jerry Deffenbacher (University of Colorado), Dr. Yori Gidron (Brunel University), Dr. C.S. Papacostas (University of Hawaii at Manoa), Dr. Dianne Parker (University of Manchester), Dr. Murali Sambasivan (Universiti Putra Malaysia), the late Dr. C.R. Snyder (University of Kansas), and Dr. Henriette Wallén Warner (Dalarna University).
I would like also to thank four undergraduate research assistants who completed data collection for the study of Kuala Lumpur taxicab drivers: Agatha Yeoh Siew Ling, Gracy Thomas, Nazlina Nasihin and Sangeetha Munisamy.
I wish to acknowledge the Road Engineering Association of Malaysia (REAM), an organisation to which I have felt privileged to belong, as an Associate Member, since 2001.
There are many individuals who have contributed greatly to the completion of this project through their helpful suggestions, collegial affiliation and friendship, notably Aw Lin, Aznur Hajar Binti Abdullah, Azrai Abdullai, Ming-Yu Cheng, Adeline Chua, Cynthia Downe, Ridhwan Fontaine, Jessica Ho Sze Yin, Lily Idayu, Loke Choong Khoon, Loke Siew Poh, Razlina Rezali, Omar Salahuddin Bin Abdullah, Bobby Varanasi and David Yong. A special expression of thanks is due to Fatimah Syam @ Noor Azleen A. Gani at the Siti Hasmah Digital Library for her very helpful assistance. For their caring support, I also wish to thank my mother, Evelyn G. Downe and Howard, of Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada.
The phrase, “without whom this research would never have been completed” appears ubiquitously in theses and dissertations around the world. But never has it been truer than in the contribution made here by my wife, Siew-Phaik Loke. She has helped me to score questionnaires, set up spreadsheets and enter data into the computer. She provided thoughtful input into solving even the most baffling problems of multivariate analysis. She sustained me with her constant reassurance throughout the project. And she did it all while excelling at her own PhD studies, starting a business, launching her career as a university lecturer and lovingly, patiently caring for our son. To her, I will be always grateful.
DEDICATION In the wee hours of a cold morning on December 5th, 2002 my father, Dr. A.E.R. Downe, Professor Emeritus of Biology at Canada’s Queen’s University passed away in his hospital bed in Kingston, Ontario after suffering a long and debilitating illness. For 47 years, he had been my inspiration and my role model. From him, I learned the value of hard work and family, the excitement that comes from scientific inquiry and the fortitude that evolves in a man’s struggle against adversity. Not a day goes by when I don’t find myself thinking of him.
On that very same day, on the other side of the planet, my little boy Richardson Downe Loke Ken, at ten months of age, took his first unaided steps, launching a jerky trajectory from the sofa to the television set, where he hugged the image of Sir Alex Ferguson. From his birth, I have marveled at Kenny’s boundless energy, his gentle disposition and his ability to fill his mother’s and my existence with one part challenge and nine parts joy. I only hope that I am able to teach him the same lessons that my father taught me.
It is to these two very special people that I dedicate this work.
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. self-reported patterns of driving considered more proximal to the causality of the crash and self-reported crash and injury histories of the participants. personality traits. However. The role of the proximal variable in mediating distal effects on crash outcomes was also investigated. seven fatalities are recorded each day. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) characteristics. on average. vii . gender and ethnicity) and psychological (locus of control. driving experience and demographic characteristics are the specific contributors of these factors. and that driver behaviours. BIT had four components: usurpation of right-of-way. Distal variables included driver (driving experience and driving frequency). some personality constructs. respectively). freeway urgency. Previous research has found that human factors play the chief role in contributing to crash outcomes. Effects of the distal variables and proximal variable on self-reported history of crash occurrence and injuries were examined. hopelessness. externally-focused frustration. previous attempts to investigate relationships between psycho-social variables and crash incidence have frequently yielded weak associations and inconclusive results. 302 and 252.ABSTRACT Motor vehicle crashes are a serious social and economic problem in Malaysia. A contextual mediated model was used to examine interactions between a set of variables considered distal to the causality of the crash event. demographic (age. The present research was conducted to examine the interaction between the role of behaviour in traffic. 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). where. demographic characteristics and driving exposure in predicting crash and injury occurrence. and destination-activity orientation. Three samples of university students whose primary mode of transportation involved driving automobiles (n = 301.
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. consistent with the assumptions of the contextual mediated model. 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. As hypothesised. Implications for both theory and practice are discussed. Among distal variables. locus of control moderated the BIT-aggression relationship. Results indicated that. BIT exerted a strong mediational influence over the effects of distal variables on crash outcomes. particularly with respect to an ongoing debate within traffic psychology over the comparative importance of theories or models of driving behaviour. The role of the proximal variable. viii . all four BIT components were associated with higher occurrence of both self-reported motor vehicle crashes and crash-related injury.Results indicated a complex series of interactions between the variables. 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. Two types of hostile automatic thoughts – with content related to physical aggression or revenge – moderated the BITaggression relationship. As reported in previous studies. The advantages of multi-disciplinary approaches to the study of roadway crashes are discussed. BIT.
Theories and Models 2.1 Risk Homeostasis Theory (RHT) 2.1.3 The Individual Differences Approach 2.1 220.127.116.11.18.104.22.168 The Emergence of Traffic Psychology as a Scientific Discipline 2.2 A Multidisciplinary Approach Theories of Driving Behaviour 2.6 Background of the Study Road Safety in Malaysia The Problem Statement The Professional Significance of the Study Overview of the Methodology Delimitations ii iii iv vi vii ix xv xviii xx 1 1 2 4 5 7 9 12 12 12 17 19 19 21 21 22 24 24 25 26 28 30 31 31 CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 22.214.171.124 Accident Proneness 2.2.1 An Applied Perspective 2.1 Roadway Crashes in Malaysia and Public Perceptions of Causality 2.3 1.2 126.96.36.199.4 1.3 ix .3.1 Concepts.2 2.2.1 Human Factors in Roadway Crashes: A Vexing Research Challenge 2.1 Human Factors and the Motor Vehicle Safety Problem in Malaysia 2.5 1.TABLE OF CONTENTS COPYRIGHT PAGE DECLARATION ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS DEDICATION ABSTRACT TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES PREFACE CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1.3.2 Differential Accident Involvement 2.2.2 Traffic Psychology: Slow Progress in Theory-Building 2.4 Risk Theories 2.2 Studies of Causal Factors in Malaysian Roadway Crashes The Professional Background 2.3.
1 Unidimensional and Multidimensional Constructs 2.5 Hierarchical Theories of Driver Adaptation 2.5.2 Conceptualization and the Research Framework Definition of the Variables 3.1 Driver Characteristics: Driver Experience and Driving Frequency 3.1.2 A Contextual Mediated Model of Personality and Behavioral Predictors of Motor Vehicle Crashes 2.1 Demographic Variables 2.2 A Conceptual Shift from TAPB to Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) As A Variable 34 35 37 38 38 39 41 41 42 42 43 45 47 49 50 50 50 52 56 58 58 61 63 63 63 64 67 69 71 73 73 75 CHAPTER 3: METHOD OF INVESTIGATION 3.1 Statistical Models 2.5 2.1 Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) 2.2 Driving Frequency and Traffic Exposure 188.8.131.52 Attitude-behaviour Theories 184.108.40.206.3 Core Concepts in the Contextual Mediated Model: Moderation and Mediation 2.3 Locus of Control 3.2 Locus of Control and Driving Behaviour 220.127.116.11.18.104.22.168 Type A Behaviour Pattern and Motor Vehicle Crashes 22.214.171.124.7.5 Aggression 78 78 84 84 84 84 85 85 x .126.96.36.199.1 Experience 2.2.2 Hopelessness 188.8.131.52.3 Locus of Control and Ethnicity 184.108.40.206 Age 2.3 Aggression Proximal Variables in the Present Research 2.4 Studies of Driving Behaviour Using the Contextual Mediated Model 2.3 Psychological Variables 220.127.116.11 Process Models 2.3.2 Gender 2.2.2 Zero Risk Theory 2.1 Locus of Control 2.4.1 The Haddon Matrix 2.5.3 Ethnicity 2.2. Gender and Ethnicity 18.104.22.168.22.214.171.124 Use of the Contextual Mediated Model in Other Research Distal Variables in the Present Study 2.4 126.96.36.199.3.6 Task Capability Interface (TCI) Theory 188.8.131.52 2.5.1 3.4.2 Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) Descriptive Models of Driver Behaviour 2.4.2 Demographic Variables: Age.184.108.40.206.220.127.116.11 Hopelessness 3.6.2 Driver Characteristics 2.
6 Hostile Automatic Thoughts 3.6 Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index (AGFI) 3.8 Kolmogorov-Smirnov One-Sample Test 3.4 Aggression Questionnaire (AQ) 18.104.22.168 Structural Equation Modelling 22.214.171.124.5.7 Expected Cross-Validation Index (ECVI) 3.7.8 Parsimony Goodness-of-Fit Index (PGFI) 3.2 One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) 3.2 Research Instruments 126.96.36.199.1 Study 1A 188.8.131.52 Chi-Square (χ2).9 Injury Occurrence Research Design of the Studies 3.7.3 Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) and Root Mean Square Residual (RMR) 3.5 Study 3 Formulation of Hypotheses Methods of Data Collection and Analysis 3.2.5 3.2 Degree of freedom (df) 3.6 Personal Information Form (PIF) Procedure 3.4 Study 2 3.7.3 184.108.40.206 3.2.3 Study 1C 220.127.116.11.7.5.4 Normed Fit Index (NFI) 18.104.22.168 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 .22.214.171.124.5 Multiple Regression Analysis 126.96.36.199.7.1 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) Scale 3.1 Studies 1 and 2 3.7.4 Linear Regression Analysis 3.6.8 Crash Occurrence 3.7.2 Study 3 Analysis of the Data 3.1 The Sample 3.5.2 Study 1B 3.3 Beck Hopelessness Scale (BHS) 3.2 Levenson Locus of Control Scale 3.7.6 3.7 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) 188.8.131.52.4 184.108.40.206.2.6.2. p-Value and χ2/df Ratio 3.5 Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) and Comparative Fit Index (CFI) 3.1 Independent-sample t-tests 220.127.116.11 The General Linear Model (GLM) Univariate Analysis 3.6 Logistic Regression Analysis 18.104.22.168 Hostile Automatic Thoughts (HAT) 3.
22.214.171.124.2.13 Hypothesis 13: Demographic Factors Influence Hostile Automatic Thoughts 4.3 Validity Test Results 4.6.11 Hypothesis 11: Aggression Influences Behaviour in Traffic 4.3 Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 2 4.3 Hypothesis 3: Demographic Variables Influence Behaviour in Traffic 4.4 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the HAT Scale Normality.14 Hypothesis 14: Hostile Automatic Thoughts Influence Behaviour In Traffic 126.96.36.199 Results of Study 3 Hypothesis Testing 4.5 Hypothesis 5: Demographic Variables Influence Hopelessness 4.6.7 Hypothesis 7: Hopelessness Influences Behaviour in Traffic 4.2 188.8.131.52 Hypothesis 1: Behaviour in Traffic Influences Motor Vehicle Crash Outcomes 4.9 Hypothesis 9: Hopelessness Moderates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Behaviour in Traffic 184.108.40.206.6 xii .6.2 Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 1 4.6 Hypothesis 6: Locus of control Influences Hopelessness 4.1 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the BIT Scale 4.2 Hypothesis 2: Driver Characteristics Influence Behaviour in Traffic 4.2.2 Results of Study 2 4.2 Externality-chance and Externality-powerful-others as Moderators 4.6.1 Description of the Sample 4.4 Hypothesis 4: Demographic Variables Influence Locus of Control 4.2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Levenson Locus of Control Scale 4.3 220.127.116.11 Hypothesis 12: Locus of Control Moderates the Relationship Between Aggression and Behaviour in Traffic 4.4 18.104.22.168 Internality as a Moderator 4.1.1 Reliability Test Results: Cronbach’s Alpha 4.5 22.214.171.124.126.96.36.199 Hypothesis 8: Locus of control Influences Behaviour in Traffic 4.4 Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 3 Reliability and Validity 4.5.2 Parallel-Form Reliability 4.6.10 Hypothesis 10: Demographic Factors Influence Aggression 4.1.1 Results of Study 1 4.1.1. Gender and Ethnicity 4.5.3 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the AQ Scale 4.6. Skewness and Kurtosis Crash and Injury Occurrence Data Distal and Proximal Variable Data 4.6.CHAPTER 4: ANALYSIS OF DATA 4.1 Age.15 Hypothesis 15: Hostile Automatic Thoughts Moderate the 112 112 112 114 115 115 116 116 118 118 119 120 120 121 122 124 126 126 130 132 134 134 135 139 140 142 143 143 145 147 149 151 153 153 154 156 157 4.2.
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 5.1 Differences between Automobile Drivers and Motorcycle Drivers 188.8.131.52 Use of Self-Report Methods 5.5 What Can be Learned from Testing Contextual Models with SEM? Limitations of the Study and Methodological Considerations 184.108.40.206.220.127.116.11.1 Study 1C: Automobile Drivers 5.1 Generalisability of Findings 5.5.9 Relationship Between Aggression and Behaviour in Traffic 18.104.22.168 Internal and External Locus of Control as Determinants of Driving Behaviour 5.4 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 5.8.6 xiii .3 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hostile Automatic Thought and Crash Outcome 4.2 Locus of Control and Ethnicity: Indian-Malaysian Drivers 5.2 Study 2: Motorcyclists 22.214.171.124 Goodness of Fit 126.96.36.199 5.8 4.16 Summary of Hypothesis Tests Testing the Contextual Mediated Model Using Structural Equation Modelling (LISREL Analysis) 4.5 5.7.2 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Aggression and Crash Outcomes 4.5. Motorcycle Drivers and Taxicab Drivers 4.5.1 Advantages of Using SEM 5.4 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Crash Outcomes Comparison of Automobile Drivers.5.3 Locus of Control and Ethnicity: Malay and Chinese-Malaysian Drivers Aggression Testing the Contextual Mediated Model Using Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) 188.8.131.52 A Contextual Mediated Model for Understanding Factors Influencing Unsafe Driving Hopelessness Locus of Control 5.1 Study 1C 184.108.40.206 4.4.2 5.3 Best Fit or Best Model 5.2 Study 2 4.3 Study 3: Taxicab Drivers 5.4 Testing the Contextual Mediated Model 5.7.2 Differences between Automobile Drivers and Taxicab Drivers 4.3 Study 3 Testing Mediational Relationships Using SPSS 4.1 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hopelessness and Crash Outcomes 4.4.
4.2 Engineering Interventions 220.127.116.11 Measurement of Driving Frequency Implications and Areas for Further Study 5. Training and Rehabilitation 5.3 Driver Selection.7.7.1 Generating and classifying crash prevention interventions 5.7.3 Education 5.7. Models in Traffic Psychology 18.104.22.168.1 Theory vs.7.7.2 Factors in Behavioural Adaptation (BA) 5.4 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 .6.7.7 5.4 Preventive Measures: “The Three E’s” 5.
LIST OF TABLES No.2 4.10 4.1 4.8 111 121 121 122 4.3 3.7 4. 2002-2006 Numbers of Automobile Drivers and Motorcyclists Involved in Road Crashes by Age Group Key Value Clusters for Each Malaysian Ethnic Group Research Hypotheses Dimensions of the BIT scale The Five Subscales of the Aggression Questionnaire The Three Subscales of the Hostile Automatic Thoughts (HAT) Scale Statistical Methods for Hypothesis Testing Gender and Ethnicity of the Sample for Studies 1 and 2 Age.11 xv .9 4.3 3.2 3.5 4. Gender and Ethnicity of Participants in Studies 1.4 115 117 118 119 4.6 4.4 3.1 2.2 Malaysian Roadway Crashes and Casualties.5 4. 2 and 3 States from Which Study 1 Participants Had Acquired Their Original Drivers’ Licenses States from Which Study 2 Participants Had Acquired Their Original Motorcyclists’ Licenses Summary of Internal Reliability Coefficient Results Parallel-Form Reliability for Form A and Form B (BIT) Validity of BIT scales – Summary of Confirmatory Factor Analyses Validity of the Levenson Locus of Control Scale – Summary of Confirmatory Factor Analysis Validity of the AQ scales – Summary of Confirmatory Factor Analysis Summary of LISREL Results on Validity for HAT (Study 1C) Normality Tests. Table Page 2.3 114 4. Kurtosis and Skewness Statistics 13 14 57 91 95 97 98 101 112 114 2.1 3.
17 129 4.23 136 4.4.21 135 4.18 131 4. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 2 (n=122) Means. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1A (n=301) Means.16 128 4.27 4.29 xvi . Gender and Ethnicity in Study 1 (N=855) 124 125 Crash Occurrence Frequency. Gender and Ethnicity in Study 2 (N=122) 125 Means. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1B (n=302) Means.14 4.12 4.15 Crash and Injury Occurrence Crash Occurrence Frequency.13 4. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1C (n=252) Means.28 4.26 138 139 144 145 4.22 136 4.19 133 4.24 137 4.20 134 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 4.25 138 4.
36 4.30 4.4 208 5.32 4.6 xvii .5 209 225 5.38 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 4.3 5.39 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 4.4.1 199 206 207 5.33 4.41 175 5.31 4.35 4.37 4.34 4.2 5.
6 2. Behavioral Predictors and Motor Vehicle Crashes (from Sümer. 2007) 50 Hierarchical Levels of Driving Behavior (after Keskinen.3 2. 1997) Contextual Mediated Model of Personality.2 147 148 4. 1996) Task-Capability Theory (after Fuller.4 4.2 3.7 2.LIST OF FIGURES No.1 4. 2000) Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen.4 2.1 2. 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. 2003) Inter-variable Relationships in Mediation Models Inter-variable Relationships in Moderation Models Page 36 37 40 42 44 46 47 2. 1989) The Haddon Matrix (Noy.3 4.4 148 xviii .2 2. Hatakka.5 Figure Task Cube (from Summala.10 64 80 81 82 83 146 3. 2.8 Proposed Contextual Mediated Model for Safety Research in Agriculture (from Downe.3 3.1 3. 1996.9 59 2.
9 4.11 Interaction of Ethnicity and Verbal Aggression on Freeway Urgency Moderating Effect of Internality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship Moderating Effects of Externality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship Moderating Effect of Externality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship Contextual Mediated Model Study 1C5 Contextual Mediated Model 1C6 (Four BIT Factors) Contextual Mediated Model Study 1C (Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thoughts) Contextual Mediated Model Study 2 Contextual Mediated Model Study 3 153 154 155 158 165 166 168 170 172 4.12 4.6 4.4.8 4.13 xix .7 4.5 4.10 4.
I don’t cry much any more. They were hurrying. only a trimester or two earlier. she was riding pillion. I told her not to worry. She was afraid she had missed too many lectures. My research design needed a serious re-working. lane deviation and all the rest. to the weary traveler. She had needed to go on an errand. handle the latent variables I wanted to include in my structural equation model. But sometimes. And they crashed. I feel like it a bit right now. he’d taken the same course as she.Talib Rothengatter & Raphael Huguenin. they were focused on the errand. She told me about the motorcycle crash that had claimed the life of her cousin. when humans are prone to imagine fairies or werewolves. xx . but accidents or encounters with fairies or werewolves are random events. I’m pretty happy with it. The factors she described that evening were the same ones I’d been trying to study – freeway urgency. LISREL couldn’t. Her face and arms had been bruised and lacerated. and his mental state. He was very popular with other students. I knew the fellow. they cut across a lane too quickly. and this thesis is the result. I feel like it each time I think of that moment. I sure felt like it as I sat there beside her. . He’d sent me a nice card at Christmas. They quarreled and then left on his motorbike. I’m a fairly big guy. just every so often. finally. The behaviour of the traveller. He didn’t want to go. 2004 Some three years or so into my Ph. I wanted to throw in the towel. He died instantly and she spent three weeks in the hospital. is a matter of debate … Obviously. I despair that we may never be able to snare this werewolf. How important these factors are. things were not going well. I got back to work on them. She had been badly injured. She started crying and couldn’t stop. But. I hope it makes a contribution.PREFACE Accidents occur. at least not with real tears. externally-focused frustration. or wouldn’t. programme. are factors that influence the likelihood of occurrence. they are prone to other types of error as well. Her hands and voice quivered. He was driving. I like to watch boxing. I was confused by the results I was getting. I didn’t recognise her at first. they were frustrated and angry with each other. Then one evening into my office came a student from my first-year Critical Thinking class. like encounters with fairies and werewolves.D. but she’d nagged him.
2004) have been studied extensively. Iwasaki. the quest for a better understanding of the causality and prevention of roadway mishaps has become an urgent task for safety researchers. for instance.1 Background of the Study With an estimated 1.. Theeuwes. policy-makers. road. This is particularly salient in developing countries. Enns. Peters & Peters. 1999). 2000. Olson.g. Trick. 2002) and their impairment (de Raedt & Ponjaert-Kristofferson. 2004). where rates of roadway accidents and deaths have been consistently higher than in other parts of the world (Peden & Hyder. Drivers’ performance and avoidance of collisions depend on their skills. Sleet. environment and human characteristics on the risk of accidental events and fatalities. commented that.2 million deaths in motor vehicle crashes worldwide (Peden. Mills & Vavrik. 2007. highway engineers and automotive design specialists. Graham. kinaesthetic (Zhang & Chaffin. perceptual (Hong.. Sabey (1999). 1996.CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1. state of mind and physical well-being. including the 1 . the most prevalent factors have been human failures associated with speed. Green. “human factors play a major role in road accidents. Verwey. 2006. such as Malaysia. perceptual-motor processes (Young & Stanton. 2002. Scurfield. 2001). 2002) and road safety engineering (e. leading to a rich information base for regarding humancentred design as a “requirement for all elements in the traffic system. 2001. Stanton & Pinto. 2002). cognitive (Vaa.g. Drivers’ attentional (Most & Astur. Consistently over the years. judgement. 2007. Mohan & Hyder. Even after decades of study. Furuichi & Kadoma. much of the recent attention on causal elements in roadway crashes has focused on the human factors involved. 2000). 11). perceptual difficulties and drink driving” (p. anticipation. 2000). 2004). scholars still search to identify the relative effects of vehicle. Ogden. Notwithstanding the extensive literature that exists on safety design factors for automotive products (e.
The chapter 1. locus of control. including the study of a large number of variables.790. McKenna. the vehicle and the new technologies that are increasingly being deployed by the road and fitted in vehicles” (Carsten. 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. The high rate of roadway accidents and deaths has been described in both scholarly and popular print or internet media in extreme terms. 2004. 2005). A total of 10. “the literature on personality has a long history. p.000 fatalities were recorded (Ministry of Transport Malaysia. with the intent to determine the degree to which measures of aggression.732 motor vehicles were registered in 2006. 1983). often labelled as “tragic” (Koh.351. 2007). More challenging has been the attempt to link personality and psychosocial variables to driver behaviour and performance.252 accidents in 2006 and over 6. concludes by noting the delimitations of the research. 21). 2002. Malaysia is also a nation with a disproportionately high frequency of motor vehicle accidents. 1989).112). as a “social menace”(Abdul Kareem. behavioural and attitudinal characteristics of drivers and the environmental situations in which they find themselves (Haight.roadway. 2 . There was a total of 341. This first chapter of this dissertation presents the background of the study. describes its significance and presents an overview of the methodology used. there are conflicting findings and associated problems with this research” (p. 1949) have since been replaced by more complex explanations that focus on the interaction between emotional. 2003). and as a “major public health problem” (Subramaniam. The research comprised five separate studies of Malaysian drivers aged 18 to 73 years.332 drivers and 15. This dissertation is a report of research into relevant psychosocial variables and their effects on self-reported driving behaviour.2 Road Safety in Malaysia Malaysia is a nation of motor vehicle users. According to Dewar (2002b). However.
that allow for better prediction and explanation of roadway crashes (Risser & Nickel. 2007). 1993. 1997). 2006. 1997. 2006. Investigations of individual differences have included driver age and gender (Beck. Hwang. Shinar. 2001). Verwey. and the past twenty years has seen the emergence of the new discipline of traffic and transport psychology (Barjonet & Tortosa. Wells-Parker et al. Parada & Cortes. Elander. Ball & Rizzon. 2004. 3 . 1997). Özkan. and (b) the elimination or reduction of effects of task-induced or environmental stressors on human performance when driving (Brown. locus of control (Arthur. Wu & Yen. ethno-cultural background (Byrd. Trimpop & Kirkcaldy. 1999. Barjonet & Tortosa. Rimmö. 2001. 1994. Hence. Schwebel. Huang. Cohn. 2002. Loo. West & French. easily generalised to a variety of cultural and social settings. 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. 2002) and many others. 2005. 2004. 1979. often with widely varying results (Dewar. 1997). 2001. Hartos & Simons-Martin. Barrett & Alexander. 2005). 2002b. 1991. Gal & Syna Desevilya. Vasconcellos. 2003). 2003. 1997). Severson. aggression (Parkinson. 2002. Blasco. Renner & Anderle. Huguenin (2005) has argued that the field of traffic psychology arises from an “interdisciplinary. Gidron. attitudinal and personality correlates of roadtraffic crash risk. Historically. Wells. 3). integrative and international viewpoint based on application in order to address changing situations and objectives” (p. Sumala & Zakowska. 2000). 2002. 2000. Many studies have been devoted to the examination of behavioural. 2004). Lin. Lajunen & Summala. 2005. Ulleberg. leading many researchers and safety organisations to regard road safety as a leading international development issue (Garg & Hyder. there has been an increasing recognition of the need for theoretical formulations and specific models. Dewar.Trends toward high rates of motor vehicle crashes and fatalities have been observed in developing countries world-wide (Peden et al. Draskóczy. Gonzalez. risk-taking and sensation-seeking (Horswill & Coster. Lajunen & Kaistinen. Stewart.
has recently proposed a promising contextual mediated model which distinguishes between distal (i. Noy (1997). Sümer (2003).. theoretical basis for traffic psychology (Huguenin. 2005).e. Richardson and Downe (2000) and others have argued that there is a need to take into consideration the myriad of interactions between driver characteristics and the driving context and even between driver psychological variables themselves. with resulting outcomes often involving crash and injury. 1.3 The Problem Statement Given widespread awareness about the high rates of death and injury resulting from motor vehicle crashes worldwide and in Malaysia. with the risk of roadway casualty? 4 . Hampson & Morris. aberrant driving behaviours) variables in predicting traffic accident involvement. This has led to a growing interest in modelling human behaviour involved in the driving task and. however. in turn. leaving the field with inadequate theory development from which testable.. vehicle. it has been recognised that the psychosocial factors involved in driving safely differ greatly across the range of human. 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. 1996. personality and demographic) and proximal (i. 1997). drivers still operate automobiles and motorcycles in ways that reduce the likelihood of safe arrival at destinations. A frequent criticism. Parker. falsifiable hypotheses might be drawn (Summala. in developing general and specific cognitive models of individuals’ interaction with the world around them (Brown. Speeding. for instance. loss of attention and the deliberate usurpation of right-of-way are frequent behaviours in traffic. 2004). has been that such behavioural models have seldom been used as the foundation for developing an integrated. externally-focused frustration. What demographic and personality factors are associated and interact with unsafe driving behaviour and.Increasingly. road and environmental conditions that comprise the driving situation.e. 1997. in particular.
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. 9). but also on their interactions. the present research might be seen as making a contribution to our growing understanding of that very interface. psychological and behavioural variables inherent in the dynamics leading motor vehicle crashes. situated as proximal variables. By focusing on not only demographic.4 The Professional Significance of the Study With the frequency of roadway crashes. with a view to assessing which preventive measures would be most effective. By better understanding the manner in which psychosocial characteristics of individuals might predispose them to engage in unsafe driving behaviour. 5 . 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. This is both a key goal and a persistent challenge within the emerging field of traffic psychology. p. (c) driver locus of control. “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. (b) driving experience. 2005. injuries and deaths. it becomes possible to construct a broader awareness of how demographic and personality variables contribute to motor vehicle crashes. in which distal psychosocial factors exert an influence on behavioural tendencies more proximally related to the crash event. this research is important to organisations and people concerned with driving safety. and (f) drivers’ hostile automatic thoughts would not only affect each other but also four self-reported measures of behaviour in traffic. While there is no doubt that collective knowledge pertaining to the causality and prevention of roadway crashes is growing exponentially. (e) driver aggression. 1. Fifteen hypotheses are formulated to predict that distal variables including: (a) driver age. Results of the resulting analyses are detailed in chapter 3. gender and ethnicity.The aim of the present research is to determine those factors contributing to traffic accidents on Malaysia roadways. (d) driver hopelessness.
Rothengatter. Some authors have suggested that. 1997). It is also the first attempt to examine closely the effects of the psychological construct of hopelessness on driver behaviour. 2004). 1993). The present research adds to the growing body of literature dealing with driver aggression and its various forms of expression. Näätänen & Summala. 2004. 1974). the development and adaptation of in-vehicle safety devices or intelligent transportation systems and the construction of models to foster additional research. “models that focus on specific aspects of road user behaviour seem capable of providing useful frameworks for organising and interpreting data … but experience suggests that such models are more likely to be useful if they are based on the consideration of empirical data rather than being derived from theoretical issues” (Grayson. 1997. p. Despite considerable popular attention to the problem of motor vehicle crashes and fatalities in the developing countries of Southeast Asia. 94). Moreover. 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. Hatakka. 2000). Katila & Peräaho. There is a growing sentiment that. 2005. Recent trends in the philosophy of science call conventional hypothetico-deductive processes into question (Becker. the plethora of theories available. the Malaysian setting has remained relatively understudied (Richardson & Downe. Utzelmann. road safety measures and public policy. 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. 2001. Findings of the present research have implications for driver selection and training.Of particular interest may be variables related to driver affect. in the applied sciences. an area that some authors have argued is overlooked in the current literature (Keskinen. Laapotti. all of which have been noted as purposes for traffic psychology (Brown & Noy. 6 . they also have implications for a broader “theory versus model” debate in traffic psychology.
This has left the door open for largely unsupported speculation about the character of Malaysian drivers and. cultural anthropology and applied psychology. This broader perspective. In doing so. 1. human motivation. and is appropriate for this examination of psychosocial features of the Malaysian driver. and on the manner in which those factors interact to affect safety outcomes on the roadway. with emphasis on the importance of model comprehensiveness as a factor in addition to goodness-of-fit. in turn. 2005) and attempts to link driver performance to road engineering (e. goes some distance in differentiating the present study from other more narrowly-defined examinations of driver behaviour. attitude theory..5 Overview of the Methodology Questions about how the study was conducted and the choice of research methods are answered fully in chapter 3. although adding additional layers of variables and complexity to the analysis. very little research has been focused on the psychological and social features of the motoring population in Malaysia. this work represents the first instance in which Baron & Kenny’s (1986) widely-cited procedure for establishing mediation has been performed using logistic regression. 7 . Certain methodological considerations add to the professional significance of this research. Radin Umar.g.. Selection of alternate structural equation models is also discussed. incorporating cognitive ergonomics. may be limiting the development of effective public policy and intervention measures. The present research contributes a new perspective by offering initial empirical observations on several psychosocial factors that could be important in understanding why Malaysian drivers behave as they do in traffic.Notwithstanding a handful of well-founded reviews of statistical trends and risk factors (e. A multi-disciplinary approach has been generally considered one of the hallmarks of the new field of traffic psychology (Rothengatter. this research draws on principles from a wide range of disciplines. which deals with methodology. It is useful. 2001). 2001).g. Che Ali. To the author’s knowledge.
Babin. moderating and mediating relationships between variables. Black. driving experience. or outcome. in their capacity to explain which specific predictors 8 . similar to a series of multiple regression equations. variables (Sekaran. Study 2 and Study 3. to include in this first chapter a general statement of the method used in order to round out the introductory picture presented. 1B and 1C). first. was a multi-dimensional path analysis depicting causal. hopelessness. the effects of selected demographic (age. aggression. Maruyama (1998) has argued that the two prominent reasons why researchers use structural equation modelling techniques lie. second. These equations depict all of the relationships among constructs (the dependent and independent variables) involved in the analysis” (Hair. This model drew on the similar conceptual theory used by Sümer (2003) in the construction of his earlier contextualmediated model. The present research applied an ex post facto research design. Structural equation models were also used to explain the relationships between these variables. access to vehicle) and psychological (locus of control. each entailing data collection from a different sample. freeway urgency. in which there was no direct manipulation of independent variables in the laboratory or field setting. hostile automatic thoughts) on four self-reported measures of behaviour in traffic (usurpation of right-of-way. gender. The present research consisted of three studies: Study 1. p. In this case. In Study 1. 2003). The final result.however. but where differences which already existed between subject groups on independent measures were evaluated to determine their naturally-occurring influence on dependent. destination-oriented activity) and two self-reported measures of accidentrelated (crash occurrence and injury occurrence) outcomes were assessed. externally-focused frustration. 2006. Structural equation modelling is a family of statistical methods that “examines the structure of interrelationships expressed in a series of equations. three separate phases were carried out (Study 1A. different combinations of variables were added to the respective structured equation model and the level of complexity was examined. 711). driving (experience. at the conclusion of Study 1C. In each successive study. in their capacity to predict outcomes and. cultural background). Anderson & Tatham.
Generalisability of the present study may be constrained by the single-setting of the subject pool and the limitations of the particular methods selected. 9 .6 Delimitations All research is confined by the boundaries of its scope and design. In Study 3. representative of the characteristics of high-risk Malaysian drivers. Student participants sampled for two of the three studies were selected from an undergraduate population at a single university.are most important in predicting. After the initial model-building had been completed. These are discussed in detail in chapter 5 of the thesis but relevant issues are introduced here. where it is argued that the “convenience sample” used in the model-building phases was. This issue is discussed at some length in chapter 5 of the thesis. a model was constructed using a sample of undergraduate participants for whom motorcycles were the primary mode of transport. Again. leaving room for questions about the generalisability of findings to populations within and outside Malaysia. verbally administered psychometric instruments. behavioural inventories and personal profile questionnaires.to 45-minute trips. over the course of 30. in fact. this time sampling professional taxicab drivers in the Kuala Lumpur area. a third model was constructed. In Study 2. with resulting variable relationships compared to the model that had been built from the responses of automobile users in Study 1. A team of researchers flagged down taxi drivers at random and. data were collected through classroom-based group administration of research instruments. Such predictive capabilities were considered to be of importance in any examination of the dynamics leading to risks of roadway crashes and fatalities. 1. 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.
close following or taking aggressive actions against another driver or vehicle. af Wählberg (2003) outlined three significant methodological deficiencies that have plagued the study of traffic accident predictors. (b) time-period for calculating accident frequency. The present research. as well. Finally. while recognising the distinction. Lapses involve problems with attention and memory and include such things as switching on one thing when meaning to switch on something else. The relationship between the manner 10 . at least to a certain extent. there has been a vigorous debate about the utility of self-report measures in safety research for several years. Are the attitudes.Concerns with research of this nature also frequently centre around the question of self-reported data. is discussed in chapter 5 of the thesis. The prevalence of self-report measures in traffic safety research. much of the recent driving safety literature has distinguished between errors. with some authors emphasizing methodological risks (af Wählberg. lapses and violations as differing behavioural responses underlying the crash event (Reason. Boyce & Geller. 1990). including: (a) test-retest reliability of predictors. did not specifically compare these driving patterns within the context of participants’ self-reported behaviour in traffic. The present research included procedural elements to mitigate. In a meta-review of traffic safety research. social desirability or response set biases? Indeed. However. Violations are deliberate deviations from those practices believed to be necessary to safely operate a vehicle and include such behaviours as speeding. 1997). such as failing to check the rear-view mirror before pulling out or changing lanes. Manstead. and (c) culpability for crash outcomes. against the first two and these are covered in chapter 2. the research did not address the question of differences arising from the extent to which drivers considered themselves to be liable for the self-reported crash outcomes. 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. Keskinen. 2001) and others down-playing them (Hattaka. along with its implications for the validity of results and potential alternative methodologies. 2002. Baxter & Campbell. Stradling. Katila & Laapotti.
in which behaviour in traffic was measured in this research and the dimensions offered by Reason et al is discussed in chapter 5. 11 .
and as a “major public health problem” (Subramaniam. A developing country in Southeast Asia. they indicated “angry”. “patient”. Malaysian drivers have been consistently characterized as “confrontational”. “selfish” (“Our Roads are Filled”. Over 6. in aggregate. 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. industrialisation and motorisation.CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 2. 1989).1. 2007). “reckless”. 2005). The high rate of roadway accidents and deaths has been described in scholarly and popular print or internet media in extreme terms. Downe and Loke (2004) reported that.1 Human Factors and the Motor Vehicle Safety Problem in Malaysia Roadway Crashes in Malaysia and Public Perceptions of Causality In 2006. Malaysia has experienced remarkable increases in population.252 motor vehicle accidents in Malaysia. Recently. “obnoxious” and “cowardly” (“Cowardly Malaysian Drivers”.1 2. or as “negligent” (“Malaysia Records Highest Single-Day Death Toll”. “peaceful”. 2005). “friendly”. “bullies” and “selfish”.000 fatalities were recorded (Ministry of Transport Malaysia. 2007). 2007). inconsiderate and aggressive. often labelled as “tragic” (Koh. “impatient”. Nation-wide statistics seem to underscore the popular concern over safety issues. in order of frequency. as a social “menace”(Abdul Kareem. to a rapid increase 12 . when asked to provide five adjectives which would “describe what Malaysians are like”. 2003). “laid-back” and “considerate”. a sample of 348 first-year university students indicated. In newspaper reports. economic expansion. 2005). but when asked to “describe what Malaysian drivers are like”. A succession of online weblogs and internet sites authored by tourists and local writers alike have condemned Malaysian drivers as dangerous. the Minister of Health characterised Malaysian roads as “worse than a war zone”. pointing out that annual fatalities exceed the total deaths among American combat personnel over four years of fighting in Iraq (Zolkepli. These are thought to have contributed. 2006). 2007). “ugly motorists” (“Rude Drivers”. there were 341. “discourteous” (Davin Arul.
to 25-year-old age group (see table 2.20 deaths per 10.000 vehicles in 2006. Subramaniam & Law.in the number of road traffic crashes (Abdul Kareem. 2005).287 9.552 37.218 2005 6. 2005).287 in 2006.653 2004 326.2).415 52.236 49.252 in 2006 (Ministry of Transport Malaysia.1 summarises the five-year incidence of crashes and injuries.091 37. 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.264 2006 341.425 5. in Malaysia.425 2003 6.109 in 1996 to a total of 341.417 47.000 vehicles (Law. the number of crashes has increased 80% over the past ten years.741 38. one- third of all crashes in Malaysia involve automobile users or motorcyclists within the 16. Abdul Rahman.645 54. 2003.228 9.252 Motor Vehicle Casualties 2002 Fatalities Severe Injuries Minor Injuries Total 35.012 19.200 9.885 35. 2002-2006 Motor Vehicle Crashes 2002 Total 279. Radin Umar.000 vehicles in 1996 to 3. from 189. 2005). Table 2.040 2004 6. higher than any other age grouping or combination of consecutive age groupings. Studies 13 . The number of road fatalities has decreased slightly from 6.253 source: Royal Malaysian Police (2007) The road accident death rate in Malaysia dropped from 8.286 9. Generally. 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. Mohd Zulkiflee. & Wong. In Malaysia.7111 2003 298. but still lags behind frequencies in developed countries which generally fall below 3 deaths per 10.815 2005 328. This suggests that studies.98 deaths per 10.304 in 1994 to 6.395 2006 6. Table 2.891 8. 2007).1: Malaysian Roadway Crashes and Casualties.
Palamara.68 128 0.23 2. It has been reported that.40 1.45 30 0.023 5. has resulted in considerable economic loss for the country.05 2.620 7.56 3.08 541 2.94 1.65 2.469 15.29 708 3.416 6. 2001.99 164 0. or about 2.27 458 2.820 13.94 625 3.4 billion to RM5. general insurers paid RM1.038 13.67 206 0.97 1.803 9.of university-aged drivers are critical to understanding behavioural and situational factors that predict the most commonly occurring class of crashes (Stevenson.80 203 0.37 337 1.418 100 19.48 105 0.15 43 0.205 11.6 million a day on motor claims (Abdul Kareem.551 12.49 450 2.180 10.086 9.216 10.08 1.07 2.06 608 3.26 463 2.16 90 0.48 323 1. in 1999 alone.15 3.67 billion.178 15.08 585 2. Some Ministry of Health estimates of medical costs alone have been as high as RM5.61 99 0. 2006). and particularly among younger drivers.77 3. 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. 2001).593 11.005 15.71 543 2.63 160 0. 2005).997 14.76 22.947 10. 14 .85 147 0.025 9.07 2.64 135 0.85 2. 2002. 2003).315 17.448 17.431 7.378 11.91 984 4. Recent international analyses have placed the total economic burden at around RM7 billion yearly.2: Numbers of Automobile Drivers and Motorcyclists Involved in Road Crashes by Age Group 2000 2001 2002 2003 Number % Number % Number % Number % 37 0.94 2.92 2.309 10.034 4.05 1.15 572 2.967 100 19.29 2.329 100 source:Royal Malaysian Police (2000.389 6.65 121 0. with one road accident victim admitted to hospital every six minutes (Bernama.54 708 3.110 10.47 280 1.05 2.953 17. or an average of RM4.92 1.81 2.11 2.84 1.10 3.50 979 4.82 1.90 159 0.81 3.4% of the Gross Domestic Product (Asian Development Bank. Morrison & Ryan.7 billion.81 1.21 3.08 2.049 15.709 8.921 100 20.341 12.68 3.31 3.72 554 2. Table 2.41 302 1.22 150 0.
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. 1999). Some seven years later. economic figures and accident statistics provide only partial indications of the impact of the highway safety problem on Malaysian society. In 1999. 2006). 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. There is no way to A popular measure the grief of those who have lost their loved ones. (Bernama.Yet. Public interest and political frustration has given rise to extensive speculation over the possible causes of the problem. The loss of potential income of the dead and maimed in turn dwarfs those medical outlays (Bakri Musa. but miniscule compared to the expenses of medical care and rehabilitation. signs and lighting have been levied in certain quarters 15 . 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. Criticisms of road configuration. 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. In spite of numerous road safety campaigns the number of accident cases have been increasing. or the pain of the maimed. which is actually a nightmare. lane definition. What else can we do. if people want to die? (Lim. 2005). traffic congestion. But it is nothing compared to bringing down the number of road deaths. physician and journalist has commented that: The human toll is unquantifiable.
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 . The relatively high population of motorcycle riders. newspaper columnists. Who they are. 1997). Krishnan & Radin Umar. 2001. unlike in other countries. approximately 45 per cent of all registered vehicles in 2006 (Road Transport Department Malaysia. They are also bad in giving ample time to others and this is an example of non-defensive driving.215 deaths among motorcar drivers and passengers. 2005). 2007).693 deaths among motorcycle operators and pillion riders. given greater risks of accident. as compared with 1. though. In a recent newspaper interview. 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. In 2006. 2005). 2007). most accounts have come around to commenting on driver demographic and behavioural characteristics as significant factors in motor vehicle crashes (Che Ali. Researchers. serious injury and death (Per and Al Haji. is often mentioned as a factor. 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. Generally. 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. 2006). Those countries have had a motoring culture for nearly a century but our road-users are relatively newer to motoring (Sadiq. Maybe these drivers just never realised how simple it is to avoid accidents (Looi. for instance. how they think. the Royal Malaysian Police (2007) reported 3.(Abdul Rahman et al. They don’t even stop to look left and right or look in the rear view mirror.
In a separate study. perhaps. In none of the studies of the MSP. Bartle & Truman. Conducting time-series regression analyses of police data. In the same study. 2007). (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. conspicuity and excessive speeding. 2. they reported that the Asian-wide economic recession significantly contributed to a reduction in traffic fatalities. Radin Umar and Kulanthayan (1999) found that the same MSP had significantly improved motorcycle riders’ perception and understanding of safety issues. causal factors underlying crash and injury rates on Malaysian roadways have remained largely understudied. due to fewer trips and reduced traffic exposures as a result of slower economic activity. rather than personality factors. 17 . The research that has been undertaken has tended to focus largely on the contribution of broader economic and social variables. Musa. reasons and social contexts of motorcycle use (Reeder. Law. Zulkaurnain and Kulanthayan (2005) examined the impact of economic variables on motorcycle-related crashes. was personality or demographic factors of motorcyclist samples investigated. Law et al. Mohd Nasir. a needed focus in the analysis of programme effects. respectively. This is. 2007) and crash Type And liability (Clarke. Ward.2 Studies of Causal Factors in Malaysian Roadway Crashes Notwithstanding this public outcry. however. Ahmad Hariza. Chalmers & Langley. or else on the evaluation of specific safety interventions. with a 27% and 38% drop in the rate of motorcycle casualties and motorcycle fatalities. injuries and fatalities. Radin Umar. since studies in other parts of the world have found that individual differences play a significant role in determining rider training outcomes.general understanding of the causes and potential prevention strategies related to the country’s traffic safety problem.1. MSP interventions had been aimed at modifying motorcycle riders’ awareness and attitudes of safety issues related to helmet use. risky behaviour (Chang & Yeh. 1996). For instance.
The very monotony of the road surface. 121-122). 110). a capacity that makes them distinct as a society” (p. resulted in a myriad of problems. He argued that. generalising to all driving environments and situations. road engineers devoted their efforts to creating a public artery in which speed and limited stoppage were design priorities. however. he argued that national leadership intended it to be both a symbol of progress. This. Although the expressway was meant to avoid both traffic and accidents. they are accident prone. 18 . these conflicting aims of speed and safety seemed to exacerbate them. 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. Describing the expressway as a “stunning infrastructural achievement” (p. the factor that made the high speeds possible.122).Williamson (2003) offered a number of socio-political explanations for roadway safety issues in Malaysia as part of his analysis of the social effects of the national north-south expressway that. According to Williamson. 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. “many Malaysians claim that as drivers. including speeding and falling asleep at the wheel (“N-S Highway”. has linked peninsular communities. motivated largely by the government’s fear of unregulated public assembly. 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. 1996). 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.
“human behaviour makes a direct contribution to crash risk through the extent of knowledge and understanding of traffic systems. personality and behavioural characteristics of drivers has not been exclusive to the Malaysian scene. This has included the examination of age and gender. experiential. bad road conditions. The majority of accidents are not caused by problems of the vehicle. Because at least one driver is involved in every traffic crash.2. 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. Christ. but rather 19 .2. 1993. Human factors are far more important than engineering factors. According to the Commission for Global Road Safety (2006). West and French. 62). Evans (1996) further argued that changes in driver behaviour offer. Among human factors. Among engineering factors. driver experience and skill and the relationship between risk and factors such as speed choice and alcohol consumption” (p. driver behaviour (what the driver chooses to do) has much greater influence on safety than driver performance (what the driver can do). 784). Åberg. etc.1 The Professional Background Human Factors in Roadway Crashes: A Vexing Research Challenge Attention to the demographic. particularly. Panosch and Bukasa (2004) argued that: Road safety is less a technical but rather a human factors problem. 1993). roadway engineering has a much greater influence than automotive engineering (p. 1991). by far. levels of driving experience and.2 2. personality characteristics (Elander. the largest opportunities for harm reduction: A clear hierarchy of factors can be specified. 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.
organisational climate (Caird & Kline. 2002. (b) the choice of time periods for calculating the frequency of crash-related outcomes. 377). in reviewing early findings on human factors in this field. The lack of progress in trying to identify psychological factors that cause. prior accident experience (Lin et al. empirical findings to date about the relationship between driver characteristics. psychological factors may play different roles according to driver age (Dumais et al. the individual-centered approach directly focuses on traffic relevant performance and personality aspects. 1994). Ranney. 2005). While the system-centered approach aims at creating those road conditions that reduce the chance of accidents in advance. However. Haddon (1963). conflicting or of relatively little importance (Iversen & Rundmo. 641). personality and traffic safety have been regarded by many as debatable. 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. 2004). Further. 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. or at least predict. and (c) the failure to differentiate between culpable and non-culpable crashes. 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. weak. 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.by the behaviour of drivers. unclear. 2004) and other contextual variables. Lajunen & Summala. to a large degree. He conducted a meta-analysis of some 136 previous studies researching the effects of at least one psychological predictor of 20 . as well as on the attitudes and behaviour of single drivers (p.
2 The Emergence of Traffic Psychology as a Scientific Discipline 2. the use of inconsistent crash definitions.2. 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. motivation and behavioural performance as potential underlying causal factors in driver behaviour (Jonah. there has been an interest in driver personality. the picture that emerges is indeed grave. especially considering the salience of transportation in the routines of daily life. driving behaviour and crash-related outcomes include: the use of self-reported crash data. Preston & Harris. 1965) but did not really gain momentum until the 1980s (Risser. information processing. the lack of replication of many studies. 21 . Nevertheless. 1961. 2005). 2003).2. and we are left with a very vague knowledge of what psychological variables can actually predict accidents (p. Underwood & Milton. the extent of exposure of drivers to the driving task (af Wahlberg. psychologists have given scant attention to this topic.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. Wagenaar & van Koppen.2.1 An Applied Perspective Ever since Tillman and Hobbs (1949) stated that “a man drives as he lives” (p. accuracy of witness recall of crash details (Crombag. 2003). 2002. It would seem that very few of the studies on accident predictors are actually possible to interpret in any straightforward way. and the influence of car and driver stereotypes on attributions of crash blameworthiness (Davies & Patel. 1993). 321). Novaco (2000) argued that: The field of transportation has always had a rich potential for psychology. 482). Other methodological factors that may cloud the relationship between psycho-social variables. 1996. 1997a). 2.
4). To wit.” (p. in the field of traffic. This includes the research that serves this purpose” (p.2.2 A Multidisciplinary Approach From the outset. that individuals tend to combine their interests in traffic psychology with some other area of specialisation such as educational psychology. ergonomics. According to Rothengatter (2001). or peculiar to. medicine. attitudes about the origin and destination of the trip and resources for choosing alternative travel modes and schedules. as a general objective to minimise the harmful effects of traffic participation” (p. traffic and transportation. or the psychological support for intervention. traffic psychology has drawn from multidisciplinary perspectives. “the task of traffic psychology is to understand. Huguenin (2005) defines traffic psychology as “the psychological intervention. Temes and Hermida (2001) found. eoncompassing engineering. 2. predict and provide measures to modify road user behaviour at the levels identified with. psychology. Groeger (2002) argued that there is “no psychology which is specific to. Indeed. 246).2. anthropology and sociology.654-655. These interrelationshps provide a vast terrain for psychological research (pp. but that complex traffic 22 . 3). 4) and describes it as an “interdisciplinary. conferences and coordination of professional affiliations ever since (Groeger.) The Traffic and Transportation Psychology Division of the International Association of Applied Psychology was established in 1994 and there has been a steady growth in publications. transportation planning.Transportation systems shape the structure of our communities and impact the well-being of individuals … People’s reactions to the inconvenience and discomfort of a particular journey depend on many intertwined psychological processes including personality disposition. 2002). in a Spanish survey. integrative and international viewpoint based on application in order to address changing situations and objectives” (p. Ochando.
a paradigm that has been applied increasingly to driving safety questions in developing countries (Dharmaratne & Ameratunga. Wilson. 2000). 24). 1997. 2004. Odero. there have been 103 papers published in the Ergonomics journal alone. It also includes the rules of the highway code Saad (2002) governing the use of the road infrastructure and interactions with other users. 1158). the study of cognitive processes. which are sometimes expressed in road markings and road signs (p. Hyder & Peden. the design of vehicle automation and a deeper understanding of why drivers behave as they do” (p. the road infrastructure and other road users. Johnston. as well. 2007. ergonomics is concerned with identifying and designing technical and organisational means for facilitating the driver’s interaction with the road environment. surrounding environments and 23 . and of cognitive control over vehicle and highway systems involved (Bridger. Ergonomics has made a contribution. the road environment comprises the vehicle. Peden & Hyder. 2002). emphasising the primacy of attitudes and attributions. Spielberger and Frank (1992) made similar comments with regard to the contribution of health psychology through the use of public health models and methodologies. and that “ergonomics has much to offer in the design of driver education and training programmes. both by providing a better understanding of human-machine interaction. In the broadest sense. 2003. Much of the ergonomic research carried out to date has been focused on adapting motor vehicle conveyances. the design of driver interfaces and driver assistance systems with motor vehicles. in particular. Parker (2004) pointed to the role played by social psychology in the area of road safety. Stanton (2007) noted that. In a recent special edition. Garner and Zwi. which she described as the two main planks of social cognition.behaviour is a very important and worthwhile test-bed for psychology and psychological theory and. commented that: From the perspective of the driver. 1995. over the past ten years.
“This school of though.3.1 Theories of Driving Behaviour Concepts. This involves the coherent grouping of general propositions for use as principles in explaining various classes of driving phenomena. 26). Concepts are the building blocks for theory and may be defined as: 24 . According to Barjonet & Tortosa (2001). 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. 2004).3 2. Noy. 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. Theories and Models In attempting to understand. Walker. These applications are consistent with the paradigms Boff (2006) has described as “Generation Two” ergonomics. particularly the notions of mental load. Jannssen. which focuses on symbiotic technologies that amplify human physical and cognitive capabilities.tasks to human capabilities and limitations. a paradigm that Boff (2006) described as “Generation One” ergonomics. and “Generation Three” ergonomics. in which the goal is to manage automation and dynamic function allocations. Stanton & Young. Increasingly. though. 2001). predict and modify road user behaviour. 2. error and cognitive modelling. 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. 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. 2006. Neerincx & Schriebers. which assumes a necessary communication between person and machine led to a dialogue between the various designers of car interiors. traffic psychologists frequently engage in theory-building. 1997.
Concepts can be linked together to form a theory. 1969).. but for the purposes of this thesis. many models have been proposed. Ericsson & Bourne Jr. “theory” is a term used interchangeably with the word “model”. 1995). or accident-causing behaviours. Many of the theories that have been proposed have failed to generate testable hypotheses. whether theories should explain everyday driving. Reasons for this are likely several. there is no generally accepted theory which elucidates principles from which a broad. which is then followed by a process of generalisation (Schneider. Concepts are formed by a process of mental abstraction. or both. 2005). often in mathematical form. in traffic psychology. Ranney (1994) pointed out that it has never been clear. In traffic psychology. generalisable understanding of the driving process can be deduced.A word or set of words that expresses a general idea concerning the nature of something or the relations between things. p. To a degree. the latter is defined more narrowly as “a set of assumptions or postulates. A-18) Often. often providing a category for the classification of phenomena (Theodorson & Theodorson. p. this may be due to 25 . each ordering driving reality from its own particular set of empirical observations.2 Traffic Psychology: Slow Progress in Theory-Building Theory development in traffic psychology has not progressed well (Summala. 8) Any set of systematically interrelated concepts or hypotheses that purports to explain and predict phenomena (Robbins. 2005. 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. Healy. On the other hand. which attempts to provide a generalised working construct that can account for empirical data or relationships” (Chaplin. 1985).3. 2000. 2.
it is highly improbable that a single theoretical stance is likely to be sufficient to account for behaviour in traffic. Groeger and Rothengatter (1998) argued that. Rothengatter. perceptions. 26 . social. but it is also a reflection that the driving task is a highly sophisticated multi-factorial process involving perceptual. or ever had sufficient knowledge of possible outcomes on which to base a deliberate action (p. motives and personalities (Robbins. These may be classified as: theories of individual differences. risk adaptation theories.. avoid obstacles. 189). enjoy driving. not all people act exactly alike and this is a function of their differing values. Instead. it does not mean that the driver had safety as a primary goal. … Just because we as investigators have an understanding of safety as a goal. cognitive. and emotional determinants. researchers have been trying to determine individual differences that lead to disparities in crash occurrence and outcomes and the literature associated with differential road-crash involvement is extensive. taskcapability frameworks and attitude-behaviour models (Keskinen et al. attitudes. 2002). the driver’s aspirations are to reach destinations. For over ninety years. five areas of theory attempt to explain and predict driving behaviour. and most of the time is not especially influential.3 The Individual Differences Approach Placed in similar situations. minimise delay and driving time. Groeger (2000) took a similar position with regard to the range of driver motivations: Although any rational analysis would surely place preservation of one’s own personal safety at the heart of the concerns of a driver.the imprecise definition of concepts. 2. etc.3. Notwithstanding these difficulties. 2004. 2005). feel in control. given the complexity of human behaviour. I believe it is but one of the goals a driver has. hierarchical theories of driver adaptation.
1980) and other safety outcomes. 2000). the extraversion variable has been associated with a higher frequency of traffic offences (Renner & Anderle. According to Rothengatter (2002). However. found that a sample of young Canadian automobile drivers. There have been theories of crash causation that have focused on particular groups of 27 . extraversion was found to predict traffic accidents. while the second high-risk group reported high sensation-seking. without driving violations had lower scores on measures of risk-taking behaviour. aggression. thrill and adventure seeking and tended to avoid socially stimulating situations when compared with violators. 1995. Ulleberg (2001) found two high-risk groups. Similar studies of driver risk-taking and other individual differences have been largely absent with Asian populations and non-existent in Malaysia. Of the five factors examined – extraversion. but not occupational accidents. Lajunen (2001) reported that countries with high extraversion scores had more traffic fatalities than those with moderate or low extraversion scores. poorer perception of traffic signs (Loo. In an attempt to identify subtypes of young Norwegian drivers. the first of which was characterised by low levels of altruism and anxiety and high levels of sensation-seeking. agreeableness and openness – the authors found low conscientiousness and low agreeableness to be valid and generalisable predictors of accident involvement in both occupational and non-occupational settings. 1979). 1990). the search for individual differences relevant to crash involvement continues to yield a large body of literature. Drawing from a large pool of data that included personality measures and both traffic and work-related statistics for 34 nations. crash frequency (Pestonjee & Singh. “these findings have yet to be embodied in a general theory of differential crash risk. McRae &Costa. conscientiousness. or “Big Five” personality model (Costa & McRae. 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). irresponsibility and driving related aggression. for instance. aged 16 to 29 years. neuroticism. In a large number of studies of specific samples from various countries.Trimpop and Kirkcaldy (1997). anxiety and driving anger.
personality. found first that the frequency of accidents. 2. sensori-motor skill. but persists today. his or her accident proneness. The designation of a high-λ individual as “accident prone” implied that. 1984). 290). “irrespective of environment. during and following the war years.3. but none have attempted a more general integration” (Elander.1 Accident Proneness One concept that sought to integrate individual differences within a predictive theory relates to the “accident-prone personality”. Research by board statisticians. It provided a challenge to the psychology profession to devise a way to measure it. If each individual has a unique λ-value. West & French.3. The individual values of each worker’s λ became known as the degree of accident proneness. p. or higher conative or cognitive function” (Cresswell & Froggat. The difficulty was that no one knew how to determine its value for a given individual. the average number of accidents. occupational and otherwise. the British government established the British Industrial Fatigue Research Board. that individual is more likely at all times to incur an accident than his colleagues even though exposed to equal risk. differed from person to person (Greenwood & Yule. 1920). and that this is due to some characteristic or summation of characteristics associated with corporeal dexterity. 1993. In 1917. λ. 1962.finding. According to Haight (2004). in certain cases. an idea that has had an uneven level of acceptance by ergonomists and traffic psychologists through the years. weight and perhaps even intelligence. it should be a reasonably simple matter to find 28 . in response to concern over the number of accidental deaths and injuries in World War I production industries (Blackler & Shimmin. ‘Accident proneness’ had a nice ring to it. could be modelled almost exactly by the Poisson distribution but then that. just as one can meaure height. p.152).
noting that. replicable result that correlated substantially with the accident experience of individuals (Haight. with a series of tests constructed by Greenwood and Woods (1919). perhaps physiological. that high-λ group would be comprised of the same individuals or of an entirely new cohort (Haight. 2004). 2004). 422). 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. at home. Arbous and Kerrich (1951) and much later McKenna (1983) systematically destroyed the supportive literature. inadequate or irrelevant. 294). Early work on the concept attempted to do just that. but did not take into consideration whether. it was pointed out are highly sensitive to the length of the survey period.out what that value is. 1991. inappropriate. as well. more probably psychological (p. produced a positive. 1997). 1939) and many others. Farmer and Chambers (1926. 1956). with extensive critiques that concluded statistical analyses were almost all invalid. 1929. Johnson (1946). Scores on the λ dimension. a certain percentage would experience a higher accident frequency than would other groups year after year. “Because crashes are so infrequent. The accident-prone concept. by devising clever tests. 195). however. Mintz and Blum (1949) argued that “the method of studying accident proneness by demonstrating that small percentages of people have large percentages of the accidents is unsound and fallacious” (p. with shorter periods giving sharper contrasts (Moore. in successive years. in any sample. but very low correlations between accident frequency at work. p. A study by Salminen and Heiskanen (1997) provided empirical support for this position. subjects reported significant. None of the experiments. in a Finnish telephone survey. 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. motivated largely by a desire to select lorry drivers in Europe who were less likely to become involved in costly roadway crashes (Barjonet & Tortosa. made an assumption that. in traffic or when playing 29 . The theory of the accident-prone individual also came under attack on a conceptual basis.
Neeleman and Rosmalen (2007) have published a meta-review of 79 studies. Despite the low repute in which many have regarded the accident proneness concept. it denotes an area of study rather than a theory. moving away from the main conceptual criticism of traditional 30 . in no case did correlations between traffic crashes and other types of accidents exceed r =. no stable personality characteristics that can be identified with accident-proneness have been discovered. Ultimately. the consensus position became that: Accident proneness as a concept has little use in practical accident prevention. Visser. It is seen as preferable to earlier formulations because it places more emphasis on contributing factors outside the person. The concept itself is ill-defined. nothing can be done to identify individuals who may be accident-prone in order to treat them or to remove them from areas of greatest risk.2 Differential Accident Involvement McKenna (1983) suggested that the accident proneness concept should be replaced by the less historically loaded term “differential accident involvement”. 1993). screened for operational and prevalence rates related to accident proneness within work. 562).. Alternative explanations must be found for persons experiencing multiple accidents (Lindsey. roadway. Only 15% of the studies included in their analysis had been conducted on road user crash experience. While their stated conclusion was that an accident prone group definitely existed.sports. Stolk. pp. sports and family settings. 1980. because individuals can experience multiple accidents because of chance alone and also because of a higher exposure to risk independent of personal factors” (p. This concept does not prejudge the issue of causation. it is still generating research and controversy (Vavrik. So.3. but the authors reported that the heterogeneous nature of sub-groups did not permit comparisons. and assumes that individuals may vary along a continuum with regard to factors that affect their risk of crash (Elander et al.3. “it is still difficult to identify the accident prone individuals that compose this group. Pijl.05. 2. 1998). therefore. 8-9).
concluded that differential crash risk is not readily accounted for by previous crash rates. Dewar (2002b) noted that the notion of differential liability allows for the observation that some individuals do. they adjust their behaviour to eliminate the discrepancy. suddenly confronted with uneven pavement. 2000). For example. 1988) proposed that a control mechanism operates to keep overall risk per unit time constant. in fact. researchers began to turn their attention to not-so-easy measures for changing driver behaviour.4. large earth-moving 31 .3. compulsory seatbelts and vehicle design improvements reduced motor vehicle crash fatalities. However. The introduction of divided highways. in a study of driving on icy roads. following their review of the literature. 2. After the relatively easy engineering measures were implemented to reduce the seriousness of the consequences of driver behaviour. substantially. A driver who enters a construction zone. experience more accidents than others.. 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. albeit not crash occurrence. crash barriers. Elander et al. 2.accident proneness (Chmiel. people strive to maintain a target level of risk all the time and.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. 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. Wilde (1982. but avoids the assumption of a stable phenomenon that accounts for more accidents in all situations. That is. when they perceive a discrepancy between the observed level of risk and the desired target level of risk.1 Risk Homeostasis Theory (RHT) In an attempt to explain these findings.3. and that transient factors probably interact with stable traits of the individual in their causation.
The central implication of RHT is that safety interventions need to be values-oriented and aimed at lowering the level of 32 . performing more dangerous manouevers and driving with significantly shorter headway distances than those driving without ABS (Aschenbrenner & Biehl. is if the level of target risk is reduced. at least until the target risk level was reached. Wilde (1994) reframed the concept of target risk as an individual variable based on four perceived utilities. That is. given that human behaviour will continue to be motivated by internal homeostatic processes. would perceive a level of risk above his target and would tend to reduce speed and increase vigilance. 1994) argued that this made the theory essentially untestable. 2005). Initially. In two separate studies. Michon. many of which have attempted to observe and comment on individual behavioural change after the risk variable is manipulated. 2002) and that driver education programmes need to be extensively revamped (Wilde. Ranney. 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. reduced the predicted safety benefits of such systems (Wilde.” (Fuller. for example. according to the theory. Wilde. 1986. RHT research of this nature has been used to argue that most engineering interventions and roadway regulations have little or no benefit (Smiley.vehicles and warning flags. 1988. observers posing as passengers rated German taxicab drivers in vehicles equipped with anti-lock braking systems (ABS) as driving more aggressively. 2002). p. When others (Haight. 1997). RHT proponents argued that drivers were adapting behaviourally to the effects of ABS by driving less safely and that this. 2008. 1989. Sagberg. 1994. 14). Collectively. according to the theory. a driver motoring along a wide. Fosser & Sætermo. Huguenin (2001) noted that RHT has spawned a considerable number of studies. “the aggregate target risk in a community is what produces the accident toll and the only way in which this toll can be reduced. McHugh & Pender. and not on the specific measures taken in other sectors of the control system. in turn. postulating that the number of accidents in any given country would only depend on the accident rate which the population is willing to tolerate. flat. Wilde’s theory was couched at a societal level. Conversely. 2001.
Wilde’s RHT has generated controversy and opposition (Keskinen et al.. 223). Considerable criticism revolves around the imprecise nature of the theory itself. it has been argued people are not sufficiently sensitive to changes in low risk probabilities to react behaviourally as RHT predicts (Fuller et al. Robertson and Pless (2002) made the case forcefully that: … some drivers may sometimes slow down in rain. or the nation” (Brown & Noy. More than any other driving theory. 2004). but that the RHT neither adequately explains nor predicts the circumstances under which it does. p.target risk that people are willing to tolerate. 1977). “It is unclear whether risk homeostasis occurs at the level of the individual. To the contrary. Slovic. “The extent of risk taking with respect to safety and health in a given society ultimately depends on values that prevail in that society. Lichtenstein. 1989. 2001. pay sufficient attention to risk. Fischoff. the notion of target risk implies that drivers are constant “comparers”. Evans 33 .” (Vaa. Criticisms have been aimed at Wilde’s theory on empirical as well as conceptual grounds. 1994. psychologically weighing at every moment the perceived and targeted risk levels inherent in every environment. however. 2004). Rothengatter. Corrigan & Coombs. 2008. and not on the available technology” (Wilde. 1151). (p. a tenet for which no convincing support has been yet generated (Michon. 2002). 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. 2002). 53). 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. The notion that people have a constant point of acceptable risk. Also. “Costs and benefits are central to the model. p. but they are not defined in psychological terms. the community. General consensus is that behavioural adaptation to vehicle and environmental conditions often does occur (Rothengatter. In a review of research offered as support of the RHT..
some degree of risk during the performance of this task. O’Neill and Williams (1998).3. increasing safety margins” (Brown & Noy. 81). is a very basic human skill that can be carried out in the absence of extensive conscious processing. experience ‘zero-risk’) when they drive by anticipating. drivers avoid ‘feeling fear’ (hence. or expecting. Rather. Only when the subjective risk reaches a level that was not anticipated will the drivers change their behaviour. a necessary and highly controversial assumption in Wilde’s theory. Rothengatter (2002) has questioned how drivers can determine that a threshold has been exceeded if they do not constantly assess risk. In other words. While overcoming many of the criticisms levied at RHT with regard to the concepts of target risk and the risk discrepancy comparative process. 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. zero-risk theory still retains some of its conceptual shortcomings.2 Zero Risk Theory Another risk-based theory. for example. Summala’s zero-risk model of driver behaviour (Summala & Näätänen. 2. Michon (1989) noted that most studies attempting to support the RHT deal with data only at the aggregate level. In addition. after a similar review. 92). At this point. 2004. Fuller (2005) has argued that the theory’s premise that safe margins are learned creates an implausible requirement to recognise. 1987.(1986) concluded that “risk homeostasis theory should be rejected because there is no convincing evidence supporting it and much evidence refuting it” (p. Summala. Summala (1986) suggested that estimating time-to-collision. they experience uncomfortable feelings of fear and abruptly change behaviour. 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. p.4. and 34 . 26). drivers compare the distance from hazards or time-tocollision to a subjective safety margin threshold and take action only when the threshold is exceeded. 1988) proposed that drivers do not constantly assess risk while driving.
3. such as time pressure. it may not manifest itself as a less cautious speed or headway choice but rather as a conscious. 35 . A large number of studies show that external motives.5 Hierarchical Theories of Driver Adaptation Huguenin (2001) has argued that the main problem with considering driver behaviour within a risk-based framework is that drivers tend to adapt their behaviour in different way on differing strategic levels. in which he introduced a “task cube” to explain the driving process. their behaviour becomes less adaptive to prevailing circumstances (Delhomme & Meyer. Reeder et al. 1999). Summala argued that behavioural adaptation. On the other hand. Hataaka. 2. The cube presented three dimensions of driver behaviour: a functional hierarchy. for instance. 1998. 2002. and specific driver actions. Keskinen. much of which arises from personality. Meijman & Roghengatter. very little if any research has been carried out with respect to intrinsic motivation. 1997) refined his earlier theory into a hierarchical model of driver behavioural adaptation. 1996. do appear to affect drivers’ willingness to accept risk levels that approach thresholds and. age and social variables. what is a virtually infinite number of roads and traffic scenarios. pre-meditated decision not to wear seatbelts. Summala (1996. Glad & Hernetkoskis. A major element in the zero risk theory was the influence of motivation. Van der Hulst. would vary depending on the combination of factors from the three dimensions. as a result.learn how to respond safety to. and when confronted with various environmental conditions or psychological processes. used to explain drivers’ tendencies to approach as closely as possible to the risk threshold. Gregersen. If behavioural adaptation were to take place in response to the presence of a supplementary restraint system (SRS). level of psychological processing and a functional taxonomy of driving actions (see Figure 2. In an attempt to deal with this and to expand on the role of extrinsic and intrinsic motivators.1).
seemingly concurrently.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. at the same time. Rothengatter (2002) questioned the concept of a hierarchy. 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. 15). criticised the model for being overly complicated and resembling “more a description or a list of important variables than a solid model” (p.1: Task Cube (from Summala. but that is not 36 . (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. 1996) Keskinen et al. for example. Automated) Navigation Speed and time control Guidance Vehicle control Lane keeping etc. 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. a property absent within the task cube concept. Even though it is true that the performance on one task can bear consequences for the performance for the other.
drivers are able to manage the interface between demands and capabilities (see Figure 2. 2000) 37 .sufficient reason to presume they are two distinct levels of the same task rather than two different tasks (p.2: Task-Capability Theory (after Fuller.g. either by modifying task demand or by altering their capability.3. high speeds. 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). 2005) integrated competing components of the RHT (Wilde. Fuller (2000. Safety Compensatory action by others Crash! Capability (C) Loss of control C>D Control C<D Task Demands (D) Safety Figure 2. 1976) by proposing that drivers attempt to match task demands with their capability to maintain control. unexpected changes in task demand (decreased visibility. 1988) and the zero risk theory (Näätänen & Summala. Loss of control occurs at the point where capability is less than that required to carry out the task safely. this becomes more difficult when factors external to the driving task (e. Fuller argued that loss of control occurs when task demands exceed drivers’ capabilities.6 Task Capability Interface (TCI) Theory In perhaps the most ambitious of the leading driving behaviour theories.. 252). However. affective states). Most of the time. 2. 1982.
According to the TRA. Rothengatter (2002) has stressed that the perception of capability is often influenced by external factors (impairment. neither of which was originally intended as a way of explaining driver behaviour. 2004. Two limitations have been noted. institutions or issues (Chaplin. 1985. Intention is determined by the summed effects of: (a) attitudes toward the behaviour. Brown & Noy have pointed out that TCI theory is limited in its ability to explain all of the decision points and responses that occur during a more complex driving scenario such as over-taking.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. and Keskinen et al. generally referring to a positive or negative 38 . It generally refers to the thoughts and feelings that impel us to behave in one way and not in another” (Parker. for the most part. 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. emotional state. (2004) have argued that it is deserving of more attention than it has received to date. been regarded as potentially more productive than earlier risk-based theories. p.6. Generally. 1985.7 Attitude-behaviour Theories 2. objects.3. largely due to the focus that has been provided by the theory of reasoned action (TRA. Fishbein & Ajzen. Langdridge (2004) describes the theory of reasoned action as one of the most important theories in attitude-behaviour research. providing an account of the way in which attitudes. 126). Since 1985. such that it is not capability but perceived capability that interfaces with task demand. 40). however. time pressure). Intention is the cognitive representation of an individual’s readiness to engage in a given behaviour. the notion of matching competence with task demand promises to be very useful in understanding driver behaviour. traffic psychology has seen a resurgence of interest in the role played by attitudes.Fuller’s theory has.3. 2. people’s behaviour is determined by their intention to perform the behaviour. 1975) and the subsequent theory of planned behaviour (TPB: Ajzen. p. and is considered to be the immediate antecedent of behaviour. subjective norms and behavioural intentions can be used to predict behaviour. 1991).
are sometimes subject to the influence of factors beyond one’s control. 24). behavioural intention is the result of attitudes (“do I feel like this is a good thing to do?”).2). he incorporated the concept of “perceived behavioural control” (PBC). This extended framework was introduced as the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB. such that every intended behaviour is a goal whose attainment is subject to some degree of uncertainty. To deal with this uncertainty. 39 .3. p. and a meta-analysis carried out by Sheppard. Hartwick and Warshaw (1988) found that the theory had strong predictive utility.7.2 Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) Complications hindered the application of the TRA in circumstances where behaviours were not fully under volitional control. According to the TPB. 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”). subjective norms (“do others feel this is a good thing for me to do?”). Ajzen and Fishbein (2000) argued that intention is the best predictor of behaviour. and perceived control (“do I really believe that I can do this?”).” (Azjen. then. see Figure 2. denoting the subjective degree of control which individuals perceive themselves having over the performance of a behaviour.judgement with respect to behavioural performance (“accelerating to pass through a cross-junction against an amber light is bad/good”). 2007). 2. which can usually be performed (or not performed) at will. however (Sharma & Kanekar. “Even very mundane activities. 1985.
3: Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen. 2002. Further. The TPB has spawned a huge body of research. 40 . to the extent to which PBC reflects an individual’s level of actual control. on the performance of a wide range of behaviours. Its inclusion as a predictor of behaviour is premised on the notion that. when intention is held constant. 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. it will directly influence behaviour (Armitage & Christian. stronger feelings that “I can do it”) will heighten an individual’s confidence level. PBC is considered a determinant of both the individual’s intentions and the individual’s behaviour. A belief that the described violations were not all that serious (attitudes).. 1989) Within the theory. 253).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. 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. including driving and “it has to be admitted that the theory of planned behaviour has stood up well. creating a proxy effect that increases the likelihood that behaviour will be successfully performed.e. 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. In one study. 2003). speed on a major road or overtake dangerously. p. greater perceived control (i.
Many of these use accident data collected by national or sub-national government bodies or by the police and advanced statistical techniques to describe variable interrelationships that describe or predict crash outcomes. used a negativebinomial regression technique to analyse highway-rail crash statistics within a sixstate radius in the USA and derived a predictive model in which the contribution of traffic characteristics. 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. roadway configuration and crossing design were weighted. for instance.2. there has been no shortage of empirically-based models that show statistical relationships between specific variables related to given situations. pedestrians and road environments in a range of 41 . This might be seen as evidence of the proxy effect earlier described by Armitage and Christian (2002).4.2). Similar to later findings by Law et al. 2. based on data extracted from police record forms. Austin and Carson (2002). Edwards (1996) developed a spatial model. subjective norms and PBC were all significant determinants of self-reported speeding. Wállen Warner and Åberg (2006) used structural equation modelling to predict drivers’ everyday speeding behaviour using the TPB as a frame of reference. A large number of studies have reported epidemiological characteristics of drivers. they found that real GDP per capita was related to the number of crashes. 2002). but after controlling for distance travelled. it was not significant (Scuffham & Langley. Gross Domestic Product per capita and alcohol consumption. Attitude toward speeding. vehicles. (2005) in their Malaysian study (see sect.In another study.1. while Rautela and Pant (2007) modelled crash risk on mountain roads in India using geographical information system (GIS) data. to predict weather-related crashes in England and Wales.4 2. 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.
1998. Richardson & Downe. E and especially H factors. 2.locations and settings (e. the road (R) and the environment (E). the vehicle (V). Koonchote & Tantiratna.2 Process Models 2. 1994).2.g.4: The Haddon Matrix (Noy. within specific situational contexts. some researchers have argued that the Haddon Matrix is limited by the way it considers each element independently. and have proposed expanding the matrix to better provide for the analysis of inter-relationships between each of the four basic elements. Law. 1997) 42 . PRE-CRASH CRASH POST-CRASH BASIC ELEMENTS OF A HIGHWAY EVENT Human (H) Vehicle (V) Road (R) Environment (E) Figure 2.4). concealing the interactions that underlie the behaviour of real traffic systems (Noy. Haddon (1970) proposed a framework in which each of these elements could be examined as part of an analytical matrix (see Figure 2. More recently. Swaddiwudhipong. This model has been instrumental in stimulating research designs and accident interventions for the last thirty yeasrs (Williams. Seow & Lim. 1999). 2000). Nguntra.4. Mahasakpan.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). however. R..4. One way of accomplishing this may be through the creation of models that stress the mediational role played by certain V. 1997.
when one observes a correlation between a behavioural measure and crash risk.g. on the other hand. there are four possible explanations: the behavioural measure may directly influence crash risk. 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. reckless lane transitions or overtaking.2 A Contextual Mediated Model of Personality and Behavioural Predictors of Motor Vehicle Crashes Elander et al.g. contribute directly to crash outcomes. aggression). Factors within the distal context include not only road. substance abuse) that. sensation seeking. relevant factors are grouped as occurring within either the distal context or the proximal context of the accident (see Figure 2. 283).. gender.g. (1993) discussed the problem of choosing predictor variables in studies of behavioural and personality influences on road-traffic crash risk. By contrast. 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. speeding. on one hand. or crash risk may influence the behavioural measure (p. are affected by specific or collective factors from the distal context and. Within the generic model.2. vehicle and environmental conditions related to accident causation but a range of driver demographic (e. age.2. arguing that: Correlational studies suffer from the inescapable problem that causality cannot be established. driving experience) and psychological characteristics (e.. it may happen to correlate with some other factor that influences crash risk but play no role itself. extraversion. Personality factors within the 43 . as well..4.5). more proximal variable. Therefore. the proximal context is made up of driver behaviours and attitudes (e.
Variables within the distal context would be expected to affect accident frequency indirectly and through their relationships with measures of proximal behaviour factors. it would be expected that relationships between the distal and proximal contexts would be stronger than those between the proximal context and crash outcomes. aggression and psychological symptoms (anxiety. cultural driving habits and beliefs Relatively stable personality characteristics. 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. hostility and psychoticism) – both on three proximal elements – aberrant driving behaviour. 2003) 44 . risk taking. DISTAL CONTEXT Road and vehicle condition Demographic characteristics Culture-specific factors. such that direct effects of distal factors would be most likely insignificant or weak.5: Contextual Mediated Model of Personality. with results generally supporting the notion that factors in the distal context contributed to accident causation and predicted accidents via their effects on proximal factors. Sümer examined the effect of three distal elements – sensation seeking.g. sensation seeking. Behavioural Predictors and Motor Vehicle Crashes (from Sümer.g. depression.distal context were assumed to be capable of creating generalized tendencies that increased risks of accidents within behavioural variables measured within the proximal context. psychological symptoms. choice of preferred speed and dysfunctional drinking habits – and on the frequency of self-reported accidents. As such. e.
such that path c′ is zero. drivers’ safety skills were a mediator of the effects of personality or cultural background on crash frequency. M. mediators are variables that represent constructs proposed to explain the association between two variables (Hoyle & Robinson. in which there are two causal paths feeding into the outcome variable: path c′ depicts the direct effect of X on Y.2.4. then the significance level of path c would be reduced to insignificance or a less significant level (path c’). Heppner & Mallinckrodt. moderating or mediating effects. driver impairment and so on) were hypothesised to mediate the effect of distal variables on the frequency or likelihood of crash outcomes. 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. proximal variables (including safety skill levels.3 Core Concepts in the Contextual Mediated Model: Moderation and Mediation Inter-variable relationships within the contextual mediated model can have direct. process or transformation exists through which one variable influences another (Frazier. the variable X is called the initial or predictor variable and it causes the variable Y.6(i).6(ii) illustrates the basic causal chain involved in mediation. Mediation can be said to occur when some mechanism. In Sümer’s (2003) generic contextual mediated model. Regression analyses can be used to test these causal paths to the outcome variable. 2006). called the outcome. In the case where X no longer affects Y after M has been controlled. for instance. then it can be concluded that complete mediation occurs. which in turn exerts an effect on Y through path b (Baron & Kenny. 45 . If. In Figure 2. driver propensities to commit errors or violations. Also termed intervening variables. 2004).2. Figure 2. Tix and Barron. 2004) and a distinction can be drawn between partial mediation and complete mediation (Wei. 1986). 2003). while path a represents the effect of X on some mediator 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. 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. 46 .6: Inter-variable Relationships in Mediation Models In contrast. 1986). variable (see Figure 2. or dependent. these are not directly relevant conceptually to testing the moderator hypothesis. 2003). Baron and Kenny have further added that although the predictor and moderator can have significant effects on the outcome variable.7): the impact of a predictor. there are three causal paths that can effect the outcome. and the interaction or product of these two (path c). or testing the moderating effect. can the moderator hypothesis be concluded as supported (Baron & Kenny. Only if the interaction (path c) is significant. the impact of a moderator (path b).
Sümer (2003) identified three classes of distal variables: psychological symptoms (depression. given wide 47 . errors).7: Inter-variable Relationships in Moderation Model 2.4. Sümer also find that aberrant driving behaviour. intensity) and aggression (physical aggression. choice of speed and alcohol use (antisocial drinking. mostly from taxi and heavy trucking. However. the effects of the proximal variables on the number of crashes experienced within a three-year period was examined. more relevant to the model he proposed. His sample of 321 participants combined both professional drivers.Predictor Variable X a Moderator Z b Y Outcome Variable c Predictor X Moderator Figure 2. he found that. Using structured equation modelling. while psychological factors did not predict speed choice. He examined their effects on three proximal variables: aberrant driving behaviour (violations. hostility. dangerous drinking). sensationseeking and risk-taking (novelty. Further. No attempt was made to differentiate between these two groups.2. a proximal variable significantly mediated the relationship between the three distal variables and the frequency of crashes. they did have a significant association with both dysfunctional alcohol use and aberrant driving behaviours. verbal aggression.4 Studies of Driving Behaviour Using the Contextual Mediated Model In his initial study. A number of questions may be raised about Sümer’s (2003) analysis. anxiety. psychoticism). In turn. and non-professional students who were mostly students. hostility. anger).
Finally. 2005.. Bell. in most cases. al. extraversion (interpersonal warmth. Sümer. McRae &Costa. violations) and the outcome measure was expanded to include the self-reported number of crashes and traffic offences committed over a three-year period. trust). conscientiousness (dependability. Notwithstanding these methodological considerations. The proximal factor was again aberrant driving behaviour (errors. a negative-binomial distribution (Greenwood & Woods. personality model (Costa & McRae. applied the five factor. or “Big Five”. Greenwood & Yule. 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. Lajunen and Özkan (2005). 1998). broad-mindedness). sensation seeking patterns. 1990) to a similar analysis. Edward. 1919. Elander et. Sümer’s decision to use self-report data is subject to the usual validity considerations raised by several authors (af Wahlberg. 1920). 2002. 1995.739). In a subsequent study. in that the standard multivariate correlation methods applied as part of his LISREL analysis assumed a normal distribution of crash frequency scores. while it has been accepted since the early accident proneness studies of the IFRB that crash frequency. the distal factors were: neuroticism (a tendency to experience negative affect and anxiety). It is questionable whether crash details can be recalled accurately for up to 36 months and requires the assumption that the psychological characteristics. agreeableness (helpfulness. (1993) and others. 2003. sensation seeking). tends to fit a Poisson distribution or. lapses. responsibility. Here. self-discipline) and openness (adventurousness. 1993). Day.variation in the number of kilometres driven annually by participants (SD = 14. Watson. it was somewhat surprising that no attempt was made to control for differing levels of traffic exposure. 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. Tubré & Tubré. as recommended by Elander et al. including the three-year time-frame over which drivers were asked to report crash occurrence. Sümer’s model construction might also be questioned. Arthur. for high-λ individuals. Results indicated that all five of the personality factors had indirect effects on crash risk through their effects on 48 .
including perceived control. within Sümer’s contextual mediated model) had direct effects on measures of more proximal risky driving tendencies. 225). but weaker significant effects on self-reported accident involvement. Although no other studies of driving behaviour. Bilgic. Sümer and Erol (2005) found that a contextual mediated model was successful in showing relationships between distal and proximal predictors of depression. Iverson and Rundmo (2002). Sümer.5 Use of the Contextual Mediated Model in Other Research Sümer’s model has been applied outside the traffic psychology domain. Karanci. moderators and bidirectional associations between personality and accident involvement to better understand the underlying mechanisms” (p. phobia. hostility. perceived threat and gender on distress levels were partially or fully mediated by individuals’ feelings of coping self-efficacy. Both studies were concluded to have demonstrated support for the use of the contextual mediated model.4. for instance used the concept to examine predictors of psychological distress following the 1999 earthquake in Turkey. some researchers have worked with models that are conceptually consistent with the contextual mediated model. for instance. 2. yielding support for the contextual mediated model. reported that driver anger. optimism. using a similar research design. material loss. Berument and Gunes (2005). 49 . while the risky driving variables had strong and significant effects on accident involvement. In other words. have acted on those recommendations. air force and gendarmerie. The authors recommended that “the contextual model should be refined considering other potential mediators. self esteem. proximal behavioural variables mediated personality factors.aberrant driving behaviours. psychotic tendencies and psychosomatic complaints among a large sample of noncommissioned officers in the Turkish army. prior to the present one. anxiety. They found that the effect of proximal variables. Sümer. sensation seeking and normlessness (all of which which might be classified as distal.2. navy. In another study.
2002. proposed the use of a contextual mediated model for further research on agricultural safety (see Figure 2. Yet. Weinstein & Solomon. Type A. 1995). heterogeneity in group composition: Part of this may be due to 50 . but young drivers are more likely to sustain crash-related injuries and to die in vehicular crashes (Massie..5. they have been less well studied than other groups and the general understanding of age effects is not clear. Campbell & Williams. Williams & Shabanova.g. Not only are they the most likely age group to be involved in crashes.1 Age Young drivers are significantly over-represented among those injured or killed in road traffic crashes (Ballesteros & Dischinger. 2003). 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. uncertainty avoidance) temperamental factors (e. Retting. in a study of safety training methods and personality factors in Malaysian rubber and palm oil plantations.Downe (2007).1 Distal Variables in the Present Study Demographic Variables 2.5 2. 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..1. Odero et al. 2007) 2.8: Proposed Contextual Mediated Model for Safety Research in Agriculture (from Downe. 2003.g. 1997.5..8).
The former is less experienced at driving. In fact. 2002a. Several reasons have been proposed for high age-related crash risk levels. Matthews & Moran. for these difficulties.to 29-year old drivers in New Zealand and found a marked crash-risk optimism. not all young new drivers are alike (Dewar. 2007). This was consistent with many other studies in which young drivers tended to overestimate their own skills and under-estimate crash risk (Dewar. Foster and O’Neill (2005) studied self-rated driving attributes of 16. Connery & Stiller. 1986). Graziano and Bonino (2006) have argued that. Jonah. less emotionally mature. drive while fatigued. comfort eating and time spent in non-organised activities with friends. McDonald (1994) reported 51 . are more likely to engage in alcohol use when driving and are less likely to use seatbelts when compared to other drivers (Lerner. this is a reflection of lifestyle. However. Moscati. specifically more likely to drive too fast. 1997b. Ulleberg (2004) found that drivers reporting higher preference for risk-taking were also characterised by low levels of altruism and anxiety. overtake dangerously. and by high levels of sensation-seeking. tobacco smoking. The problems encountered by novice drivers are often attributed to age and inexperience together. in which they believed that they were better drivers and luckier in avoiding crashes. The factors of driving style and driving skill may account. Vassallo et al. 2001. Jehle. but there are a great many differences between a 17-year-old and a 23-year-old driver.. Harré. at least in part. less experienced with the use of alcohol and has different social and motivational needs that may contribute to risk taking on the road. Younger drivers tend to have a riskier driving style than others. in many cases.The “young” category typically ranges from 16 to 25. 2002a. the contrary appears to be true. Billittier. follow too closely. Bina. 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. irresponsibility and driving related aggression. 221). p.
and that young drivers. 74 per cent had seen tem drive while very happy or excited (strong positive emotions). indirectly. Stevenson et al. This means that “young drivers must devote a greater proportion of their attentional resources to conscious decision making and monitoring their driving. so they have little spare attentional capacity” (p. are like to perceive the driving task with overconfidence and inadequate attention to risk. 2007). Since many of the violations commonly committed by younger drivers – speeding. and have poor information processing and attention-switching skills. they have cognitive schemata that are inaccurate and relatively undetailed. particularly with respect to controlling deviations. and 55 per cent had seen them exhibit behaviour described as “road rage” (Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and State Farm Insurance.39). capable of distracting attention from driving and increasing crash occurrence. age was hypothesized to interact with emotional states such as hopelessness and aggression. In the present study. particularly under conditions of heightened emotionality. 1999. (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. risky driving and crash frequency (Lourens. Since previous research had highlighted the association between age. managing velocity and regulating acceleration. it was hypothesised in the present study that. They have generally lower skill levels in acquiring and integrating information. as age decreased. 2002). Justification of age-related hypotheses. Vissers & Jessurun.that young drivers are less skilful in vehicle control tasks than older drivers. on crash and injury occurrence. Young drivers may also be more prone to drive under the influence of strong emotional states. In a nation-wide survey of American teens. angry or sad (strong negative emotions). age was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. Similarly. Ulleberg. since safe driving among younger drivers has been shown to be more prone to the effects of emotional states. behaviour in traffic would become less safe and crash occurrence would be more likely. 76 per cent had seen peers drive while very upset stressed. 52 .
Dewar (2002b) stated that “some of the reasons for this are obvious – men drive greater distances. Raghunathan and Little (2001) noted that. reported that crash incidence for men in the United States was nearly double that of women. Smiley and Lee-Gosselin (1992).g.1. MacGregor.failure to use seat-belts. 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. Laapotti and Keskinen (1998) showed that when male drivers lost control of their motorcar. found that men had twice as high a risk as women of being involved in a motor vehicle crash during the late night hours. Kuhn and Layde (2001) found. Chipman. as age decreased. However. Turner and McClure (2003) showed that young male drivers scored higher than females in driver aggression and thrill seeking and in their general acceptance of risk.. in addition to having a higher number of crashes. and so on – were associated with greater risk of injury. p. Monárrez-Espino.4). Elliott. it was also hypothesised that. This gender difference is most marked in the population under 25 years. rush hour) and in hazardous conditions (e. for instance. more often at hazardous times (e. that males were significantly more likely to be involved in a loss-of-control accident. it 53 . “In all studies and analyses. 2004. Shope. male drivers incur their first crash earlier in their driving careers and are more likely to be held to blame for the incident. and behaviours predictive of fatalities.5.2 Gender A large number of studies have found differences between males and females. without exception. darkness)” (p. but is also evident among older drivers” (Social Issues Research Centre [SIRC]. Williams and Shabanova (2003) found that young American males were significantly more likely than young females to be responsible for crash deaths. Åkerstedt and Kecklund (2001). for instance. 2. self-reported injury would also increase. 129). Tavris. 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. Waller. for instance. with respect to both driving behaviour and to crash involvement. as well.g.
reported more traffic citations and injuries. to date. worldwide. found that while male drivers. Woodcock. Flyte & Garner. state of Washington. Female drivers’ loss-of-control crashes usually took place under slippery road conditions and were more likely due to deficient vehicle handling skills. but for female drivers the loss of control usually resulted in a collision with another car. Lenard. 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. in a sample taken in the U. 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. Lonczak. as marked changes in the roles of women in society have profound implications for the design of transportation systems (Waller. Brown. At the same time. and (c) female drivers are involved in more motor vehicle crashes than ever before.S. While there is much of value in such an approach. (a) the number of female drivers is increasing. 525526). for instance. 2001). 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. Neighbors and Donovan (2007). Ball. they did not differ from female drivers in reported driving 54 . (b) females drive increasingly more. which typically took place during evenings and nights. This is important.usually led to a single-vehicle crash. 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. Dobson. Laapotti and Keskinen (2004a) indicated that. Male drivers drove too fast and under the influence of alcohol more often in loss-of-control crashes. Welsh. 1997.
(1998) and Laapotti and Keskinen (2004). showing that male drivers were. committed fewer traffic offences and had a more positive attitude toward traffic safety and rules than males. Consistent with the findings of McKenna et al. Forward. alcohol consumption and for risky driving. gender was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. evaluated their driving skill lower.. involved in proportionally more crashes connected to speeding. Laapotti. In the present study. Lourens et al. McKenna. Justification of gender-related hypotheses. 2006. there is little evidence that the sex difference in the pattern of accident involvement is changing over the years” (p. control of traffic situations. Linderholm and Järmark (1998) reviewed studies dating from 1970 to 1984 and compared them to results obtained between 1985 and 1997. In a study of Dutch drivers. Since previous research had highlighted the association between males. 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. et al. indirectly. had proportionally more crashes connected to inadequate vehicle manoeuvring. Waylen and Burke (1998) disagreed. In a study of male and female drivers in Finland. though. (1999) corrected for variation in annual mileage when performing multivariate analysis on a disaggregated data base and found that crash involvement differences between males and females disappeared. it was hypothesised that males and females would differ on measures of behaviour in traffic. were less frequently involved in crash situations. commenting that “despite the fact that there has been a massive shift in the population of women drivers. and loss-of-control incidents. 11). In a subsequent report. In other research. on crash and injury occurrence. 2003). Turner & McClure. Female drivers. 55 . just as they had in 1978. crash frequency and risky or aggressive driving behaviour (Monárrez-Espino. 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. on the other hand. Laapotti and Keskinen (2004b) provided evidence in support of this view. as per the traditional pattern.anger. Keskinen and Rajalin (2003) reported that Finnish females in 2001 drove less than males.
3 Ethnicity A growing number of studies have examined the effect of ethnic differences on driving behaviour and crash outcomes. Romano. Summala and Hartley (1998). In one of the few studies reported. Goldweig and Warren. Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS). Very little cross-cultural research related to traffic safety has been carried out in Southeast Asia. lower rates of safety belt use. finding that the former group had higher fatality rates. Lezotte and Lowenstein (2000) compared Hispanic and non-Hispanic white motorists in the state of Colorado. Hauswald (1999) studied the incidence of covert non-compliance with seat belt regulations among Malaysian taxi drivers. being a wealthy Catholic country was associated with more traffic fatalities than were wealthy. he found that 60% of drivers had positioned belts or shoulder straps in a manner that appeared to 56 . White and Hispanic drivers regarding red light violations. that expanded the standards for collection of data on race and ethnicity in 1999 (Briggs. But. Schlundt. Despite the fact that countries’ regulatory frameworks were becoming increasingly similar. Melinder concluded that the type of religion and wealth were important distal factors. this has been the result of a change in reporting protocols within the U. Conducting curb-side inspections of taxicabs in Kuala Lumpur.2. 2005). traffic safety regulations and traffic fatalities. Being a non-wealthy Catholic country was associated with higher fatality rates than being a wealthy Catholic country. To a large degree. Haliburton. Corry.S. Harper. On the other hand. Lajunen.5. Marine. differences in fatalities persisted. nonCatholic countries. for instance. Tippetts and Voas (2005) found no differences between African-American. more frequent histories of speeding offences and more extreme alcohol use. Melinder (2007) compared 15 Western European countries with regard to the relation between different sociocultural factors. reported few differences between Australians and Finns. Garrett. A few studies have endeavoured to compare national driving cultures in terms of crash risk. Levine.1.
They concluded that there were. in fact. In a study of 324 employees sampled from a cross-section of Malaysian industries. there was no statistical differences between ethnic groups in the frequency of this practice. Strong relationship orientation.. While religious affiliation. Family centeredness. Indian-Malaysian Pre-determination. gender was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. Indirect communication. Justification of ethnic difference hypotheses. 2005). humility. However. 1999). Education. cooperation. The Malaysian population is comprised of three distinct ethnic groups: Malay. cultural differences can be more subtle. family honour. filial piety. hard work. Strong relationship orientation. ethnic-Chinese and ethnic-Indian (Williamson. Abdullah and Peterson (2003) have outlined value orientations for each ethnic group (see Table 2. harmony with nature. Karma. hierarchical. face saving. prosperity. family ties. indirectly. 2000. respect for knowledge. polite behaviour. Based on studies that have demonstrated ethnic differences in driving behaviour (Harper et al. Table 2..2). Fatalistic. respect for elders. religion. Spirituality. piety. peace. courtesy.have them restrained but had not fastened the latch. 1999). respect for elders. dependence on family for direction in social and career decisions. Roman et al. In the present study. shame-driven. regional distribution and socioeconomic status differs considerably between the three groups (Gomez. brotherhood/sisterhood. Fontaine and Richardson (2005) found that 82% of values were shared by all three ethnic groups. prosperity and integrity. it was hypothesised that ethnicity would have a significant effect on 57 . respect for elders.3: Key Value Clusters for Each Malaysian Ethnic Group Key Value Orientations Man’s relationship with God. few significant value differences between ethnic groups. Malay Differences have not always been consistent. on crash and injury occurrence. Conscious of what other people say about us. Chinese-Malaysian Pre-determined future.
implies the driver has had a broader variety of driving experiences. 1971). allows many otherwise incompatible tasks to be performed together. As experience grows.1 Experience Driver experience makes a difference in crash risk. etc.5. such as driving at different times of the day or days of the week. and indicating that those recording higher mileage per year have fewer accidents per mile (Pelz & Schuman.behaviour in traffic. journey lengths. 2002).2 Driver Characteristics 2.2. or (d) not have had enough experience of dealing safety with the effects of human factors on their performance (Fuller. Allied to this. and as such. (c) not have had enough practice in carrying out the manoeuvre correctly. as drivers become more experienced. A large number of studies have shown that. Groeger (2000) reviewed the reasons for this: … the weight of practice more experienced drivers have makes much of what they do routine. 1995. in a given road and traffic scenario. Given the absence of relevant prior research on Malaysian cultural groups. 2. On the other hand. with different weather conditions. (b) not know how to carry out a particular manoeuvre correctly.g.5.. directionality of the effect was not predicted. they are less likely to make errors and commit violations that result in crashes (e. the motorist is less likely to encounter situations very different from those they have encountered before (p. 166). Laapotti. 2001). inexperienced drivers may (a) not know the correct manoeuvre so they try a different manoeuvre which turns out to be unsafe. Lajunen & Summala. 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 . Hatakka and Katila. Keskinen. increased experience usually. passenger distractions different vehicles. although not always.
social context company MASTERING TRAFFIC SITUATIONS Adapting to the demands of the present situation VEHICLE MANOEUVRING Controlling speed. 2001). 2004). Internal models contain knowledge of route. in many studies of age and gender differences. but also through verbal and pictorial description or by imagining the course of traffic events (Keskinen et al.9). Yet. as young drivers generally have less experience than their older counterparts. Hataaka and Katila (1992). When using those at the top of the hierarchy. direction and position Figure 2. 1996. 59 . and sometimes confounded by gender differences. Experience can be gained through personal participation in traffic as a driver and through observing the behaviour of others. It assumes that.by Keskinen. as individuals acquire experience. environment. When drivers tap into models at the base of cognitive hierarchy. they tend to priortise conscious control of the vehicle over other elements of the driving experience. Hatakka. 2000) The effects of driving experience and age are closely linked. and can be organised in a hierarchy that reflects the key purposes. including start and destination point and corresponding visual scenes. experience effects have not been controlled (Rothengatter.9: Hierarchical Levels of Driving Behaviour (after Keskinen. Internal models have connections to motivational and emotional systems of the driver. they take actions based on whether they are perceived to reflect lifestyle priorities and values. 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. or most important facets of driving at different levels (see Figure 2. GOALS FOR LIFE AND SKILLS FOR LIVING Importance of cars and driving for personal development Skills for self-control GOALS AND CONTEXT OF DRIVING Purpose. as well as knowledge of risk elements and a cognitive map of control equipment in the vehicle and how it behaves.
and that taxicab drivers are more likely to regard low. Female novice drivers. many studies have focused on the effects of experience. age and gender on motor vehicle crash risk. 2007). for instance. 2004). Driving experience was considered a distal variable that would have an 60 . 1949. and especially young male drivers. 1954). was inversely correlated with driving experience and numbers of accidents witnessed. found that risk taking within a sample of 130 drivers of minibus taxis in the Pietersburg area of the Republic of South Africa. the number of years since a driving licence was first obtained. Peltzer and Renner (2003). 1948. Studies of crash predictors among professional drivers have been undertaken for over fifty years (e.and medium-severity traffic violation penalties as unjust than are non-professional drivers (Rosenbloom & Shahar. such as problems in vehicle handling skills. Young novice drivers. on the other hand. Brown & Ghiselli. showed more problems than males connected to the lower cognitive levels of the driving hierarchy. frequently showing that they are lest frequently involved in motor vehicle crashes than other classes of drivers. all of which were seen to reflect deficient self-control and lifestyle management abilities.Laapotti et al. A simple measure of driving experience. Justification of driver experience hypotheses. was used in this study. While motivational and differing skill levels are also important predictors of professional drivers’ crash risk. showed more problems connected to showing off driving skills to peers. 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. One way to understand experience effects is to study occupations for which driving is an important work component. Mintz. Burns and Wilde (1995) found no relationship between collision history and personality when they studied sampled male taxi drivers in a small Canadian city. taking risks and consuming alcohol or drugs. Ghiselli & Brown.. (2001) used the cognitive framework to explain the differing effects of experience.g. explained because adult identity is still under construction so life goals and living skills are still under development. They found that young drivers failed in applying both lower and higher models of the hierarchy than did middle-aged drivers.
1971). 1986. The concept of risk exposure has been examined in some detail from the point of view of comparing regional crash rates over different periods to assess the effects of demographic. 2. Wilde. the more one is going to be exposed to traffic situations in which a crash could occur. Rothengatter. and the problem of taking adequate account of individuals’ exposure to risk is only beginning to be properly addressed (p. Duncan & Brown. Generally. 1984. it was hypothesised that driving experience would have a significant effect on behaviour in traffic scores. 2002a).effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. and the traffic conditions to which they are exposed. Based on research indicating that more experienced drivers tend to have fewer crashes (Lajunen & Summala. on crash and injury occurrence. with greater experience associated with safer self-reported behaviour. the concept is much less well developed. but measuring exposure is not always as simple a matter as computing asking for an estimate of distance travelled per unit time (Evans. for instance. 1984). McKenna. technical or legal changes relating to road safety. crash risk is affected greatly by the time of day when.5. 282). 1995..2. First. (1993) noted that: People vary in the time they spend on the road. driving occurs (Dewar. Pelz & Schuman. 2001. All of these will affect the likelihood of crash involvement. In individual differences research. Elander et al. 1993). Åkerstedt and Kecklund (2001). there may be considerable random or systematic error in subjective reports about distance travelled (Elander et al. showed that the risk of crash involvement is five to ten times higher during late night 61 . indirectly. 1991). the miles they drive.2 Driving Frequency and Traffic Exposure Many authors have discussed the effect of traffic exposure on crash risk and outcomes (Evans. Second. it is accepted that the more one travels. and type of route where.
Canada and Germany where a legal penalty point system is in place to track drivers’ violations and involvement in road crashes. 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. as defined by Elander et al. without correcting for annual mileage. although much research does not (e. in countries like the USA. 2006. (1997) reviewed published and unpublished reports on roadway crashes in developing countries from 1966 to 1994. (1999) have argued that. Justification of exposure hypotheses. 2007. Ferguson. 2007. Mercer (1989) showed that. female drivers came out higher in number of crashes and in some types of traffic violations. Lourens et al.. and found that approximately one-third of all traffic injuries occurred during the night. on crash and injury occurrence. 2007). Teoh & MCartt. (1993).. Evans (1991) and others. 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. indirectly. Towner and Ward. it was hypothesised that higher levels of driving frequency would result in less risky behaviour in traffic. Christie. Williams & Shabanova. Odero et al. In keeping with recommendations made by Elander et al. young male drivers were strongly over-presented in terms of both crash frequency and traffic-related fines. a simple measure of driving frequency was used as a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and..hours than during the forenoon. Bina et al. After correcting for the number of kilometres driven. This was taken to be representative of traffic exposure. the resulting ‘driver records’ in combination with exposure data turn out to be the best predictors of future crashes. Because of earlier trends reported by Evans (1984) and McKenna et al. Cairns. 62 . 2003).g. (1986). however. nor are there valid category weightings that would allow the prediction of risk. with the highest incidence being between 6:00 pm and midnight. In the present study. Yet. there is little evidence that drivers are capable of reporting different categories of time or route conditions.
or internals.3. 1990).1 Locus of Control 2. Rotter’s (1966) original I-E conceptualisation of the locus of control construct viewed it as a unidimensional. according to the strength of their tendencies toward making attributions of internal or external control.5. Originally conceptualised by Rotter (1966.g.5. In contrast. 15).1.3 Psychological Variables 2. 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. 1981) extended this concept in two ways: first. 63 . 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. and second. view most events as dependent on chance or controlled by powers beyond human reach. Hyman. 2006. bipolar continuum along which individuals could be placed. 1975.2. 1999). such that it could be possible for an individual to score high on all three (see Figure 2. she separated the externality dimension into two. she assumed that the three resulting dimensions were conceptually independent. or externals .5. Levenson constructed a scale has been used widely in studies of locus of control (e. people are thought to vary on a continuum between the two extremes of external and internal locus of control. Holder & Levi. Levenson (1975. Based on this multidimensional conceptualisation.. Stanley & Burrows. one to reflect the influence of fate or chance (C) and the second to reflect the influence of powerful others (P).10). believe that very few events are outside the realm of human influence and that even cataclysmic situations may be altered through human action.3. 1991.1 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. 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. people who attribute behaviour to an internal locus of control.
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. They also tended to bet more on safe outcomes than did the more externally oriented subjects. 1989.Luckner. 2007) and has given rise to a number of other instruments measuring multi-dimensional locus of control. Liverant and Scodel (1960) studied betting preferences using a simple dice-throwing task.2 Locus of Control and Driving Behaviour Very early studies examined a link between locus of control and risk taking. luck.3.1. Multidimensional Model Low Internality High Low Externality . 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.10: Contrast between Rotter’s Unidimensional and Levenson’s Multidimensional Conceptualisations of Locus of Control 2.Chance High Low Externality – Powerful Others High Figure 2.5. E Unidimensional Model I Externalizers Individuals believe that what happens is determined by fate. Sinha & Watson. 64 . They found that subjects with high internal control seemed to prefer intermediate probability bets or extremely safe bets over so-called long shots.
1987). Their results indicated that internals had been involved in fewer crashes than externals on their transitional scale but there was no such relation between crashes and scores on the Rotter scale. however. however. 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. s/he will be more likely to take precautionary measures such as wearing a seat belt and being vigilant to roadway cues. which focused heavily on situational scenarios. 1999). 39). Serious methodological problems may have plagued this study. A great many studies have investigated the effects of locus of control on driving behaviour. In a subsequent study. believing that fate will achieve its goals no matter what the individual does (p. French & Chan. Guastello and Guastello (1986) used the Rotter (1966) locus of control scale and their own transitional instrument in a study of American college students. Iversen and Rundmo (2002) also failed to find an association with risky driving or crash involvement. but results have been inconsistent. On the other hand. only partially represented the original locus of control concept. 65 . If an individual views herself or himself as being responsible for both positive and negative outcomes. Harrell (1995) sampled Canadian wheat farmers to show that those incurring injuries in the field were more likely to score high on a measure of risk taking and to believe that their accidents had been caused by fate.More recent studies have examined the relationship between an external locus of control and risky behaviour within driving or workplace behaviour. According to Brown and Noy (2004). as Cronbach’s alpha values for the scales of their transitional instrument were below accepted criteria and scale content. Dixey (1999) found relationships between road crashes and fatalist attitudes in Nigeria. 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.
hostility was associated with worse DDB to a greater extent among drivers scoring low on internality than among drivers scoring high on internality. it strongly moderated the relationship between hostility and DDB. although internality was unrelated to DDB. (p. In an important study. Hoyt (1973) reported that internals reported wearing seat belts more often and experienced highway travel as more interesting and involving. In a similar study investigating personality attributes and driving behaviour. when Lajunen and Summala (1995) gave Finnish university students a series of questionnaires that assessed driving abilities and personality. On the other hand. Gidron. cognitive. In a meta-analysis of information-processing. 1260). They found that. Özkan and Lajunen (2005) found that internals reported a higher number of total crashes. The same driving skill scores were positively correlated with an internal locus of control. (1991) argued that these equivocal results were due to overly simple research designs which tended to investigate direct effects of locus of control. leading the authors to conclude that “if a relationship exists.Although externals reported more risk taking this trend was not significant. driving skills were negatively correlated with externality scores. 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). In a much earlier study. Arthur et al. This study provided support for the view that the effects of personality traits on driving 66 . rather than examining its interaction with other predictors. aggressive and ordinary traffic violations and driving errors. personality and demographic/biographical predictors of vehicular involvement. Verwey and Zaidel (2000) observed that people scoring high on measures of external locus of control made more road departure errors than those scoring high on measures of with an internal locus of control. although scores on externality dimensions did not relate significantly to any of those dependent variables. offences. it may not be of sufficient magnitude to be of value. That is. an internal locus of control was found to be associated with lower levels of crash involvement and with higher levels of cognitive ability.
3. Crittendon (1991) found that female university students in Taiwan were more 67 . (1991). Parsons and Schneider (1974) administered Rotter’s (1969) I-E scale to 120 male and female students in Canada. with situation-centred Confucian foundations. Life situations may be viewed as being largely determined by circumstances outside personal control (p. as hypothesised. complexity and unpredictability. moderating and mediating relationships are investigated. 2. Germany. Japan. Their results. Israel. whereas Americans scored high on internal control and Chinese-Americans were somewhere in-between. More recent research has continued to find differences in locus of control between cultures and between sub-groups within cultures. Richardson and Downe (2000) and others. Canada and Japan. reinforcement and sociocultural processes created fertile ground for cross-cultural studies using the locus of control construct. Noy (1997). Noting that Chinese culture. Hsieh. and the USA. indicated that. France. 122). is based on the notion that … luck.3 Locus of Control and Ethnicity Dyal (1984) argued that post-War geopolitical expansion and a growing interest in the role of attributions. In very early research. India. after correction for differences in socioeconomic status. Italy. Japanese students had significantly higher external scores than in all other countries. while externality scores for Indian students were significantly lower than those in France. This point had also been argued earlier by Arthur et al. chance and fate are taken for granted in life. which is considered to be full of ambiguity. US-born Chinese and Caucasian Americans).behaviour can be better understood by adopting a more holistic approach in which interactions.5. Shybut and Lotsof (1969) sampled three groups of high school students (Hong Kong Chinese.1. Hong Kong Chinese students were more externally controlled on Rotter’s (1969) I-E scale.
Cheung. He attributed this to the belief that dealing with widespread nepotism. only Cheung. Much more recent research by Sinha and Watson (2007) used Levenson’s (1984) multidimensional model to show that Indian university students are significantly more externally controlled by fate and chance than Canadian university students. To the author’s knowledge. ingratiation and bribery found in India requires effort. No published accounts of research conducted in Malaysia with regard to locus of control differences among members of Malay. Howard and Lim (2006) have offered research evidence related to cross-cultural differences in locus of control within Malay. 68 . Using an English version of the Cross-Cultural Chinese Personality Assessment Inventory (CPAI-2). due largely to high scores on items measuring political ideology and social system control. In very early research. Indian students were more external than Canadians on personal control factors. all internal characteristics. where no significant differences were found between those of Indian. skill and ability. At the same time. but all three groups differed from the sample drawn in China. a finding Carment interpreted as reflecting greater dependency on and conformity within the somewhat indulgent and closely-connected Indian family structure.externally-controlled and more self-effacing than either American females or Taiwanese males. Chinese and Indian populations. Carment (1974) found Indian university students to be significantly more internal than Canadian students on the full scale score for Rotter’s (1969) I-E instrument. although there were no differences in internality nor externality involving powerful others. 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. This was very true for the locus of control variable. Chinese of Malay extraction. Chinese and Indian ethnic groups were found. 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.
1975). 1975. Montag & Comrey. Sinha & Watson. 2. but there are two conceptual arguments for doing so. it was hypothesised that locus of control would moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic. 1991. 2007. while the two dimensions of externality would have positive associations. Niméus. McMillan. Özkan & Lajunen. Cases usually 69 . hopelessness has been consistently shown to be a predictor of suicidal intent (Beck. Personality traits closely aligned with given mood states might well be expected to have an impact on the performance on driving tasks. 1997.Justification of hypotheses about locus of control. In the present study. Träskman-Bendz & Alsén. Given the strong research evidence suggesting an association between internal locus of control and less risky driving behaviour (Lajunen & Summala. it was hypothesised that Chinese participants would tend toward higher externality scores while Indian participants would tend toward higher internality. Hopelessness has not been previously studied as a predictor either of driving behaviour or of crash risk. Fox & Klerman. indirectly. 1995. et al. Gilbody. Weissman. on crash and injury occurrence. 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. First. given the large number of studies indicating ethnic differences in locus of control (Crittendon. (2003).2 Hopelessness Rothengatter (2002) and Groeger (1997) have both noted the paucity of research on affect and driver behaviour. Beresford & Neilly.5.3. anticipate a negative outcome to any attempts that may be made to attain the individual’s major objectives or goals (Beck. Pentilla and Lonnqvist (1997) studied all fatal car crashes in Finland from 1987 to 1991 and found that 5. 2007). it was hypothesised that internality would have a negative association with unsafe behaviour in traffic. Finally. Based on the findings reported by Gidron et al. without objective basis. 2005).9% could be classified as having an intentional suicidal component. Kovacs and Weissman. locus of control was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. 1973). 1987. Ohberg.
In the present study. Mendel. investigated the relationship between hopelessness. and crash risk (Ohberg et al. Chioqueta and Stiles (2005) showed that hopelessness in Norwegian university students was positively predicted by high scores in neuroticism and depression. Based on earlier findings about the relationship between depressive-suicidal states. luck. hopelessness has been associated with personality and behavioural factors that have been shown to be good predictors of driver behaviour and crash risk. assertiveness and positive emotion. in fact. usually when impaired by alcohol or drug use. 1990. and negatively predicted by extraversion. have proposed that potentially self-destructive behaviours. in a more detailed study. on crash and injury occurrence. locus of control and depression with university students in western Canada. 1962). chance or fate not only expressed greater pessimism about the future but were more likely to report depressive states. whose crashes had resulted from extreme risks. mental disorders and alcohol misuse. 1997. hopelessness was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. 1974). They also classified a group of drivers whose highly negligent actions. Breen and Lussier (1976).involved head-on collisions between two vehicles with a large weight disparity and victims had often suffered from life-event stress. Prociuk. Henderson. 1962). for instance. 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. it was 70 . Hernetkoski and Keskinen (1998). Selzer & Payne. 1998.. 1976. in which hopelessness plays a significant part. indirectly. Firestone & Seiden. including risky driving. finding that persons who perceived reinforcements to be a function of powerful others. Justification of hopelessness hypotheses. Several authors. Very early on. 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. Second. found that the most commonly reported mental state among Finnish drivers dying in crashes classified as suicidal had been “depression” and “hopeless”.
Richards. including subjective feelings of stress. Chapman. Mizell. Demakakos. 1999. and deindividuation. there is no shortage of evidence to suggest a consistent and reliable association between aggressive driving and motor vehicle crashes (Blanchard. attention to the issue of aggressive driving has grown exponentially. 2000. Wells-Parker et al.3. physiological arousal. learned cognitive scripts. In a largely unrelated study. 71 .5. Filetti. Koumaki. Novaco (1991) proposed that driver aggression is produced when environmental triggers interact with a variety of predisposing factors. & Darviri. 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. sparked by a number of highly publicised accounts of road rage and improved techniques for measuring anger and aggression in drivers. Barton and Malta.. Chliaoutaks. Bakou.3 Aggression Since the 1980s. 2002. Although uncertainty persists as to whether road aggression is actually increasing. 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. Deffenbacher. 2002). 2003. 1999) have argued that there has been a marked increase in the frequency of aggressive incidents and anger-related crashes. 2000. which acts to counter the influence of normative moral codes and to increase people’s impulsive responses to stimuli as one such disinhibitory cue.hypothesised that participants scoring high on a measure of hopelessness would be likely to engage in behaviour in traffic that was less cautious. Underwood. Malta & Blanchard. While media reports and some authors (James & Nahl. Wright & Crundall. It was hypothesised here that hopelessness would moderate the manner in which locus of control affected behaviour in traffic. learned disinhibitory cues. Lynch & Oetting. Binzer (1999) suggested that hopelessness may play a moderating role in the effects of locus of control on some psychiatric symptoms associated with unconscious motivations. 2. this concept became the basis for what is now known as the frustration-aggression hypothesis of aggressive driving. O’Connell (2002) has described the use of alcohol. 2006). Tzamalouka.
Ellis. to better cope with stress and achieve behavioural change. as another. However. Crowson. the display of aggression (p. Benjamin and Valentine (2006) conducted a meta-analysis of studies assessing personality variables and aggressive behaviour. Meichenbaum (1977) pioneered the use of cognitive restructuring. threat to own safety and self-eesteem. though. Snyder. such as TAPB. This led to an interest in the sorts of self-talk in which individuals engaged under varying conditions and corresponded with the emergence of cognitive therapies (Beck. does indeed have all the ingredients that might give rise to increased levels of anger and hostility.which creates a sense of anonymity and diminished personal responsibility. cultural driving norms and situational conditions. Bettencourt. Talley. (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. rather than a cause of. but needed to be expanded to account for the influence of personality factors such as Type A personality behaviour (TAPB). it may equally be that the people involved would be aggressive in situations beyond driving – with driving being an opportunity for. They reported that trait aggressiveness and trait irritability influenced aggressive behaviour under both provoking and neutral conditions but that other personality variables. and frustration of goals that comprises the driving task in the modern world. stress induced by time pressure. 1962). Kurylo and Poirier (1997) created the Hostile Automatic Thoughts Scale to reflect the frequency 72 . lack of control over events. Groeger (2000). More recently. raised the point that: It seems to me possible that the peculiar cocktail of personal challenge. angry thinking and trait anger influenced aggressive behaviour only under conditions in which the individual was provoked. 163). 1976. Schwebel et al. through the use of self-statements. Houston. Shinar (1998) argued that the frustration-aggression hypothesis provided an appropriate model for aggressive driving.
Originally identified by Friedman and Rosenman (1974).6. Blumenthal. aggression was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. Kumashiro & Kume. 1981. Based on the extensive research on the association between aggression and unsafe driving behaviour (Galovski et. on crash and injury occurrence. Undén. indirectly. Later still. that the total amount. 2. Williams & Haney. and specific content. 73 .with which individuals make cognitive statements reflecting aggressive sentiments.. Oetting and Swaim (2003) used the same approach to examine angry cognitions made by drivers under varying conditions of provocation. Frueh & Snyder. Thurman. Narda. 1999.6 2. it was hypothesised that aggression would have a negative effect on behaviour in traffic. 1985). Karlberg. 2006. 2000. consistent with earlier research by Deffenbacher et al. 1999. Deffenbacher. al. Petrilli. Magnavita. aggression. Sani. insecurity about status. Bettencourt et al. 2002. Those authors used the instrument to assess hostility and negative affect within a population of veterans diagnosed with combat-related posttraumatic stress disorder (Crowson. Rice. McKee. Justification of aggression-related hypotheses. TAPB is characterised by a sense of time urgency.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. In the present study. Lynch. Dewar (2002b) noted that TAPB has been one of the variables most consistently linked to driving performance. Sato. 2001). Kamada. 1998. 1999). impatience. hostility and difficulty achieving states of relaxation (Ben-Zur. of hostile automatic thought would moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic. (2003). Miyake. 2006). competitiveness. They found that perjorative labelling and vengeful or retaliatory thoughts correlated highly with self-reported aggressive driving. It was also hypothesised. Carbone. Elofsson & Krakau. James & Nahl.
Karlberg et al. similarly. Elander and French (1993) found that TAPB had a strong association with excessive driving speed. it may have been flawed by methodological deficiencies discussed by af Wählberg (2003) and by Elander et al. and drivers’ attitudes toward traffic regulations – when examining the association between motor vehicle crashes and Type A scores in a prospective study of 20. In a correlational study of British drivers.DeLorenzo and Sacco (1997). studied police officers in Italy. Although their research design accounted for the influence of potential confounds. driving style. West. Nabi. Other authors have examined which of the behavioural dimensions of TAPB has the strongest impact on driving outcomes. for instance. however.000 employees of a French oil and gas company. however. (1998). 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. traffic exposure or driver gender controlled as variables. Chiron. age. 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. was driving frequency. gender. but not with accident risk. Perry (1986) fond significant simple correations between scores on a commonly used measure of TAPB. Raikkonen. did control for the effects of a range of potential confounding variables – annual mileage. Zzanski & Rosenman. Although there is some evidence as to the long-term stability of TAPB (Keltikangas-Jarninen. In none of these studies. violations and self-reported driving impatience in a sample of 54 American students. Chastang. tested drivers on a TABP questionnaire in 1993 and then tracked their driving behaviour to record crash history from 1994 to 2001. Consoli.2 times more likely to have an accident than others. alcohol consumption. Lafont and Lagarde (2005). category of vehicle. the Jenkins Activity Survey (Jenkins. 1979) and number of accidents. where Type A drivers were 4. socio-professional category. (2003) with respect to data collection time periods. Nabi et al. They found a robust association between scores on a measure of TAPB and later serious crashes. particularly in driving situations that require prudence. focused on the time urgency component 74 . 1989. 1990).
with higher BIT scores reflecting a stronger Type A orientation. freeway urgency (excessive speed choice). on the other hand. only externally-focused frustration was consistently correlated with Type A behaviour. all four BIT factors significantly predicted participants’ self-reported driving characteristics. The BIT scale was positively correlated with the student version of the Jenkins Activity Survey (SJAS. Glass. Gender. 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. specifically measuring the effects of drivers’ usurpation of right-of-way (lane violations and reluctance to yield). 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). Papacostas and Synodinos concluded that: Type A/B behaviour is consistently related to only one of the four driving factors obtained by the BIT. Papacostas and Synodinos (1988) reported several further analyses of their original data. If all four BIT factors contribute to accident proneness. Using an instrument with items at extreme ends of the Type A/B continuum. In a subsequent study. driving exposure and the place where they had learned to drive all had direct effects on Type A results.6. they examined the influence of TAPB on a number of driving outcomes.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. 2. as measured by the student version of the SJAS. 1977). Miles and Johnson (2003). Of the four BIT factors. namely “externally-focused frustration”. emphasising the four individual dimensions of behaviour in traffic rather than the composite BIT total score. ethnicity. then use of the Type A/B 75 .of TAPB that had the most significant influence on driving risks. At the same time.
driving experience. Justification of BIT-related hypotheses. 13). the extent to which other personality factors influence the four components comprising behaviour in traffic was not investigated. hopelessness. that are measured by the BIT scale. did Papacostas and Synodinos (1985. Specifically. At the present time. participants’ behaviour in traffic was considered a proximal variable that. In neither of their studies. though. although ethnicity. on the other hand. Similarly. and “destination-activity orientation” which is possibly a cause of inattentive driving (p. it will not be sensitive to “usurpation of right-of-way” which is related to aggressive driving. In the present study. gender and other demographic factors were shown to affect BIT subscales. on one hand would have an effect on crash and injury occurrence and. ethnicity. 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. including gender. 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. would be influenced by drivers’ psycho-social characteristics. “freeway urgency’’ which manifests itself in speeding and frequent lane changing. 1988) attempt to relate scores on their BIT scale to crash frequency or injury.construct as the basis of further investigation into the question of highway safety will provide only an incomplete picture. To the author’s knowledge. aggression and the amount and content of 76 . thought to be critical in the relationship between TAPB and motor vehicle crashes. They argued that it would be preferable. locus of control. no further use of BIT scale has been reported in studies of driving safety.
freeway urgency and destination-activity orientation would each have positive effects on both crash and injury occurrence. 1993) and. Miles & Johnson. 1985). West et al. Further.. 2003. Nabi et al.. externally-focused frustration. 1986.hostile automatic thought. Many studies have suggested that drivers’ TABP is a factor in motor vehicle crashes (Perry. 2005. 77 . it was hypothesised here that BIT total scores would have a positive effect on both crash and injury occurrence. since the composite BIT score has been shown to be an accurate reflection of over-all Type A behaviour (Synodinos & Papacostas. it was hypothesised that drivers’ scores on measures of usurpation of right-of-way. since Papacostas and Synodinos (1988) found that all four component factors of BIT were related to driving characteristics.
gender and ethnicity) and psychological (locus of control and hopelessness) variables in predicting self-reported BIT and then on self-reported crash and injury occurrence (see Figure 3. each study explored the extent to which demographic. hostile automatic thoughts (see Figure 3. 78 .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. the research model was developed and tested in studies 1A. The research model was developed and tested over the course of three separate studies: Study 1: Units of analysis consisted of only automobile drivers Study 2: Units of analysis consisted of only motorcycle drivers Study 3: Units of analysis consisted of only taxicab drivers In Study 1.2). 1B and 1C. Study 1A investigated the effects of demographic (driver age. using automobile drivers as the units of analysis. 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.CHAPTER 3 METHOD OF INVESTIGATION 3. aggression (see Figure 3. through their action on proximal variables (behaviour in traffic).1 Conceptualisation and the Research Framework Based on the discussion in the previous chapter. In Study 1C. with the addition of a third psychological variable.3). driving and psychological variables were linked to each other and to self-reported driving behaviour. with the addition of a fourth psychological variable. Then. the present research attempted to support the notion that variables in the distal context (psychological factors) contributed to crashes and injuries. each of which sought to replicate and expand the previous one. the effects of the same demographic and psychological variables in predicting self-reported BIT and then in predicting self-reported crash and injury occurrence were evaluated. In Study 1B.
In Study 2, using motorcycle drivers as units of analysis, the research model was tested to investigate the effects of demographic (driver age, gender and ethnicity) and psychological factors (locus of control and hopelessness) in predicting self-reported BIT and then on self-reported crash and injury occurrence (see Figure 3.2).
In Study 3, using taxicab drivers as units of analysis, the research model was tested to study the effects of demographic (driver age, gender and ethnicity) and psychological factors (locus of control, hopelessness and aggression) in predicting self-reported BIT and then on self-reported crash and injury occurrence (see Figure 3.4).
DISTAL CONTEXT H2
Driver experience Driving frequency
Gender Ethnicity Age
Locus of Control
Internality Externality (chance) Externality (Powerful Other)
Behaviour in Traffic (BIT)
Usurpation of right-of-way Freeway urgency Externally-focused frustration Destination-activity orientation
Crash Occurrence Injury Occurrence
BHS x Locus of Control
Figure 3.1: Research Model (Study 1A and Study 2)
Driver experience Driving frequency
Gender Ethnicity Age
Physical aggression Verbal aggression Anger Hostility Indirect aggression
Behaviour in Traffic (BIT)
Usurpation of right-of-way Freeway urgency Externally-focused frustration Destination-activity orientation
Locus of Control
Internality Externality (chance) Externality (Powerful Other)
H7 H12 H9
Locus of Control x AQ
BHS x Locus of Control
Figure 3.2: Research Model (Study 1B)
Driver experience Driving frequency
Demographic Variables Gender, Ethnicity & Age
Hostile Automatic Thoughts (HAT)
Physical Aggression Derogation of Others Revenge
Behaviour in Traffic (BIT)
Usurpation of right-of-way Freeway urgency Externally-focused frustration Destination-activity orientation
Aggression Questionnaire (AQ) Locus of Control
Locus of Control x AQ
BHS x Locus of Control
HAT x AQ
Figure 3.3: Research Model (Study 1C)
Driver experience Taxicab experience
Ethnicity & Age
Physical Aggression Verbal Aggression Anger Hostility Indirect Aggression
Behaviour in Traffic (BIT)
Usurpation of right-of-way Freeway urgency Externally-focused frustration Destination-activity orientation
Locus of Control
Internality Externality (chance) Externality (Powerful Other)
Locus of Control x AQ
Figure 3.4: Research Model (Study 3)
Definition of the Variables This section identifies, classifies and provides an operational definition of each
of the variables used in the present research. Variables included (a) self-reported driving characteristics; (b) demographic variables; (c) locus of control; (d) hopelessness; (e) aggression; (f) hostile automatic thoughts; (g) self-reported behaviour in traffic; (h) selfreported crash occurrence; and (i) self-reported injury occurrence. Variables (a) through (f) were grouped within a super-ordinate class as distal variables. Variable (g) was considered as a proximal variable. Variables (h) and (i) were grouped within a superordinate class as outcome variables.
Driver Characteristics: Driver Experience and Driving Frequency Driver experience was defined as the length of time, in months, that participants
reported they had held a valid driving licence, consistent with the approach used in earlier research by Synodinos and Papacostas (1985). Frequency of travel was measured by asking participants to respond to the question, “how often do you travel in a car” as a driver, using a six-point Likert-type scale.
Demographic Variables: Age, Gender and Ethnicity Participants reported their age in years, their gender and chose a descriptor of
their “ethnic background” from a list including “Malay”, “Chinese-Malaysian”, “IndianMalaysian” and “Other, please specify”. The use of ethnic self-identification has been the most frequently used means of establishing cultural affiliation in previous studies of driving behaviour (Ey, Klesges, Patterson, Patterson, Hadley, Barnard & Alpert, 2000; Romano, Tippetts & Voas, 2005a, 2005b).
Locus of Control Locus of control refers to the extent to which individuals believe that they are in
control of the events that affect them (Rotter, 1966). The present research, adopted Levenson’s (1973) assumption that there are three independent dimensions to locus of control: internality; chance and powerful others. Within this model, one can endorse
It functions as a feeling of despair and discouragement. 25). consistent with the way the variable has been described by Beck (1987a) and Beck. 3. 1988) and tends to manifest itself under antagonistic conditions (Novaco.2.2. aggression is regarded here as referring to the hostile behaviour that occurs as a result of it. externality related to chance (C) and externality related to the influence of powerful others (P) was obtained. but not chance.each of these dimensions independently and at the same time. cognitive. 1994). Weissman. hopelessness was measured as a unidimensional construct. For each of the five studies undertaken. anger was defined as a negative internal state of physiological arousal and cognition that involves interactions between physiological. such that an individual might simultaneously believe that oneself and powerful others control an outcome. 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. a separate score for internality (I). In the present research. Lester and Trexler (1974). According to Farran et al (1995): Hopelessness constitutes an essential experience of the human condition. motoric and verbal components (Sharkin. 3.4 Hopelessness Hopelessness has been defined as a cognitive or motivational state characterised by negative expectancies. overlapping and ambiguous. a thought process that expects nothing.5 Aggression Spielberger et al (1995). While Beck (1999) and others have reserved the term anger for the feeling that accompanies such an internal state. 1999). For the purposes of the present research. It has been accepted for a long time that aggression finds its 85 . affective. hostility and aggression are often inconsistent. a future directed information-processing bias or schema which functions to distort individuals’ subjective experience of external reality (Velting.
taken as a sum of measures of each of the foregoing. Bergeron & Vallerand. and. hitting or interpersonal violence. Vallières. 2003. but it has only relatively recently been considered in light of driving aggression (Deffenbacher et al. In the present research. Oetting. the three forms of hostile automatic thoughts were defined as: 86 . (d) hostility – including attitudes of bitterness. expressed through the presence of irritability. through fighting.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). 1997) – on the behaviour in traffic of drivers in Study 1C. 1996). Specifically. were also investigated.expression in a range of behavioural manifestations (Buss & Durkee. Deffenbacher. The effects of participants’ total aggression. 1957. The present research examined the effects of a set of cognitive statements – described as hostile automatic thoughts (Snyder et al. (e) indirect aggression – the tendency to express aggressive impulses in actions that avoid direct confrontation. 3. emotional lability and temperamental gesturing. the following variables were examined: (a) physical aggression – the tendency to use physical force when expressing anger or aggression.2. Lynch & Morris. Ellis (1962) and Meichenbaum (1977). generally to the point where the needs or feelings of others cannot be taken into consideration. (c) overt anger – the tendency to experience high levels of emotional arousal and a perceived loss of control. social alienation and paranoia. 2005). (b) verbal aggression – the tendency to be unduly argumentative and to use quarrelsome and hostile speech in dealing with others in antagonistic situations. frustration.
hit or kill another individual. being irritated by slow drivers) and of directive behaviours toward 87 .2. driving consistently in the fast lane and travelling above the speed limit. (b) derogation of others – cognitive self-talk that contained content which belittled. 3. 1998). was defined as indicative of Type A Behaviour Pattern (TABP). competitiveness. (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. (b) freeway urgency – including an expressed preference for freeway driving. and an expressed preference for operating powerful vehicles. degraded or wished to be rid of another individual.(a) physical aggression – cognitive self-talk that contained content indicating an intent or desire to violently attack. motorcyclists and taxicab drivers sampled in the five successive studies undertaken. the BIT score.. hostility and time pressure (Karlberg et al. not allowing others to merge or overtake.7 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) The present research attempted to determine the effects of variables related to the self-reported patterns of driving behaviour among car drivers.g. A global measure of selfreported driving tendencies. and. (c) externally-focused frustration – consisting of emotional reactions to the actions of other drivers on the road (e. 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. characterised by excessive impatience.. frequent lane changing.
In the resulting measure of this variable. the influence of driving experience. gender and ethnicity) and two psychological variables (locus of control and hopelessness) on BIT was tested.2. 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.3. the interrelationships between the demographic variables.3 3..1 Research Design of the Study Study 1A Specifically. (d) destination-activity orientation – defined as a preoccupation on the part of drivers with reaching their destinations on time and with the tasks to be performed there.8 Crash Occurrence Participants reported whether or not they had experienced a motor vehicle crash. 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. while driving. 88 . In the resulting measure of this variable. to contemporaneous roadway and traffic 3.9 Injury Occurrence Participants also indicated whether they had been forced to seek medical treatment for an injury incurred during the reported crash. within the preceding twelve months and provided details about the nature of the crash. a “1” was scored if the participant reported a crash and a “0” was scored if the participant did not report a crash. Then.them (e. Then. 3. 3. travel frequency.g.2. and. urging others to move faster or out of the way by sounding the horn). in Study 1A. to the extent of inattention conditions.
In Study 1B. Then. the mediating effect of BIT on the relationship between psychological factors and crash occurrence and injury occurrence was tested. hopelessness. Finally. three demographic variables (driver age. the interrelationships between the demographic variables. the moderating effect of hopelessness on the relationship between locus of control and BIT was tested. the psychological variables and BIT were examined. (b) the moderating effect of locus 89 .3. In this study. three moderating effects were measured: (a) the moderating effect of hopelessness on the relationship between locus of control and BIT. Then. Then.psychological variables (locus of control and hopelessness) and BIT were examined. In this study. gender and ethnicity) and four psychological variables (locus of control. three demographic variables (driver age.1 illustrates the research design for Study 1A. the effects of driving experience and drivers’ self-reported travel frequency were controlled and the extent to which self-reported BIT predicted crash and injury occurrence in automobile drivers was assessed.3 Study 1C In Study 1C. 3. Finally. the influence of driving characteristics. travel frequency. travel frequency. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) on BIT was tested. the influence of driving characteristics. and (b) the moderating effect of locus of control on the relation between aggression and BIT. gender and ethnicity) and three psychological variables (locus of control. 3. two moderating effects were tested: (a) the moderating effects of hopelessness on the relationship between locus of control and BIT. the extent to which self-reported BIT predicted crash and injury occurrence in automobile drivers was assessed. Figure 3.3. Figure 3.2 illustrates the research design for Study 1B. the psychological variables and BIT were examined. the interrelationships between the demographic variables. the mediating effect of the BIT on the relations between psychological variables and crash occurrence and injury occurrence was tested.2 Study 1B While again controlling the effects of driving experience and drivers’ self- reported travel frequency. hopelessness and aggression) on BIT was tested. Then.
Finally.4 Study 2 The research design for Study 1A was replicated. the psychological variables and BIT were examined. three demographic variables (driver age and ethnicity) and two psychological variables (locus of control and aggression) on BIT was tested. the interrelationships between the demographic variables.1 illustrates the research design for Study 2. This was justified for three reasons. 3. In Study 3. In Study 3. the effects of both measures of experience were controlled and the extent to which self-reported BIT predicted crash and injury occurrence in automobile drivers was assessed. and (c) the moderating effect of hostile automatic thoughts on the relationship between aggression and BIT. Variables and analyses in Study 2 were the same as those carried out in Study 1A. the influence of experience.4 illustrates the research design for Study 3. Figure 3.3. or the length of time they had held a valid automobile operator’s licence. Then. using a sample that indicated motorcycles as their primary mode of transportation. and (b) taxi experience.of control on the relationship between aggression and BIT.3. the mediating effect of the BIT on the relations between psychological variables and crash occurrence and injury occurrence was tested. First.5 Study 3 The final study used a sample of on-duty taxicab drivers. Finally. 90 . Figure 3. the mediating effect of the BIT on the relations between psychological variables and crash occurrence and injury occurrence was tested. Figure 3. It should be noted that certain of the variables examined with the automobile drivers in Study 1 and with the motorcycle drivers in Study 2 were not included when taxicab drivers were sampled in Study 3. Two measures of experience were included: (a) driving experience. 3.3 illustrates the research design for Study 1C. or the length of time they had been licensed to operate a taxicab. the moderating effect of locus of control on the relationship between aggression and BIT was assessed. Then.
1: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1. Gender was not included as a demographic variable in Study 3 because all taxicab drivers in the sample were male.1.2 :Freeway urgency will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.3:Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.4: Destination-Activity orientation will have a positive influence on injury occurrence Y Y Y Y Y 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 H2.2: Travel frequency will have a negative influence on total BIT score H2.given that data were collected during in situ interview and testing sessions with drivers during a rolling trip from point to point through Kuala Lumpur streets. Third.1.1: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.4:Destination-Activity orientation 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.2.1: Driver experience will have a negative influence on total BIT score H2.2. limitations were imposed on administration time by driver willingness to participate and by research cost considerations.1: Research Hypotheses STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 H1: Behaviour in traffic will have a positive influence on motor vehicle crash outcomes H1. Second.2. 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. the following fifteen hypotheses and sixty sub-hypotheses were formulated: Table 3.1. potentially raising questions of reliability and validity.4 Formulation of Hypotheses Based on the conceptualisation and research framework.2: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.2.1: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1. instruments employed to measure hopelessness and hostile automatic thoughts used language and response formats not conducive to verbal administration procedures.3: Taxicab experience will have a negative influence on total BIT score 91 .3: Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.2: Freeway urgency will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.1. 3.
1: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Internality H4.3: Age will have a negative influence Aggression Y Y Y Y Y Y H11: Aggression will have a positive influence on behaviour in traffic H11.Table 3.3: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Externally-focused Frustration H7.2: Ethnicity will influence Aggression H10.2.1 (continued) STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 3 H3: Demographic variables will influence behaviour in traffic H3.3: Ethnicity will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H4.2: Ethnicity will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.2.2: Ethnicity will influence total BIT score H3.2: Aggression will have a positive influence on Freeway Urgency H11.1: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Usurpation of Right-of Way H7.3: Hopelessness will moderate the Externality(Powerful-Other)-BIT relationship H10: Demographic variables will influence aggression H10.1: Gender will influence total BIT score H3.1: Aggression will have a positive influence on Usurpation of Right-of Way H11.3.3: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H4.2: Ethnicity will influence Hopelessness H5.3: Externality-Powerful-Others will have a positive influence on total BIT score H9: Hopelessness will moderate the locus of control-BIT Relationship H9.3: Externality-Powerful-Others will have a positive influence on Hopelessness H7: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on behaviour in traffic H22.214.171.124.2: Externality-Chance will have a positive influence on total BIT score H8.3: Age will have a negative influence on Hopelessness H6.4: Aggression will have a positive influence on Destination-Activity Orientation 92 .2: Externality-Chance will have a positive influence on Hopelessness H6.1: Gender will influence Hopelessness H5.1: Ethnicity will influence Locus of Control: Internality H4.3.2: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Freeway Urgency H7.1: Gender will influence Aggression H10.3: 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 H4.4: Hopelessness will have positive influence on Destination-Activity Orientation H8: Locus of Control will influence behaviour in traffic H8.1: Internality will have a negative influence on Hopelessness H6.2: Gender will influences Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.3: Age will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others Y Y Y Y Y Y H5: Demographic variables will influence hopelessness H5.1: Age will influence Locus of Control: Internality H4.2: Hopelessness will moderate the Externality(Chance)-BIT relationship H9.2: Age will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.3: Aggression will have a positive influence on Externally-focused Frustration H11.1.1: Hopelessness will moderate the Internality-BIT relationship H9.1: Internality will have a negative influence on total BIT score H8.1.
1: Thoughts of Physical aggression will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation H15. Participants in Study 2 were undergraduate students at the same private university.2: Thoughts of the Derogation of Others will have a positive influence on BIT H14.5 3.3: Thoughts of Revenge will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation Note: Y=YES 3.1: Thoughts of Physical Aggression will have a positive influence on total BIT H14. Participants from the first round of data collection were included in Study 1A.2: Externality(Chance) will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12.5. with psychological tests and inventories administered to groups of students during lecture sessions.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. registered in a freshman course offered within the Faculty of Management.2: Ethnicity will influence hostile automatic thoughts H13. 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. and those from the third round of data collection were included in Study 1C.1: Gender will have a positive influence on hostile automatic thoughts H13. using the same procedures as in Study 1. within a 14-month period.3: Thoughts of Revenge will have a positive influence on total BIT score H15: Hostile automatic thoughts will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H15.2: Thoughts of Derogation-of-Others will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation H15.3: Age will have a negative influence on hostile automatic thoughts H14: Hostile automatic thoughts will have a positive influence on Behaviour in Traffic H14.1 Methods of Data Collection and Analysis The Sample Participants in Study 1 were undergraduate students at a private university in peninsular Malaysia.1 (continued) STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 3 Y Y Y H12: Locus of control will moderate the aggression-BIT relationship H12. those from the second round of data collection were included in Study 1B.Table 3.1: Internality will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12. Data were collected during three consecutive trimesters. All participants had a valid driving licence but had indicated that a motorcycle was the mode of transportation most of the 93 .
Stokols.time when they travelled. Data collection took place within the taxicab.2 Research Instruments 3.5. Participants were provided with an opportunity to receive a debriefing report about the results of the study by e-mail and/or. I try to urge its driver to move 94 . “ When a traffic light turns green and the car in front of me doesn’t get going immediately. by postal mail.5. Synodinos and Papacostas (1985) developed 26 pairs of two-alternative items.. Participants in Study 3 were taxicab drivers in the Kuala Lumpur area. 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. Participants in Study 3 received the meter or negotiated fare for the trip. with one of the items in each pair written to measure a TABP response and the other a contradictory statement (e. 3. participation was voluntary and confidentiality was assured. 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.2. Participants in Studies 1 and 2 were not remunerated. In all cases. although results were used to demonstrate teaching points related to the syllabus at a point later in the trimester. all of whom possessed a valid driving licence and a commercial permit for the operation of a taxicab. while participants were driving.1 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) Scale This 52-item measures time-urgent behaviour. in the case of Study 3 participants. Participants were recruited during a curb-side introduction of the study by one of a group of four research assistants. Novaco. consistent with of a Type A Behaviour Pattern (TAPB) when driving (see Appendix A). 1978). For inclusion in the study. during a point to point trip.g. Stokals & Campbell. This sample was combined from all three rounds of classroom data collection. Drawing from the earlier Driving Habits Questionnaire (DHQ.
on” versus “When a traffic light turns green and the car in front of me doesn’t get going immediately.80.” “I get extremely irritated when I am travelling behind a slow moving vehicle.” “I often blow my horn at someone as a way of expressing my frustration. such that if the TABP alternative of an item pair was placed in Form A. Externally-focused frustration 6 IV. Items in Form A and Form B are presented in random order. Table 3. Their analysis revealed four dimensions. I try to move that lane as soon as possible.” “When a motor vehicle cuts in front of me.2. I usually think about what I have to do when I get there. Papacostas and Synodinos (1988) provided additional psychometric parameters of the BIT scale. On each form. based on a principal components analysis of earlier-reported data. with a coefficient alpha of . Six of the items are answered on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree”. I just wait for a while until it moves”) for a total of 52 item stems. Freeway urgency 14 III. Synodinos and Papacostas reported that Form A and Form B (which correlated . 20 items are answered on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from “most like me” to “least like me”. Destination-activity orientation 8 Total 52 95 .” “While travelling to work (or to school).” II.2: Dimensions of the BIT scale Factor I.” “I usually get upset at drivers who do not signal their driving intentions. as indicated in table 3.” “On a clear highway. to school or to an appointment with someone. I usually feel like pushing them off the road. Usurpation of right-ofway No. I usually drive a few kilometres above the speed limit.” “I often find myself checking the time while driving to work.91) were found to be internally consistent. Items were presented in two alternate forms (Form A and Form B). of items 24 Sample items “When I am in a traffic jam and the lane next to mine starts to move. then the item of the pair representing the opposite end of the continuum was placed in Form B and vice versa. In a later study.
A sample item is “I have often found that what is going to happen will happen”. it’s usually because I worked hard for it”. A sample item is “When I get what I want. The phrase “cross-junction” was added to items pertaining to behaviour at intersections. References to the faster. References to the “gas pedal” were replaced by “accelerator”. passing lane were changed from “left lane” to “right lane” and the word “pass” was replaced with “overtake”.2. High scores on the internality (I) scale indicate that respondents expect to have a high degree of control over their own lives.5. 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”.2 Levenson Locus of Control Scale This widely-used questionnaire is based on Levenson’s (1981) multidimensional view of locus of control. 3.Certain items in the original American version were re-worded to make them relevant to the Malaysian context and driving jargon. ranging from +3 (“agree strongly”) to –3 (“disagree strongly”). 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. High scores on the externality-chance (C) scale indicate that respondents expect expect chance forces or luck to have control over their lives. A sample item is “Although I might have good ability. References to “miles per hour” were changed to “kilometres per hour”. It contains three 8-item sub-scales that measure perceptions about the level of control exercised over the events and circumstances in their lives. Participants scored all 24 items on a 6-point scale.
Beck et al. 3. or 0.” 97 .” “If I’m angry enough.” “I sometimes feel that people are laughing at me behind my back. verbal aggression. 2005.3: The Five Subscales of the Aggression Questionnaire Subscale Physical Aggression (PHY) Verbal Aggression (VER) Anger (ANG) Hostility (HOS) Indirect Aggression (IND) Total No. if endorsed. I may mess up someone’s work.3). and five subscales measure physical aggression. 1993. Table 3. High scores are taken to indicate a generally pessimistic view of the future and a high degree of hopelessness. Item scores are summed to yield a total score ranging from 0 to 20.” “When people annoy me.5. A total aggression score can be calculated from summed item responses.” “At times I feel I have gotten a raw deal out of life. Eleven items are keyed true to indicate pessimism about the future.” “At times I feel like a bomb ready to explode. hostility and indirect aggression (see Table 3.2. I may tell them what I think of them. of items 8 5 7 8 6 34 Sample Items: “At times I can’t control the urge to hit someone.2.” “I get into fights more than most people. High internal consistency has been reported across a range of samples (Benzein & Berg.3 Beck Hopelessness Scale (BHS) This 20-item scale contains true-false statements that assess the extent of negative expectancies about the immediate and long-range future (Beck & Steer. 5 = “completely like me”) that best represent how well the item describe them. Of the 20 true-false statements. I might give him or her the silent treatment. Durham.” “When someone really irritates me. anger.4 Aggression Questionnaire (AQ) This questionnaire is a 34-item scale measuring constructs related to the expression of aggression.” “I often find myself disagreeing with people. 1982. 9 are keyed false to indicate optimism about the future.” “I let my anger show when I do not get what I want. a sample item of which is “I look forward to the future with hope and enthusiasm”. Tanaka et al.3. Each of the 20 statements is scored 1.5. 1996). 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”. if not. Participants indicate a response on a five-point Likert-type scale (1 = “not at all like me”. 1974).
1996).” “I just want to hurt this person as bad as s/he hurt me. of Items 11 10 9 30 Sample Items “If I could get away with it. Shapiro. 1997. . Questions included details about the participant’s licensing and driving background.” Participants responded on a 5point Likert-type scale (1 = “not at all”.5.92.4: The Three Subscales of the Hostile Automatic Thoughts (HAT) Scale Factor Physical aggression Derogation of others Revenge Total No.2. Cascardi & Pythress. Snyder et al. 2000). Table 3.88 for the five subscales (Buss & Warren. Boyd.94 for the total aggression scores and ranging from . 98 .5 Hostile Automatic Thoughts (HAT) This 30-item self-report index measures the frequency of recurring hostile thoughts. gender. 2000) and discriminant validity (Archer & Haigh. ethnicity and history of motor vehicle crashes and injuries.” 3.” “I want to get back at this person. I’d kill this person!” “I’d like to knock his/her teeth out” “What an idiot!” “This person is a loser. age. Williams.5. Previous studies have established high levels of concurrent validity (Harris. derogation of others and revenge respectively.High internal consistency has been reported with a coefficient alpha of . 5 = “all the time”). (1997) reported high internal consistency for all three sub-scales.6 Personal Information Form (PIF) Participants also completed a 4-page questionnaire recording personal information. 1997. High scores on a sub-scale indicated that type of hostile thinking had occurred to the participant frequently. with coefficient alpha values of .4). 3.91 for physical aggression. Each item includes a statement expressing some hostile thought and respondents are asked to indicate “whether that thought (or one like it) has occurred to you about another driver when you have been driving. Three factors – physical aggression.88 and . derogation of others and revenge – were identified and are included as subscales (see table 3.2.71 to .
Levenson. BHS. BHS. in random order. Study 1B: PIF. Participants were assured of confidentiality and were de-briefed. In studies 1 and 2. packages of research instruments were distributed as follows: Study 1A: PIF. (d) the remaining instruments used in that particular study were presented. between the two forms of the BIT. AQ and HAT. (c) the last instrument in the package was the opposite for of the BIT from the one presented second. and (f) not spend too much time on any one answer. Instructions advised the participants to (a) answer all questions on each questionnaire. BIT scale and AQ. (b) give honest answers that described themselves rather than putting the “best things to say”. Participants were informed about the study and invited to participate on a voluntary basis. Participants were provided with up to 60 minutes to complete the scales but in no cases did the average administration time exceed 45 minutes. After the briefing period.6. (e) put down the first response that came into their mind. BIT scale. the instruments were presented in the following order: (a) the PIF was the first one in the package.6 3.3. Levenson. Study 1C: PIF. BHS. Levenson and BIT scale. (c) not discuss answers with others as they were completing the questionnaires.1 Procedure Studies 1 and 2 Data collection took place within a classroom or lecture hall during a regularly- scheduled class periods. A brief written description of the purpose of the research and general instructions (see Appendix B) was distributed. with an e-mail summary of results. 99 . upon request. (b) the second instrument was either Form A or Form B of the BIT scale. (d) read instructions for each questionnaire very carefully and complete them in the order they were distributed.
as well as at least two additional Malaysian languages. 3. four female final-year undergraduate students. Independent-sample t-tests. as well. Two to four times daily. Over the course of the trip. with prior research experience were retained to assist in the study.0. 2004). For safety reasons. with the team of research assistants meeting regularly three times each week to calibrate administration procedures. 2002). provided assurance of confidentiality and secured participation.2 Study 3 For study 3. Specific statistical tests have been summarised in Table 3. approached at a taxi stand or booked over the telephone. This section provides a brief example of each one and details its use in the present research. 100 . the research assistant informed the taxicab driver about the study. rel. AQ and Levenson scales. Levenson Locus of Control scale. research assistants verbally administered the PIF. BIT. analyses of variance (ANOVA). At initial contact. Reliability coefficients of all instruments were calculated using SPSS. Structural equation models and path analyses were estimated using the same version of LISREL. Confirmatory Factor Analyses (CFA) were performed on the BIT. data collection was confined to times between 8:00 am and 9:00 pm. aged 22 to 24 years. with the remaining instruments administered in random order. Single-word substitutions in items were made in English or the driver’s first language if comprehension difficulties arose. linear and multiple regression analyses and logistic regression analyses were used to test the hypotheses.3.7 Analysis of the Data Data collected were entered and processed using Statistical Package for the Social Science (SPSS for Windows. 8. AQ and HAT to determine validity using LInear Structural RElations software (LISREL. 13.5. each research assistant hired a taxicab to drive to some location elsewhere in the Kuala Lumpur area. All four research assistants spoke fluent English and Bahasa Malaysia. Taxis were flagged down at roadside. The PIF was always administered first. rel.5. Data collection took place in taxicabs.6.
1: Hopelessness influence the level of Usurpation of Right-of Way H7.1: The level of BIT influence the crash occurrence H1.2: Ethnicity background influence the level of Hopelessness H5.Table 3.2: Externality (Chance) is positively related to Hopelessness H6.3: 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 H6.4: Hopelessness influence the level of Destination-activity Orientation Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression 101 .3: Hopelessness influence the level of Externally-focused Frustration H7.3: Age influence the Locus of Control Independent Sample tTest Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance The Direct Effect of Demographic Factors on Hopelessness H5.3: “Access to a motor vehicle” influence the level of BIT Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance The Direct Effect of Demographic Factors on BIT H3.2: Ethnicity influence the Locus of Control H4.2: “Frequency of traveling” influence the level of BIT H2.1: Internality is negatively related to hopelessness H6.2: The level of BIT influence the crash injury Logistic Regression Logistic Regression The Direct Effect of Driving characteristics on BIT H2.2: Hopelessness influence the level of Freeway Urgency H7.1: Gender influence the level of Hopelessness H5.1: Gender influence the level of BIT H3.1: Gender influence the Locus of Control H4.5: Statistical Methods for Hypothesis Testing Data Analysis Methods The Direct Effect of BIT on Accident Involvement H1.1: “Length of having driving licence” influence the level of BIT H2.3: Age influence the level of BIT Independent Sample t-Test Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance The Direct Effect of Demographic Factors on Locus of Control H4.3: Externality (Powerful-Other) is positively related to Hopelessness Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression The Direct Effect of Hopelessness on BIT H7.2: Ethnicity background influence the level of BIT H3.
1: Gender influences the level of Aggression H10. the higher the BIT level H8.1: Gender has a positive influence on hostile automatic thoughts H13.3: Age influences the level of Aggression Independent Sample t-Test Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance The Direct Effect of Aggression on BIT H11.1: Internality moderates the Aggression-BIT relation H12.2: Ethnicity background influences the level of Aggression H10.3: Aggression influence the level of Externally-focused Frustration H11.2: Aggression influence the level of Freeway Urgency H11.3: Hopelessness moderates the Externality (Powerful-Other)-BIT relation Multiple Linear Regression The Direct Effect of Demographic Factors on Aggression H10.5 (continued) Data Analysis Methods The Direct Effect of Locus of Control on BIT H8.2: Ethnicity influences hostile automatic thoughts H13. the lower the BIT level H8.4: 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 H12.1: Aggression influence the level of Usurpation of Right-of Way H11.Table 3.2: Hopelessness moderates the Externality(Chance)-BIT relation H9.1: Hopelessness moderates the Internality-BIT relation Multiple Linear Regression H9.2: Externality(Chance) moderates the Aggression-BIT relation H12.3: The higher Externality (Powerful-Other).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 H13.1: The higher the Internality. 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 H9.2: The higher Externality (Chance).3: Age has a negative influence on hostile automatic thoughts Independent Sample t-Test Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance 102 .
locus of control.7. In the present research.7.3: Thoughts of Revenge have a positive influence on BIT Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression The Moderating Effect of HAT on the Aggression-BIT Relation H15. When significant differences were observed. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) differed for male and female drivers. post hoc analyses were carried out using the Scheffé method (Klockars & Hancock.1: Thoughts of Physical Aggression will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation H15. t-tests are used to compare the means of two groups. t-tests were used to determine whether participants’ scores on psychological variables (BIT. 2000).Table 3. hopelessness.2 One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) ANOVA is used to compare means for more than two groups.2: Thoughts of Derogation-of-Others have a positive influence on BIT H14. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) differed for drivers with different ethnic backgrounds. In the present study. hopelessness.1: Thoughts of Physical Aggression have a positive influence on BIT H14. locus of control.2: Thoughts of Derogation-of-Others will moderate the AggressionBIT relation H1353: Thoughts of Revenge will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation Multiple Linear Regression Multiple Linear Regression Multiple Linear Regression 3. 3. 103 .1 Independent-sample t-tests Generally.5 (continued) Data Analysis Methods The Direct Effect of HAT on BIT H14. ANOVA was used to determine whether participants’ scores on psychological variables (BIT.
aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) on behaviour in traffic (BIT). linear regression was applied to examine the relationship between psychological variables (locus of control. 3. In the present research.5 Multiple Regression Analysis This analysis aims to examine if there is a relationship between the dependent variable and independent variables. In the present research. R-square and coefficient values were then estimated to determine the significance of the moderating effect of hopelessness. 104 . For instance. GLM univariate analysis of variance was used to determine whether there was an interaction effect between ethnic background and psychological factors (locus of control.4 Linear Regression Analysis This analysis is used to determine if a relationship exists between a dependent variable and an independent variable and.7. the moderating effects of the variables were tested using hierarchical regression methods. In the present research.3 The General Linear Model (GLM) Univariate Analysis This procedure allows a factorial analysis of variance by comparing means of a dependent variable for groups defined by factor variables. Application of multiple regression analysis involves more than one single independent variable. the direction of the relationship (positive or negative).7. It is useful for analysis of variance models with one or more factor variables or covariates and a single dependent variable. externality-chance (C) and externalitypowerful-others (P) have an effect on hopelessness. Also. if so.7. hopelessness. multiple regression analysis was used to test whether internality (I). 3.3. first P scores were entered into the regression equation. second. hopelessness. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) and behaviour in traffic (BIT). to test whether hopelessness moderated the P-BIT relationship. the products of P x hopelessness scores were added into the regression equation.
Goodness-of-fit indicates how 105 . on the other hand. Path coefficients were calculated to demonstrate correlates of unsafe driving according to their contextual proximity to crash and injury occurrence. “1” was scored if a crash had occurred and “0” if no crash had occurred.7 Structural Equation Modelling.3. and (b) examine the interrelationships among variables included in the research design. the purpose of which was to distinguish the distal and proximal contextual factors related to crash outcomes. seeks to determine the odds that an event will or will not occur.7. using LISREL. as well as between several latent constructs” (p. The result was a measurement model described as a contextual-mediated model. In the present research. Since driver experience and travel frequency were expected to have an influence on the outcome variables. That is. Linear or multiple regression seek to measure the degree of influence that variables will have on a dependent variable. each of the two outcome variables (crash occurrence and injury occurrence) was framed as a binary variable. “1” was scored if a crash injury had occurred and “0” if no crash injury had occurred. logistic regression. 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). 3. Covariates (driver experience and travel frequency) and the independent variable (BIT) were entered into the logistic regression equation to predict the probability of participants’ crash and injury occurrence. 710). In the present research. SEM was carried out. to (a) assess the validity of the instruments.7.6 Logistic Regression Analysis Logistic regression is similar to linear regression but differs with respect to the nature of data that can be treated and in the manner in which coefficients are interpreted. these variables were controlled as covariates in the logistic regression equation. The validity of this measurement model was dependent on its goodness-of-fit and on the construct validity of its component variables.
745). Thus. the estimated covariance matrix is compared mathematically to the actual observed covariance matrix to provide an estimate of model fit. In the present research. the estimated covariance matrix (∑k) and the actual covariance matrix (S) would be the same. but a wide array of tests of the overall fit of SEM models – “more. the adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI) and the expected cross- 106 . The closer the values of these two matrices are to each other. the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) and the root mean square residual (RMR).. 1998) – presently exists. Incremental fit measures assess how well a specified model fits relative to some alternative baseline model. 1998). Incremental fit measures included the comparative fit index (CFI). in fact. For Study 1C. Absolute fit measures are a direct measure of how well the model specified by the researcher reproduces the researcher’s data. According to Marsh et al. p. than anyone would want to report” (Maryuma. the better the model is said to fit. 2006. Once a researcher’s theory is used to specify a model from which the parameters are estimated. The fundamental measure of fit is the chi-square (χ2) statistic (Byrne. additional measures were used to compare the relative fit of two models under consideration. these can be classified as absolute fit indexes and relative or incremental fit indexes.well the measurement model reproduces the covariance matrix among indicator items That is. (Hair et al. including: (1) two absolute indexes. (1988). the χ2/df ratio the goodness-of-fit index (GFI). the absolute fit measures included the χ2 statistic. If a researcher’s theory were perfect. the model fit compares the theory to reality as represented by the data.
0.10 indicate poor fit.7.3 Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) and Root Mean Square Residual (RMR) This index measures the error of approximation in the population and to question “how well would the model. the normed fit index (NFI).1 Chi-Square (χ2). 3. For a sample size less than 250 (and with number of observed variables that is less than 12). an insignificant p-value is expected. the parsimony goodness-of-fit index (PGFI). 1998). the higher the probability associated with χ2. 2006).7. the ratio indicates a good fit. when the ratio of χ2 to df yields a value of less than 3. 1998. and a measure of parsimony fit.00 in which values greater than . the closer the fit between the hypothesized model (established under the null hypothesis). Thus. fit the population covariance matrix if it were available” (Byrne. (2006) have highlighted that for sample size greater than 250 (with a number of observed variables less than 12).7. However. an insignificant p-value can result in good fit.7.validation index (ECVI). pp.7. Carmines and McIver (1981) have noted that. 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. 2006). 112). 107 .7. Hair et al. 3. one incremental index. with unknown but optimally chosen parameter values. 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.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. RMSEA values can range from zero to 1. 3..
Root mean square residual (RMR) is another badness-of-fit measure.00 being indicative of good fit. Values range from zero to 1. Since the CFI is insensitive to model complexity. an RMR greater than .7.5 Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) and Comparative Fit Index (CFI) The GFI can range from zero to 1.7. The AGFI penalises more complex models and favours those with a minimum number of free paths.7.00. but AGFI values are typically lower than GFI values in proportion to model complexity.10 usually suggests a poor fit of the data for the model. 1980) represents a ratio of the difference in the χ2 value for the fitted model and a null model divided by the χ2 value for the null model.7.00 with value more than . The index ranges between zero and 1.00. it is known as one of the most widely used indices (Hair et al. Thus. 2006).00 with value closes to 1. 3. Tanaka & Huba. 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.. The index can range from zero to 1. CFI is an improved version of the normed fit index.00. 3. and a model with perfect fit would produce an NFI of 1. with higher values indicating better fit.7.4 Normed Fit Index (NFI) One of the original incremental measures of fit.7. the normed fit index (NFI. 3.90 is usually associated with a model that fits well. 108 . Bentler & Bonnet.6 Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index (AGFI) An adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI.
A parsimony fit measure is improved by a better fit and/or a simpler model which.. 1994). 1982) uses the parsimony ratio to adjust the GFI in order to compare two models. designed specifically to provide information about which model among a competing set of models is best. a PGFI value is meant only to be used in comparing it to another model’s PGFI value” (Hair et al.7.7. considering its fit relative to its complexity.7 Expected Cross-Validation Index (ECVI) The expected cross-validation index (ECVI. means a model with fewer estimated parameter paths (Hair et al. 2006.. Mulaik & Brett. 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. the model with the higher ECVI value is generally regarded as presenting a better fit. it is most commonly used when comparing the performance of one model to another.00. In such cases. 3. The ECVI also takes into account the number of estimated parameters for a given model. It should be noted that. The parsimony ratio is calculated as the ratio of degrees of freedom used by a model to the total degrees of freedom available (Marsh & Balla. 109 . and the model with the higher PGFI is considered preferable. in this case.00. p. Values range between zero and 1. 750). based on the combination of fit and parsimony represented by the index. Browne & Cudeck. James.7. The parsimony goodness-of-fit index (PGFI. Although values range from zero to 1. Like other parsimony fit indices. “a PGFI taken alone is not a useful indicator of a single model’s fit.3. it takes into account the actual sample size and the difference that could be expected in another sample. 2006).7.8 Parsimony Goodness-of-Fit Index (PGFI) A third class of measures is sometimes recognised as the parsimony indices.
2000). Kurtosis refers to the flatness or peakedness of one distribution in relation to another. in this case. “It is conventional to speak of a distribution as leptokurtic if is more peaked than … the normal distribution. the distribution of test scores to the normal distribution.05. the distribution is said to be negatively skewed (Ferguson.3. 1956). Many parametric statistics assume that variables are distributed approximately normally and SPSS calculates values for skewness and kurtosis to assist in determing 110 . In this case. If a distribution is assymetrical and the larger frequencies tend to be concentrated toward the low end of the variable and the smaller frequencies toward the high end. 1976. 37). and platykurtic if it is less peaked.8 Kolmogorov-Smirnov One-Sample Test The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test is concerned with the degree of agreement between the distribution of a set of sample values (or observed scores) and some specified theoretical distribution. 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. the larger frequencies being concentrated toward the high end of the variable and the smaller frequencies toward the low end. The normal distribution is spoken of as mesokurtic. the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to assess whether there was a significant departure from normality in the distribution of variable scores. which means that it falls between leptokurtic and platykurtic distributions” (Ferguson. then it is possible to conclude the the data do not violate the normality assumption (Carver & Nash.7. If the opposite holds.7. it is said to be positively skewed. When p-values for the Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic are greater than our α=. p. 3.
111 . Marcoulides & Hershberger. A commonly used guideline is that. 1997). 2005. if skewness and kurtosis less than ±1. the variable is at least approximately normal (Leech.normality of variable distributions. Barrett & Morgan.
1.4% 146 14. with results of these tests reported in this chapter. Thirteen of the participants did not complete all the questionnaires and two participants completing questionnaires reported that they did not have driving licences.6% 12.1% 536 100% 54.5% MalaysianIndian 64 14.9% 14.4% 269 27. It begins with a discussion of reliability and validity tests of the instruments. Thus 977 participants were included in the analysis.4% 333 62. Then.9% Total 441 100% 45.5% 6.55). Ages of participants ranged from 18 to 29 years.9% 977 100% 100% Female Total 112 .1% 34.3% 8.1 Description of the Samples Age.5% 27.1% 562 57. The contextual mediated model was tested using (1) regression analysis (SPPS) and (2) structural equation modelling (LISREL). 4.1).5% 57. descriptive statistics are presented and the results of hypothesis testing are reported. 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 4.6% 15.9% 23. with a mean age of 20.13 years (SD = 1.1: 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 33.1 4.CHAPTER 4 ANALYSIS OF THE DATA This chapter presents the results of the research. Table 4.5% Ethnicity MalaysianChinese 229 51.6% 82 15.1% 121 22. A contextual mediated model showing interrelationships between variables is introduced. Gender and Ethnicity Participants were 992 undergraduate students at an English-language Malaysian university.
with a mean age of 20. In Study 1C. with a mean age of 20. 301 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode of transportation to be the automobile comprised the sample.68. 149 taxicab drivers participated.01 years (SD = 1. range from 18 to 25). In Study 3.89 years (SD = 1.53.63. 113 . Malaysian-Chinese represented the highest number of participants (57. In Study 1A.5 per cent) and Malaysian-Indian (14. In Study 2. with a mean age of 20. followed by Malay (27.5 per cent). range of 18 to 26).Female participants (approximately 55 per cent) slightly out-numbered males. 252 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode of transportation to be the automobile comprised the sample. range from 18 to 27). 122 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode of transportation to be the motorcycle comprised the sample. with a mean age of 19. A crosstabulation between gender and ethnicity (see Table 4.35. range from 18 to 29).43 years (SD = 1. 302 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode of transportation to be the automobile comprised the sample. In Study 1B. Thus.25 years (SD = 1.1) showed that most of the drivers were female Malaysian-Chinese. 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.9 per cent).
Table 4.53 1. Table 4.25 43.D. Gender and Ethnicity of Participants in Studies 1. Kuala Lumpur.5 8.19 S.4% of the sample. 2 and 3 Gender STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 3 N 301 302 252 122 133 Mean Age 20.3). Participants from East Malaysia comprised 5. Johor or Perak made up 53.89 20.68 1.65 Male Female Malay Ethnicity MalaysianChinese MalaysianIndian 105 175 88 73 133 196 127 164 49 0 68 87 81 33 55 202 166 128 66 52 31 49 43 23 26 Note: N=sample size . SD = standard deviation 4.3% of the sample.9 2.43 19. Participants who had received their driving licenses in Selangor.2.1 6.5 114 .63 11. 1.1. Descriptive data for each sample are provided in Table 4. range from 23 to 73). they hailed from across the country (see table 4.2: Age.responses from 133 taxicab drivers were included in data analysis. The mean age was 43.3 11.65.3: States from Which Study 1 Participants Had Acquired Their Original Drivers’ Licenses Johor Kedah Kelantan Kuala Lumpur Melaka Negeri Sembilan Pahang N 109 42 20 98 70 61 56 % 12. 1B and 1C were all students at a single Malaysian university.19 years (SD = 11.7 4.35 1.01 20.2 7.2 Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 1 Although participants in Studies 1A.
1% of the sample.1.4).1 9.5 14.9 0.2 17.1. Participants who had received their driving licenses in Selangor.4: States from Which Study 2 Participants Had Acquired Their Original Motorcyclists’ Licenses N Johor Kedah Kelantan Kuala Lumpur Melaka Negeri Sembilan Pahang Penang Perak Perlis Sabah Sarawak Selangor Terengganu 17 9 1 11 9 5 11 13 14 2 2 3 18 7 122 % 13.7 3.4 0.8 9.7 11.8 11. Table 4.9 7.0 7.6 1.6 100 4. Perak or Penang made up 50.4 4.6 2.2 2.0 10.7 100 4.9% of the sample.2 3.4 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. Participants from East Malaysia comprised 4.8 5.Penang Perak Perlis Sabah Sarawak Selangor Terengganu 67 102 6 27 19 147 31 855 7.3 Geographic Distribution of the Sample in Study 2 Participants in Study 2 were all students at a single Malaysian university. As the sample was 115 .5 1. but again they held licenses from various states (see table 4.
A Cronbach’s Alpha of . 1978). Neuman (2003) defined reliability is defined as “dependability or consistency” and further explained that reliability suggests that the same event is repeated or recurs under identical or very similar conditions. In the present research. the higher is the internal consistency of the measure. reliability was measured using Cronbach’s coefficient alpha.2 4.2. 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.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. 4. 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 4.70 or greater is generally considered acceptable (Nunnally. 2000). The closer Cronbach’s Alpha is to 1. 116 .5). no attempt was made to determine the geographic location in which drivers had originally received noncommercial drivers’ licenses.intended to be representative of Kuala Lumpur taxicab drivers.
774 .772 α .910 .742 .904 .906 .701 .786 .730 .703 .808 .727 . of Item α Study 2 (N=122) Motorcycle Drivers (student sample) Study 3 (N=133) Taxicab Drivers α .715 .738 .740 .830 .733 .Table 4.720 .768 Not Applicable Not Applicable .741 .756 .798 .707 .740 .749 .887 .784 .782 .811 .739 .734 .702 .827 .817 .726 Not Applicable Not Applicable α .737 .720 .718 .747 .781 .714 .715 .783 .711 .890 .881 α .808 .824 .810 .701 Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable 117 .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 .788 .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.727 .783 .754 .782 .735 .
876 .800 . depending on which is used (Byrne. it was also possible to measure reliability as a coefficient of correlation between Form A and Form B (Synodinos &Papacostas.803 . 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. only Form A was used. The results of parallel-form reliability for the BIT instrument in different studies are shown in Table 4.80.857 .958 .805 . 118 . The root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) index measures the error of approximation in the population and determines whether the model.08 to .929 . 205).804 .801 .903 .808 Study 2 . 1985).3 Validity Test Results In the present research.806 .10 indicate poor fit (MacCallum et al. fits the population correlation matrix or covariance matrix. values ranging from . RMSEA values less than . 1998).2. Table 4. more than . 1998).2 Parallel-Form Reliability In the case of the BIT scale.804 .802 4.811 . Reliability coefficients in all studies where both forms were used are acceptable since Form A and Form B were highly correlated. Byrne. In Study 3. confirmatory factor analyses using LISREL (Jöreskog & Sörbom. 2002) was used to establish evidence of construct validity for various measures. we may be fairly certain that the measures are reasonably reliable. with unknown but optimally chosen parameter values. and those greater than . Sekaran (2003) notes that “if two comparable forms are highly correlated (. ordering or other test construction factors” (p.10 indicate a mediocre fit.953 .804 Study 1C .916 .807 . 1998). 19126.96.36.199 or above). with minimal error variance caused by wording.4.807 Study 1B .05 indicate good fit.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 .
1 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the BIT Scale In the present research.92 . externally-focused frustration. drivers’ behaviour in traffic was measured by the four component factors of the BIT scale: usurpation of right-of-way.048 .97 1. A third statistic.96 1.047 .95 1.00 1.99 .00 .097 .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 both GFI and CFI were more than . Table 4.00 1. If the value of CFI exceeds .077 .3.00.00 (the closer to 1. the higher the goodness-of-fit).98 Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation.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 . 1992).000 . and destination-activity orientation.000 .96 .074 .90.00 . although the GFI index ranges from zero to 1.92 .97 1.000 .91 .000 . CFI= Comparative Fit Index 119 . it is possible to have negative GFI.00 1.92 1.00 1.000 . indicating good fits. As shown in Table 4.000 .7.90.99 .96 .00 1.098 . parameter values for all four of these factors were within acceptable ranges. the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) is estimated to indicate whether complete covariation in the data is achieved.00 1.2.024 .Jöreskog and Sörbom (1993) reported that.000 .100.99 . RMSEA values in each case were less than .061 .98 .99 .00 .98 .97 .98 1.089 . it is generally considered an acceptable fit to the data (Bentler.91 .00 . freeway urgency.98 1.96 .00 .00 .00 1.99 .93 .000 . GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index.00 1.054 . 4. This reflects that the model fits worse than no model at all.097 .070 .00 1.
085 .2.93 .100.052 .99 .93 . GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index.063 .030 .000 . anger (ANG).90. Each component of the locus of control was measured separately.2.92 . Five component factors of aggression were measured: physical aggression (PHY).95 .93 .091 .95 .98 .92 . C and P scales were all within acceptable ranges.058 .00 .95 1. CFI= Comparative Fit Index 4. and both GFI and CFI were more than .93 .071 .98 Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation.3.92 .96 .096 .085 .073 .96 .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. RMSEA values were less than .98 Study 2 RMSEA Study 3 CFI RMSEA GFI GFI CFI Locus of Control Internality Externality (Chance) Externality (Powerful-Other) .97 .2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Levenson Locus of Control Scale Locus of control was measured across three dimensions: internality (I).97 . under the assumption that locus of control is a multidimensional phenomenon. externality-chance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P).4.96 .98 .98 .96 .3.93 . Table 4.081 .91 . verbal aggression (VER).081 .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) .059 . indicating good fits (See Table 4.91 .99 .93 . hostility (HOS) and indirect aggression 120 .91 .8.93 .083 .
92 . indicating good fits (See Table 188.8.131.52 Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation.98 .2.97 . and both GFI and CFI were more than .94 .096 . RMSEA values were less than .97 .97 .047 .4 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the HAT Scale The HAT was only used in Study 1C (with automobile drivers sampled from a student population). Three classes of hostile automatic thoughts were measured: physical aggression.081 .089 .97 .98 .098 . CFA revealed that parameter values for all five aggression subscales were within acceptable ranges.073 .058 .088 .98 .96 .96 .10: Summary of LISREL Results on Validity for HAT (Study 1C) RMSEA Hostile Automatic Thought (HAT) Physical Aggression Derogation of Others Revenge GFI CFI .97 Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation.98 . and both GFI and CFI were more than .070 .97 .97 .95 .97 .(IND). CFI= Comparative Fit Index 121 .92 .10).083 .94 . Table 4.095 .92 .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 .97 . RMSEA values were less than .055 .97 .93 . CFI= Comparative Fit Index 4.99 .081 .088 .90. CFA revealed that parameter values for all three measurement scales were within acceptable ranges. derogation of others and revenge.97 .98 .95 .100.098 .98 .98 .025 .98 . A total aggression score was arrived at by summing the five subscale scores.070 .98 . GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index.090 . Table 4. GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index.98 .96 . indicating good fit (see Table 4.98 .9).98 .100.
140) -.278(..179(.280) .280) -. 2006). indicating that the distribution of scores did not depart from normality.069) 1.140) .962 (.010 (.034 (.11: Normality Tests. 2005.099(.280) -. In all cases.280) .085 (.140) -. but with a non-signficant platykurtic tendency for the locus of control data.183) 1.280) -.064(.875(.409(. values for the Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic were non-significant (p>.140) .280) -.102) 1.140) -.064) 1..239 (.409(.226 (. Table 4.428) .511(.920(.379(.052) 1.351 (.280) . Marcoulides & Hershberger.280) -.091(.091) 1.05). Normality can also be assessed by examining sknewness and kurtosis values (Hair et al.219 (.331(.037(.140) -.080(.11 indicates that variable distribution fell within these limits.560(.353(.560(.246(.140) -.719(.085) 1.280) .188(.280) .082 (.332 (. Skewness and kurtosis values of ± 1 are acceptable (Leech et al.140) . Skewness and Kurtosis Data were studied to determine whether they were normally distributed and therefore capable of satisfying parametric assumptions.204(.140) -.186) 1.280) -.140) -.140) -.020 (.085 (.126(.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 .280) .280) .154(.323 (.280) .3 Normality.105 (.410(.191) 1.140) .453(.107) 1.297(.057) 1.297(.241(.126(.099) 1.085) 1.656(.022 (.280) -.190) 1. 1997).140) .256 (.280) .356 (.280) .140) .140) -.091(.140) .195 (.140) .403(.099) 1. Table 4.408(.297 (.278(.107 (.280) .140) -.805(.064(.106) 1.192) 1.140) -.099(.203(.183) 1.140) .4.280) -.146(.280) .192(.280) -. 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 1.120) 1.260) .094 (.179(.582(.
362(.153) .510) 1.293 (.210) -.153) .417) -.847 (.236(.919 (.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 1.295(.306) -.911 (305) 1.007(.024 (.259) .417) -.153) .277(.210) -.979(.084) 1.469) 1.952(.423(.306) .153) .186(.354 (.913(.098) 1.417) -.267) .153) .972(.884(.153) .153) -.417) .219) -.306) .003 (.153) .247) .210) .153) .852(.006(.131(.629(.101) 1.948(.366(.210) .962(.306) -.426) .463(.001 (.913 (.567(.064) 1.160 (.209(.986 (.276 (.297 (.153) .973(306) .210) .417) -.223 (.219) -.392(.154) -.417) .062(.030(.135) 1.306) .106(.812(.210) .417) .279 (.994(.265) 1.360) -.271(.210) -.375) 1.715(.435) -.130(.106(.070 (.417) -.417) -.503(.088 (.799(.324(.359 (.219) .306) .264) .106 (.051) .247) 1.157) .435) -.359 (.147(.024 (.138) 1.533) .138(.300(.256(.467(.940(.053(.414(.360) .022 (.276(.501(.244(.317) 1.978(.915(.Table 4.306) -.048(.210) .435) -.962 (.807 (.051) 1.321) 1.497(.057) 1.153) .719(.210) .153) 983(.640(.435) -.366) 1.219) .147(.306) .099) 1.128 (.451(.110 (.102) .195 (.959 (.153) .270) 1.417) -.841(.805 (.098) 1.219) .104) 1.266 (.210) .198(.153) -.156(.435) .537(.306) -.100) .219) .306) -.128) .210) .327 (.360) .052) 1.214) 1.052) 1.219) .822 (.022 (.338 (.435) -.142(.417) .053(.540(.370(.153) .443(.187) 1.011 (.852(.435) -.360) .417) -.681(.219) -.159(.567(.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 .306) -.113 (.120(.478(.435) -.713(.
males were more than twice as likely to report involvement in two or three automobile crashes. injury occurrence was much higher.12.3 per cent being hospitalised. For motorcycle drivers.12. Male and female automobile drivers reported involvement in one crash with almost the same frequency. (2) injuries severe enough to require out-patient treatment at a medical clinic (see Table 4. column b). column c).4 Crash and Injury Occurrence Data Participants in all studies indicated whether they had experienced an accident within the preceding twelve months in which their vehicle had sustained more than RM100 damage and. (3) injuries requiring hospitalisation (see Table 4. Table 4.4. However. if so. 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.12. 124 . with 44.13). column a). 1B and 1C selfreported that they had been involved in at least one motor vehicle crash over the preceding year (see Table 4. whether the accident had resulted in (1) no injuries or injuries insufficiently severe to seek medical attention (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.
Table 4. involved in one crash Total Ethnicity No. involved in two crashes Total Ethnicity No. involved in three crashes Total Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Gender Male Female 80 57 119 103 33 44 232 204 24 9 19 7 7 2 50 18 12 5 9 3 1 2 22 10 Total 137 222 77 436 33 26 9 68 17 12 3 32 More than half of the motorcycle drivers sampled in Study 2 reported that they had been involved in at least one motor vehicle crash over the preceding year (see Table 4.13: Crash Occurrence Frequency.14) Regardless of ethnic background. Gender and Ethnicity in Study 1 (N=855) Automobile Drivers Ethnicity No. involved in one crash Total Ethnicity No. involved in two crash Total Ethnicity No. Gender and Ethnicity in Study 2 (N=122) Motorcycle drivers Ethnicity No. Table 4. involved in three crashes Total Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Gender Male Female 20 8 25 13 16 1 61 22 17 4 15 4 11 0 43 8 10 1 6 1 3 0 19 2 Total 28 38 17 83 21 19 11 51 11 7 3 21 125 .14: Crash Occurrence Frequency. male motorcycle drivers reported higher crash occurrence than female motorcycle drivers.
in Study 1B. it was not correlated with injury occurrence. Study 1C. standard deviations and relationships between distal. and destination-activity orientation. BHS was not significantly correlated with verbal aggression (VER). standard deviations and relationships between distal. 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. standard deviations and relationships between distal. Most of these correlations were significant (p<. Study 1B.1 Distal and Proximal Variable Data Results of Study 1 Study 1A. externally-focused frustration. Also. All these correlations were significant (p<. However. proximal and outcome variables within the sample of automobile drivers.05). Table 4. Hopelessness (BHS) was the only independent variable that was not significantly correlated with crash occurrence and injury occurrence. 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.16 shows means. 126 . 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. All distal and proximal variables were positively correlated except I which was negatively corrected with other variables. Most of these correlations were significant (p<.4.05). Although VER was significantly correlated with crash occurrence. crash occurrence and crash injury. Table 4. proximal and outcome variables within the sample of automobile drivers.5. freeway urgency.5 4. All distal and proximal variables were positively correlated except I which was negatively corrected with other variables. Table 4. proximal and outcome variables within the sample of automobile drivers.05).15 shows means.17 shows means.
57 4.209** 1 .78 .08 2.147* -.201** .231** .22 3.376** .471** .482** .152** .5 5.396** . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 9.45 6.280** .036 .434** .818** 1 .371** .239** .306** .513** .553** -.533** .76 3.247** .191** .155** .749** .129* .342** -.58 .2691 6.442 1 -.278** .435** .316** .218** .566** 1 -.376** .44 4.562** -.625** .331** 1 * Correlation is significant at .345** 1 -.211** .00 165.544** -.D.69 24.027 1 .202** .416** 1 .97 43.476 .52 34.516** 1 -.04 26.96 19.Table 4.340** .804** . 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.942** 1 .147* .381** .246** .186** .3455 .01 level (2-tailed) 127 .15: Means.662** 1 .901** .64 7.88 7.716** .391** -.405** .23 2.05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .388** .339** .
97 Outcome Variables2 16 .01 level (2-tailed) 128 .66 3.366** .150** .382** 1 -.294** 1 .067 -.48 3.430** .279** .372** .3079 .584** -.167** .69 8.071 .378** .039 .411** .254** .013 1 .505** .555** .157** .408** .401** .147** .516** .5695 .452** .380** .393** .515** .45 5 87.731** .496** .448** .331** .312** 1 -.213** .176* .271** .148* .386** .D.Table 4.9 13 46.445** .418** .213** .56 2 4.669** 1 -.85 9.855** .089 -.84 5.443** .140* .697** 1 .355** .688**.491** .491** .355** .4960 17 .481** .520** .847** .254** .964** 1 .254** .353** .779** 1 -.324** .53 19.580** 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 .762** .159 -.162** .43 12.240** .278** 1 -.341** .97 4 4.461** .172** . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Distal Variables1 1 9.268** .05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .335** .213** .65 Proximal Variables1 11 170.438** 1 .400** .272** .369** .343** .763** .275** .91 15 27.816** .380** .172** .310** .06 3 2.376** .00 14 19.331** .153** .414** .602** 1 .173* .028 -.14 4.099 .286* .225** .518** .84 7.531** .9 28.542** .25 8 18.48 5.587** 1 -.22 4.342** .462** .816** .509** .489**. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1B (n=302) Mean S.337** .55 9 21.051 .276** .338** .319** .41 3.463** .200** .407** 1 -.195** .9 12 71.347** 1 -.363** .514** .403** .82 7 13.444** .298** .4624 1 -.343** .540** .586** .5 6 17.358** .921** .521** .16: Means.103 -.842** 1 .236** .003 .550** .028 .523** .334** .60 10 16.50 5.86 6.103 -.355** .434** .178** .440**.
502** .838** .275** .224**.226** .183** .228** .86 -.150* .271** .340** .565** .314** .508** .85 19.095 .038 .364**.434** .58 9.484** .079 1 Outcome Variables2 20 .227** .219** .506** .095 .392** .00 -.109 .216** .139** .141* .422 -.296** .49 6.192**.189** .17 -.057 .530** .422** 1 9 22.03 5.404** .166** .230** .306** .307**.446** .210**.324** .246** .Table 4.275** .263** .05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .395** 1 11 65.183** .05 -.278** .167** .518** .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 .80 17.218** .196** .209** .70 1 2 4.456** .264** .081 .075 .003 .202** .64 -.804** .191** 1 3 .252** .210** .106 .109 .222** .338** .193**.286** .377** .051 .451** .131* .261** .641** 1 4 4.-181** .189** .343** .305** .526** .402** .402** .202** .277** 1 8 19.69 -.069 .311** .292** .313** .150* .424** 1 12 18.42 3.296** .531** 1 10 16.385** .343** .268**.747** .549** 1 Proximal Variables1 15 161.016 .370** .52 7.294** .281** .181** .390** .545** .78 8.310** .199**.235** .357** .166** .354** 1 5 88.8 -.033 .186** .81 -.230** .378** .516 .229** .37 6.192** .67 7.191** .174** .302** .281** .745** 1 7 13.110 .856** 1 17 43.7 28.270** .224** .148** .31 3.259** .89 5.615** .03 -.308** .259** .368** .278** .185** .120 .251** .250** .137* .501 .534** 1 18 19.288** .277** .454** .98 4.465** .355** .412** .31 -.101**.296** . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Distal Variables1 1 10.270** .158** .588** 1 14 20.18 -.320** .304** .221** .36 -.364** .228** .241** .379** .70 8.119* 1 21 .199** .241** .292** .342** .230 .483** .291** .151* .38 5.348** 1 6 16.265** 1 19 25.082 .476** .345** .592** .293** .448** .17: Means.212** .81 5.103** .298** .304** .862** .277**.221** .725** .01 level (2-tailed) S 129 .258** .323** .D.387** .749** .203** .428** .235** .151* . Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1C (n=252) Mean S.17 -.373** .254** .401** .349** 1 16 67.254** .9 -.97 -.11 12.423** .9 -.076 .70 3.895** 1 13 26.383** .356** .245** .183** .178** .367** .481** .162**.413** .306** .366** .7 -.91 -.735** .130** .
proximal and outcome variables within the sample of motorcycle drivers in Study 2. it was not correlated with crash occurrence or with crash injury.BHS was significantly correlated to the total BIT score and to BIT subscales: usurpation of right-of-way. standard deviations and relationships between distal. 130 . However. All distal and proximal variables were positively correlated except internality (I) which was negatively corrected with the BIT total score. 1B and 1C. and destination-activity orientation. all BIT subscales. freeway urgency. BHS was significantly correlated with total BIT score and with all of the BIT subscales. Similar to observed results in study 1A. crash occurrence and injury occurrence. Hostility (HOS) was significantly correlated with all other variables except with crash occurrence and crash injury. The BIT subscale measuring destinationactivity orientation was significantly correlated to crash occurrence but not to injury occurrence. externally-focused frustration. Of these negative the BIT subscales measuring freeway urgency and externally-focused frustration were significant.2 Results of Study 2 Table 4.18 shows means. but it was not correlated with crash occurrence or injury occurrence. 4.5.
025 -.081 8.418** .409** .Table 4.192* -.30 .200* -.371** -.226** .413** 1 .028 1 .043 .232** .201* .240** .323 23.580** 1 .334** .55 175.05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .269** .758** 1 .291** .48 5.165 .374** .251** .428** .314** .614** .182* -.150 -.941** 1 .880 .317** .383** .750** .264** .50 73.356** .139 .219** .01 level (2-tailed) 131 .795** 1 * Correlation is significant at .76 48.535** 1 .D.367** .035 3.917 3. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 2 (n=122) Mean Distal Variables 1 Internality (I) 2 Externality-Chance (C) 3 Externality-Powerful-Others (P) 4 Hopelessness (BHS) Proximal Variables 5 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) 6 Usurpation of right-of-way 7 Freeway Urgency 8 Externally-Focused Frustration 9 Destination-activity Orientation Outcome Variables 10 Crash Occurrence 11 Injury Occurrence S.4683 .18: Means.413** .500** .5738 8.167 .290** .183* 1 .259** .14 27.66 1.233** .212* .876** .072 .630** .111 -.562** 1 .621 3.4966 1 .179 7.313** 1 .485 11.122 7.415** .325** .349** .66 5.06 20.376** . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 3.6803 .
In this study. 1C and 2. nor a weak negative correlation between I and P achieved significance. However. 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. Externality-chance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P) scores were significantly and positively correlated with crash occurrence and injury occurrence. In general. 1B. proximal and outcome variables within the sample of taxicab drivers in Study 3. While physical aggression (PHY) and hostility (HOS) were significantly correlated with crash occurrence and injury occurrence. correlations between I and distal.19. 132 . standard deviations and relationships between distal. verbal aggression (VER) and anger (ANG) were significantly correlated only with crash occurrence.3 Results of Study 3 Table 4. neither an observed weak positive correlation between I and C.5. Differing from Studies 1A. AQ subscales were significantly and positively correlated with each other. BIT total scores had a significant positive correlation with crash occurrence but not with injury occurrence. but remaining I correlations with BIT and AQ subscales did not achieve significance.19 shows means. As indicated in Table 4.4. proximal or outcome variables in Study 3 were weaker than those observed in Studies 1 and 2.
289** 1 .200* .08 15.43 8.418** .D.171 .255** .521** .023 .636** .401** -.178** .147** .173* .222* .218* .236** .74 15.235** .254** -.030 .06 2.15 32.292** .040 .257** .213** .150** .121 .197* .114 .528** 1 .156 .42 66.816** .17 20.864** 1 .271** .117 .091 .54 11.82 5.378** 1 .10 1. Distal Variable 1 Internality (I) 2 Externality-Chance (C) 3 Externality –Powerful-Others (P) 4 Total Aggression (AQ) 5 Physical Aggression (PHY) 6 Verbal Aggression (VER) 7 Anger (ANG) 8 Hostility (HOS) 9 Indirect Aggression (IND) Proximal Variables 10 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) 11 Usurpation of right-of-way 12 Freeway Urgency 13 Externally-Focused Frustration 14 Destination-activity Orientation Outcome Variables 15 Crash Occurrence 16 Injury Occurrence 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 12.286* 1 .4 5.245** .039 .35 11.32 7.99 10.161 -.84 2.148* .646** .454** .12 4.05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .018 -.576** .658** .240** .156 .106 .32 3.153** 1 .Table 4.3 6.19: Means.103 .025 -.618** 1 .023 -.373** .643** .060 .067 .028 .149 .235** .070 -.182* -.443** 1 .151 -.561** 1 .204* .060 -.165 .246** .116 .091 -.071 .275** .872** .149 .807** .229** .194* .120 .095 .234** .721** .622** .01 level (2-tailed) 133 .061 .338** 1 .112 -.194* 1 .117 .404 .021 1 * Correlation is significant at .263** .371** .020 .276** . Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 3 (n=133) Mean S.166 .213** .240** .0301 .177 1 .261** .167** .05 3.172** .07 8.11 15.072 .588** 1 .152 .180** .88 1 .51 3.13 3.072 -.749** .141 .31 8.109 -.032 1 .092** .268** .013 .193* -.225** .121 .117 .45 19.324** .82 11.048 .604** .128 .853** .2000 .054 .65 75.
results of logistic regression analyses indicated that usurpation of right-of way. analyses were conducted to test whether BIT scores influenced crash occurrence.01 B=. p<.6 Hypothesis Testing This section reports the results of analyses to test the hypotheses formulated in chapter 3 (see Table 3. p<. p<.229.048.135.01 B=. p<.1).01 B=. p<.4 was not supported. p<.180.146.095. While controlling driver experience and driving frequency.01 B=.01 B=. p<. Study 2: B=. p<.01 Study 1C B=. results from the logistic regression analyses in all studies indicated strong relationships between total BIT scores and the likelihood of a motor vehicle crash occurrence (Study 1A: B=.1 Hypothesis 1: Behaviour in Traffic Influences Motor Vehicle Crash Outcomes First. p<.1.20: 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=.172. Table 4. For the destination-activity factor.202.1. p<. p<.01 B=.01 B=. p<.01 and Study 3: B=. When the relationships between the four component factors of the BIT scale and the likelihood of a crash outcome were tested.01 Study 3 B=. p<.01 B=.01 B=.125. p<.3 inclusive.01. but not destination-activity orientation.01 134 .4.034.063. were significantly related to crash occurrence (see Table 4.01 Not Significant Study 2 B=.063.01 B=. p<.01.278.1. p<. p<.01). These results supported H1.1.102.01 B=. p<.01 B=. These results supported H1. 4.090.080.315. p<.088 p<.01. Study 1C: B=. that behaviour in traffic influences crash occurrence. freeway urgency.041. p<. p<. p<.01 B=.01 B=.095. H1.117. and externally-focused frustration.04. p<.238.01 Study 1B B=.6.20).120. Study 1B: B=.1 through H1.
035.01 B=.01 B=. Study 1C: B=. Table 4.24. respectively).01 B=.095.01 B=. Study 1B: B=. p<.01 Not Significant Study 2 B=. freeway urgency. p<.038.074.01 Study 1C B=. p<.01 Study 3 Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant 4. p<. externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation were significantly related to traffic crash injury in all studies except Study 3 (See Table 4.05 Study 1B B=.019.01 B=. p<. These results supported H1. p<.Behaviour in traffic also influenced injury occurrence in all studies except Study 3.01 B=.22.075 p<. logistic regression analyses indicated that usurpation of right-of way.2. p<.064. p<. 1B and 1C (see Table 4.087.165. p<. Table 4.118.120. 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=.6. that behaviour in traffic would influence injury occurrence. 135 .140.01 B=.033 p<. p<.23 and Table 4.069. p<.01.2 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.01 B=. p<.01 B=.01 B=.21).01. p<.059. p<.054.158.01 and Study 2: B=. p<. When driver experience and travel frequency were controlled. When the relationships between the likelihood of injury occurrence and the four component factors of the BIT scale were tested. p<.21: Results of Logistic Regression Analyses Showing the Effects of BIT Component Factors on Injury Occurrence Study 1A Usurpation of Right-of Way Freeway Urgency Externally-focused Frustration Destination-activity Orientation B=.01 B=.01).035.091. p<.
35 4.05.23: 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<.73 170. N M SD F 221 60 19 2 168.600** Table 4.29 21.30 22.41 167.88 28.77 8.43 20.50 28.92 157.52 25.44 178.32 28.25 5.35 155.82 33.Table 4.15 161.82 168.56 175.68 26.320** 64 110 41 17 69 173.48 171.31 161.25 25.184** 136 .60 185.16 3.35 33.01 N M SD F 186 88 18 9 161.77 165.35 24.03 25.074* 110 81 37 45 29 181.06 19.89 21.98 171. * p<.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<.98 33.32 147.64 27.01.64 26.
Drivers who travelled every day had significantly higher total BIT scores when compared to those who travelled several times a week (p<.01).61 165. about once every two weeks (p<.73 157. and those who almost never travelled (p<.29 15. drivers who travelled everyday had significantly higher total BIT scores when compared to those who travelled several times a week (p<. drivers with 3 years of licensed driving experience had significantly lower total BIT scores when compared with drivers that had 3 years experience but less than 5 years of licensed driving experience (p<.12 154. 137 .345* 67 69 33 45 38 170.01). In Study 2.05) and about once every two weeks (p<.53 17.05).73 24.01).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<. N M SD F 187 46 16 3 159. On the other hand. In Study 1B.77 16. * p<.00 16.Table 4.05.01).06 160.01 14.06 8. the effect of travel frequency on total BIT score was significant.01).14 15.05). 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<.81 167. Drivers who travelled about once or twice a week had significantly higher total BIT when compared to those who almost never travelled (p<.39 19.060** In Study 1A.25).05).01.00 14.52 3.88 167.12 161. In Study 1C. Drivers who travelled everyday had significantly higher total BIT scores when compared to those who almost never travelled (p<. motorcycle drivers’ experience was not significantly related to total BIT scores (see Table 4.
05.58 188.50 24. However.81 161.74 77.60 72.62 10. Table 4. that drivers’ demographic characteristics would significantly influence total BIT scores was supported in studies of automobile drivers.437 (N.316 1.94 20.528** In Study 3. both driver experience and taxicab experience were tested.Table 4. N.31 78.82 162.01. Not significant N M SD F 77 31 10 4 174. N. Not significant N M SD F 3 16 23 91 82.64 24.26: 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<. it is concluded that Hypothesis 2.97 8.52 172.S.37 9.S) 52 32 7 17 14 182.50 184.47 5.31 2.71 168.26 10.81 175. taxicab driver experience was not statistically related to total BIT score.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<.33 78. In other words.09 15. * p<.05.81 22.26).920 (N.01.80 22.S) Therefore.68 20.859 11.55 73. However.55 10. * p<.381 10. the direction of the difference was opposite to what had 138 .89 20.63 1.S. 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.753* 38 48 27 20 77. It was found that the driver experience was statistically related to total BIT score (see Table 4.65 73.56 3.27 14.
t-tests indicated that mean total BIT scores differed significantly between male and female participants. in that driver experience significantly influenced total BIT score but taxicab experience had no statistically significant effect. In this case. For ethnicity. In Studies 1A. Contrary to the two sub-hypotheses. 4. only H2.1 and H2. 1C and 2.2. 1B. Contrary to the subhypothesis. travel frequency actually increased total BIT scores. In Study 3.been predicted by H2. ethnicity and age – were investigated. the observed effect was opposite to what had been predicted by H2. however.1 was confirmed. Hypothesis 2 was partially supported in the study of motorcycle drivers. though. Hypothesis 2 was partially supported in the study of taxicab drivers. ANOVA indicated that mean total BIT scores in Studies 1A. indicated no significant differences in mean total BIT scores.3 Hypothesis 3: Demographic Variables Influence Behaviour in Traffic The direct effects on total BIT scores of three demographic variables – gender. 1B. where male automobile and motorcycle drivers scored significantly higher than female drivers. only H2. Again. the longer the taxicab operator had been driving. 1C and 2 differed between different ethnic groups (see Table 4. driver experience and travel frequency actually increased total BIT scores.2.2 was supported in that travel frequency significantly influenced total BIT score but driver experience had no statistically significant effect. In Study 2. the lower was the total BIT score. the direction of the effect was consistent with the hypothesised relationship between driver experience and total BIT score. 139 .27). ANOVA results for age.6.
post hoc analyses indicated that MalaysianChinese automobile drivers and motorcyclists scored significantly lower total BIT scores than either Malaysian-Indian or Malay drivers (p<.S.27: Effects of Demographic Factors on total BIT Scores Study 1A Gender Ethnicity Age t=2. p<.01 F=1. N.53.62. 4.9.01 F=8. however. p<. Study 1C t=3.05). t(250) = 2.68. it is concluded that Hypothesis 3 was partially supported in studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers. N. H3.4 Hypothesis 4: Demographic Variables Influence Locus of Control The direct effects of the same three demographic variables on locus of control were also investigated. In Study 1B.05. p<. In all studies. 1C and Study 2.1 and H3.01 F=19. p<. N. Externality-Chance (C).01 F=1. Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers scored significantly higher total BIT scores than Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers (p<.05). p<. it was found that female automobile drivers scored significantly higher levels on the I dimension when compared to male automobile drivers. age had no statistically significant direct effect on total BIT scores.05 F=4.05. p<.S.01 F=.6.74.S Study 3 Not Applicable F=3. p<. so the null hypothesis could not be rejected and H3.562. In Study 3.56.S. and Externality-Powerful-Others (P).01).2 was confirmed.05 F=11. p<. in that ethnicity significantly influenced total BIT scores.2 were confirmed.66. In Study 1B.12. Study 1B t=2. Note: Not significant In Study 1A. In Study 1A and Study 2.3 was not supported.01 F=2. N. Malaysian-Indian taxicab drivers had significantly lower total BIT scores than either Malaysian-Chinese taxicab drivers (p<. p<. male 140 . For taxicab drivers studied in Study 3.Table 4.81. Therefore.98. in that gender and ethnicity significantly influenced total BIT scores. p<.99. results showed that gender had no influence on the three dimensions of locus of control: Internality (I).44. In Study 1C. N. H3.S.01 F=9. Study 2 t=3.00.
Consistent with findings in Study 1A.462. 1B.370. In Study 1B. 299) = 5. p<. Post hoc analyses indicated that Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers had significantly lower I scores than did either Malaysian-Chinese or Malay drivers (p<. p<.941. post hoc analyses showed that Malaysian-Indian drivers scored significantly higher on the C and P dimensions than did Malaysian-Chinese drivers (p<.05 respectively.01). Malaysian-Indian drivers had significantly higher scores on the C dimension than did Malay drivers (p<. all ethnic groups had significantly different mean I. p<. In Study 1A. F(2. p<. 1C. 298) = 3. ethnic group differences were significant only with respect to I subscale scores. t(299) = 2. E and P scores. In Study 1C. F(2.05 and F(2. F(2.01).490. p<.527.476. 2 and 3 the age variable had no significant direct effects on any of the three dimensions of locus of control.05). For Studies 1A.05 and p<. p<. In Study 2.503.01 respectively). 298) = 6. 299) = 3.05.05 respectively.566.05. ethnic group differences were significant only with respect to mean C and P subscale scores.automobile and motorcycle drivers scored significantly higher on the P dimension than did female automobile and motorcycle drivers. F(2. 298) = 3. p<. p<.041.05) and Malaysian-Indian drivers scored significantly higher on the P dimension than did drivers in all other ethnic groups (p<.05).01 respectively.01. 119) = 5. 249) = 3. Post hoc analyses showed that Malaysian-Indian motorcycle drivers scored significantly lower than all other ethnicity groups on the I dimension (p<. t(120) = 2. F(2. ethnic group differences were significant only with respect to P subscale scores.05 and F(2. Post hoc analysis showed that MalaysianIndian automobile drivers scored significantly higher than did Malaysian-Chinese drivers (p<. 141 .
t(120) = 2. Hypothesis 5 was partially supported in Study 2 with the sample of motorcycle drivers. externality-chance and externality-powerful-others. Female motorcycle drivers scored significantly lower than male motorcycle drivers. 1B and 1C found no significant differences in mean scores of hopelessness (BHS) between male and female automobile drivers.079.3 were supported. H5. p<. in that gender was observed to significantly influence the externalitypowerful-others scores. 1B or 1C. externality-chance and externality-powerfulothers. that age influences hopelessness. H5. H4. In Studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers. However. ethnicity and age on hopelessness were investigated. Independent sample t-tests on data from Studies 1A. H4. in Study 2. H4. Malay motorcycle drivers had a significantly higher BHS score when compared to Malaysian-Chinese motorcycle drivers (p<.184.108.40.206. that ethnicity significantly influenced internality. it was found that the gender and ethnicity of motorcycle drivers did have a significant direct effect on hopelessness.3 were not supported.3. based on the results of t-tests and ANOVA. In Study 1.Therefore.1. was not supported in either Study 1 or Study 2.05. that gender and ethnicity influence hopelessness. it was observed that age had no significant effect on any of internality.01).6.3.1 and H5. Hypothesis 5 was not supported with respect to automobile drivers in Study 1.5 Hypothesis 5: Demographic Variables Influence Hopelessness The direct effects of gender.2 and H4. Age was found to have no influence on BHS scores with the sample of motorcycle drivers in Study 2.2. ANOVA results found no significant differences in mean BHS scores between ethnic groups or different age groups among automobile drivers in Studies 1A.2. In addition. 142 . were supported. so H4. Hypothesis 4 was partially supported in studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers.2 and H4. Therefore. H4. 220.127.116.11 was supported.
it is concluded that Hypothesis 6 was supported in studies of automobile drivers. respectively).01 respectively). In Study 1B.3.312.01) but externality-chance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P) had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = .1.371. Therefore. p<.6.28). 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. I was found to have a significant negative effect on BHS scores (B = -. internality (I) had a significant negative effect on hopelessness (BHS) (B = -.6 Hypothesis 6: Locus of Control Influences Hopelessness In Study 1A.01. that internality would influence hopelessness.290. was not supported. respectively).6. Hypothesis 6 was partially supported in Study 2.186. were supported.306. H6. p<. p<.254.239.7 Hypothesis 7: Hopelessness Influences Behaviour in Traffic In studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers.341. no significant effects were observed between I and BHS scores in the sample of motorcycle drivers. respectively). p<. In Study 2.2 and H6.01 and B = .01) but C and P had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = .01. p<. p<.01 and (B = . H6. with higher levels of internality related to lower levels of hopelessness and higher levels of both externality dimensions associated with higher hopelessness.1. p<.01.342.4.3.01 and B = .254. I had a significant negative effect on BHS scores (B = -. p<. with the sample of motorcycle drivers. p<.2 and H6. that the three locus of control dimensions influence hopelessness. H6. 143 . that externality-chance and externality-powerful-others would influence hopelessness. p<.354. H6. 4. In Study 1C. were supported. p<. but C and P had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = .01) but C and P had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = .01 and B = .
p<. p<. p<.278.01 Study 1B B=.254.151.247. In Study 2.200. 1C and 2.349. with both automobile and motorcycle drivers.2.05) but not for freeway urgency.05 In Study 1A. p<.349.280.151.05 Study 1C B=.317.153. it was observed that the higher the hopelessness (BHS) scores.317. freeway urgency (B = . p<. p<.157.01 B=.01). externally-focused frustration (B = . p<.099.01) and destination-activity orientation (B = . p<.05 Study 2 B=. H7.415. was supported in Studies 1A. B=.05) and destination-activity orientation (B = .01). that hopelessness would have a significant positive effect on freeway urgency was not supported in Study 1B. externally-focused frustration (B = . p<.153. p<. p<.141.151. In Study 1B. the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = .S.157. p<. p<. it is concluded that Hypothesis 7. p<.01 B=. p<. p<.415.4. meaning that H7 was only partially supported for that study. the higher the hopelessness scores.232.01 B=. p<. p<. p<. the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = .191.280. p<.Table 4.05). 144 . p<.01) and destination-activity orientation (B = . p<.05).28: Direct effects of hopelessness on BIT scores Total BIT score Usurpation of Right-of-way Freeway Urgency Externally-Focused Frustration Destination-Activity Orientation Study 1A B=.141.05 B=.275.3 and H7.05) and destinationactivity orientation (B = . the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = . p<. externallyfocused frustration and destination-activity were supported in both Studies 1 and 2.01). that hopelessness would have a significant positive influence on total BIT scores.05). freeway urgency (B = .01). p<. p<. p<.01 B=.01 B=. p<.288.418. it was observed that the higher the hopelessness scores. p<. the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = .01). N.01 B=. externally-focused frustration (B = .01). In Study 1C.05 B=. p<.01 B=. that hopelessness would have a significant positive direct effect on usurpation of right-of-way. p<.287.287.275.01 B=.01 B=.01 B=. H7.232. freeway urgency (B =.01). p<.254. the higher the hopelessness scores. H7.151. p<. p<. externally-focused frustration (B = .1.01 B=.01 B=. p<.191.01 B=.247. Therefore.
provided support for hypothesis H8.29: Direct Effects of Locus of Control on Total BIT Scores Study 1A I C P Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 Study 3 B=-.229. B=. p<.1. With regard to H8. p<. that internality and externality-chance would influence total BIT scores were supported.1.178.044.01 B=. Results of multiple regression analyses (in studies of car.297. Table 4. motorcycle and taxicab drivers).4. p<. that internality would negatively influence total BIT scores was supported.01 B=. p<. N. that locus of control would influence total BIT scores were supported in Study 1. but not of the sample of taxicab drivers in Study 3. 145 . B=. p<. it is concluded that Hypothesis 8 was supported for automobile drivers in Study 1.336.1.05 B=. p<. with internality observed to exert a positive effect on BIT and the two externality dimensions to exert negative effects. H8. N. N.006. With regard to H8.1 and H8. results indicated that the higher were subscale scores for C. Hypothesis 8 was partially supported for taxicab drivers in Study 3.29).3 that externality-powerful-others would influence total BIT scores. p<. p<.01 B=-. p<.S.01 B=. H8. but not H8. the higher were mean total BIT scores automobile drivers in Study 1.S.3.168.2 and H8. H8. but not of the motorcycle and taxicab drivers in Studies 2 and 3 (See Table 4.01 B=.339.239.625. Therefore.753. p<.3. where only H8.01 B=. that the higher the subscale score for I.01 B=.208.2.S.315.01 B=-.077. the higher were mean total BIT scores of automobile and motorcycle drivers in Studies 1 and 2.01 B=.01 B=-. the lower were mean total BIT scores.2. p<. p<.01 B=-.6. Hypothesis 8 was partially supported for motorcycle drivers in Study 2.8 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.388. results indicated that the higher were subscale scores for P.
Further.710. externality -chance and externality-powerful-others – were split at the median to form high and low groups so that the interaction effect of ethnicity and locus of control could be tested on total BIT scores and subscale scores for the four component factors. p<.01 (see Figure 4. 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<. F=4.909. In Study 1C.272. p<. F=4. p<.05. p<.2).01 (see Figure 4.1: Interaction Effects between Ethnicity and Internality on BIT In Study 1C. results revealed that Malay automobile drivers with high internal control had significantly lower scores on BIT subscales measuring usurpation of right-of-way. =8. freeway urgency and externally-focused frustration than did Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers with high internal control. Scores for the three locus of control dimensions – internality. 146 .Additional analysis: Interaction of ethnicity and locus of control on BIT. Mean Score on Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) 175 Ethnicty Malay MalaysianChinese 170 MalaysianIndian 165 160 155 150 low high Internality Figure 4.1). F=7.704.01 and F=8. it was found that Malay automobile drivers with high internal locus of control scored significantly lower in total BIT than did Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers with high internal control Malaysian-Indian student car drivers.581.01 respectively (see Figure 4.1).
05.00 low high Externality (Chance) Figure 4. First.034. p<.00 66. B = .00 Malay MalaysianChinese 72. F=4. 1B and 1C.033.00 62. Hopelessness moderated the relationship between internality and the total BIT score and between externality-chance and to total BIT score. However.282. Kurtosis=-. the results of hierarchical regression indicated that the R2 value changed after the internality x hopelessness interaction was added in the regression model (R2=.327. hopelessness did not moderate the relationship between locus of control and BIT.9 Hypothesis 9: Hopelessness Moderates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Behaviour in Traffic For Studies 1A. multiple regression showed mixed results.00 68.537) and the moderator (hopelessness) showed a significant result. Residuals Normality: Skewness=.05.Mean Score on Usurpation of Right-of Way Ethnicty 74.3).00 MalaysianIndian 70. 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. p<.00 64. R2=. in Study 2. 147 .2: Interaction Effect between Ethnicity and Externality-Chance on Usurpation of Right-of Way 4.444.6.
371). p<. R2=.608.463.BIT Level Effect for drivers with high hopelessness score Effect for drivers with low hopelessness score Internality Figure 4.4: Moderating Effect of BHS on the Externality (Chance) -BIT Relationship 148 .4). Effect for drivers with high hopelessness score BIT Level Effect for drivers with low hopelessness score Externality (Chance) Figure 4. p<.167.459. and the moderator (hopelessness) showed a significant result. This means that motorcycle drivers with high externality-chance scores and high hopelessness scores tended to have higher total BIT scores when compared to motorcycle drivers with high externality-chance scores but low hopelessness scores (see figure 4.01.3: 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=. Residuals Normality: Skewness=.01. B = . Kurtosis=-. F=18.070.
677.05 t=4. Mean total AQ scores differed significantly between male and female participants in Studies 1B and 1C.S t=1.01 t=-. p<. N. In both studies. 4.187. N. p<.01 t=2. male automobile drivers had significantly higher total AQ scores than did female automobile drivers. p<.05 Study 1C t=2. p<.31).210. Hopelessness did not moderate the locus of control-BIT relation for automobile drivers.820. t= .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.S t=2.01 t=2.05 respectively. ethnicity and age exerted direct effects on drivers’ Aggression Questionnaire (AQ) scores. N.Therefore.2. Hypothesis 9 was partially supported in Study 2.467. ANOVA revealed no significant differences between ethnic groups in mean total AQ scores. With motorcycle drivers.480. p<.01 (see table 4. p<. In Study 1C.690. results indicated that male automobile drivers scored significantly higher than female drivers on measures of physical aggression. p<. N.10 Hypothesis 10: Demographic Factors Influence Aggression Analyses tested whether gender. When mean subscale scores for the five AQ component factors were tested. however.603. 1C and 3. mean total AQ scores differed significantly between ethnic groups.521.S t=2.S.01 t=4. and H9.690. and t(250) = 2. F(2.032. In Study 1B and Study 3. it is concluded that Hypothesis 9 was not supported in Study 1.6. However. 249) = 5.05 t=. t(300) = 2. p<.30). were supported.01 The relationship between ethnic background and aggression was tested for automobile drivers in Studies 1B.01.1. verbal aggression and indirect aggression (see Table 4. p<. that hopelessness would moderate the relationship between externalitychance and total BIT scores. Post hoc analysis showed that Malaysian-Chinese 149 . that hopelessness would moderate the relationship between internality and total BIT scores. p<.164. the H9.298.780. p<.603. Table 4.
567. F(2. Similar to the findings in Study 1B. 299) = 4. ANOVA revealed no significant differences between ethnic groups in mean scores in any of the AQ subscale scores.S F=10. In Study 1C. F=.077.S. p<.521. When AQ subscale scores were tested for Study 1B and Study 1C. F=2. F=1.561. p<.398. F=1.904.763.01 F=2. 249) = 10. In Study 1B. Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers had significantly lower IND scores than drivers from other ethnic groups (p<.804.S.01). N. the mean verbal aggression (VER) scores of Malay. p<.041.632.155. 150 .432. N.S. N.01).041. F=5. Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers had significantly lower IND scores than drivers from other ethnic groups (p<.S. p<.57.432.S. N.01). N. F=2. F=4. N.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. N. Malaysian-Chinese and Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers were also significantly different. Malaysian-Chinese and Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers were significantly different. mean IND scores of Malay. N. N.526. F=1. N.629.S. F=2. F=1.01.S. F=1. Mean total AQ scores and mean scores on the five AQ subscales did not differ significantly between age groups either for automobile drivers in Studies 1B and 1C or for taxicab drivers in Study 3.S.S. N. p<.01. p<. mixed results were found.01 F=. The mean indirect aggression (IND) scores of Malay.05 Study 1C F=5. N. 299) = 5. N. Malaysian-Chinese and Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers were significantly different.S. Table 4.automobile drivers in Study 1C had significantly lower total AQ scores than did Malay or Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers (p<. F(2.182. N. p<.01 Study 3 F=1.S. F(2. In Study 3.01).422. Malay automobile drivers scored significantly higher VER scores than drivers from other ethnic groups (p<. F=2.S.564.021.05.S.
was supported. H10. 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. externally-focused frustration.2 (that ethnicity would influence aggression level) was supported only in Study 1C and only with respect to total AQ. only H11. respectively. VER and IND subscale scores.1. in studies of both automobile drivers and taxicab drivers.2. it is concluded that Hypothesis 10 was partially supported.3 and H11. In Studies 1B and 1C. total BIT scores and scores on usurpation of right-of way and freeway urgency subscales were higher. freeway urgency.3 (that age would negatively influence aggression) was not supported. 4. externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation. however. freeway urgency. with regard to the taxicab drivers sampled in Study 3.29). H10. 151 . The higher the total aggression scores. 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. This means that when taxicab drivers’ aggression scores were higher. that aggression would have a positive influence on total BIT scores. it is concluded that Hypothesis 11.Therefore. were supported. that aggression would have a direct positive effect on externally-focused frustration and on destination-activity orientation.6.11 Hypothesis 11: Aggression Influences Behaviour in Traffic In Study 1B and Study 1C.32). However. were all supported. H10. VER and IND) of five component factors among automobile drivers sampled in both Studies 1B and 1C.4. In Study 3. the higher were automobile drivers’ total BIT scores and scores on the four components. H11. and destination-activity orientation (see Table 4.4. H11.3 and H11.1 (that gender would influence aggression) was supported with respect to measures of total aggression and to the same three (PHY. H11. that aggression would have a direct positive effect on the usurpation of right-of way. Therefore.
N. With both automobile and taxicab drivers. However. B = . p<. but not in Study 3.01 B=.01 and B = .01 B=. p<. 1B. their total BIT scores tend to be higher.01 and B = .370. and B = . p<. p<. Verbal aggression (VER) was found to have no significant influence on total BIT scores. but that this does not apply to taxi drivers. p<.263. Study 1C and Study 3. p<.01 respectively.01 B=.881. p<. Additional analysis: Interaction effects of ethnicity and aggression on BIT. the higher the levels of PHY and HOS. F=3. Linear regression analyses indicated that physical aggression (PHY) had a significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1B. Malay automobile drivers with high VER scores tended to score 152 . 1C. respectively. p<. indirect aggression (IND) was also found to have significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1B and Study 1C.01 Study 3 B=.540. When the interaction effect of ethnicity and hopelessness was tested on the BIT and its four component factors. Study 2 and Study 3. p<. Also. p<. B = . no interaction effects were found in all studies – Study 1A.048.5).385. p<.183. This implies that when automobile drivers have higher levels of ANG and IND. B = . p<. respectively.438.565. 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 = .229.505. the higher were total BIT scores.461.324. p<. B = . B = .491.01 B=.263. p<.387.01 B=.235. Similarly. p<.428.121.216. hostility (HOS) was found to have a significant positive influence on BIT in Study 1B. p<. p<.05 B=. p<.545. p<. p<.380.01.01 B=. but not in Study 3.01 respectively.01 B=. B=. p<.S.01.Table 4.01.05 B=.01 B=. p<.520.01 B=.32: Effect of Aggression on Total BIT Scores and on BIT Component Factors Study 1B B=.370.01 Study 1C B=.01.483. Results of regression analyses also showed that anger (ANG) had a significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1B and Study 1C. p<. Study 1C and Study 3.204.S.01. it was found that there was an interaction effect between ethnicity and verbal aggression (VER) on freeway urgency. N. and B = .05 (see Figure 4. p<.01.
01.01. p<.01.00 Low High Verbal Aggression Figure 4. B=-.645.003. and B=-. Kurtosis=-.6. p<. In other words.01. F=100. respectively.6.05. Study 1C and Study 3.297.00 46. R2=.961.316. aggressive drivers with low internal locus of control would 153 .516. p<. Mean Score on Freeway Urgency Ethnicty 52. 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. and R2 values changed after the I x AQ interaction was added in the regression models (R2=.1 Internality as a Moderator Hierarchical regression analyses revealed that internality (I) moderated the relationship between aggression and total BIT score.significantly higher on freeway urgency than did Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers with high VER scores. B=-.00 44.5: Interaction of Ethnicity and Verbal Aggression on Freeway Urgency 4.076. for Study 1B. Residuals Normality: Skewness=. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-.00 Malay ChineseMalaysian 50. Kurtosis=-. R2=. F=81. R2=.00 42. The moderating effect of I was significant.172.131.929.12.00 IndianMalaysian 48.271. p<.362.100.12 Hypothesis 12: Locus of Control Moderates the Relationship between Aggression and Behaviour in Traffic 4. p<.
p<.369.have higher BIT scores compared to drivers with high internal locus of control (see figure 4. Kurtosis=-.757.387.015.271.360. F=94. Effect for aggressive drivers with low internality score BIT Level Effect for aggressive drivers with high internality score Aggression Level Figure 4.431.297. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-463.01 and B = . Residuals Normality: Skewness=-.694.704. Consistent with the findings from Study 1B. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-. 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=.606.01. R2=.069. respectively).794.015.2 Externality-chance and Externality-powerful-others as Moderators In Study 1B and Study 1C. R2=. R2=.271. Kurtosis=-.507. p<. F=91.117. and the moderating effects of C and P were 154 . Kurtosis=. B = . F=71.6. p<.109. F=78. R2=. p<. and the moderating effects of C and P were significant. R2 values changed after both the C x AQ and P x AQ interactions were added in the respective regression models (R2=.897. R2=. This applied to both automobile drivers and taxicab drivers.01. respectively). p<. p<. R2=.01.6: Moderating Effect of Internality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship 4. In Study 1B.01. the hierarchical regression revealed that externalitychance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P) moderated the relationship between aggression and total BIT score. Kurtosis=.088.12. Residuals Normality: Skewness= -.01 respectively.297.6).
with the samples of automobile drivers study for student car drivers. that the internality. hierarchical regression results showed that neither C nor P moderated the relationship between aggression and total BIT scores for taxicab drivers in Study 3. Effect for aggressive drivers with high externality scores BIT Level Effect for aggressive drivers with low externality scores Aggression Level Figure 4.01 respectively. and H12. H12.2. R2 values did not change after either the C x AQ or P x AQ interactions were added in the regression models.7: Moderating Effects of Externality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship However. externality-chance and externality-powerful-others 155 . p<. Therefore.7).significant.302.332.3.01 and B = . p<.1. H12. it is concluded that the Hypothesis 12 was supported in Studies 1B and 1C. B = . 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. and the moderation effect was not significant. 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.
p<.05). 249) = 4.05.01). Also. male automobile drivers scored significantly higher on HAT subscales measuring statements about physical aggression. p<.05. H122 and H12. There were no significant differences between ethnic groups with respect to hostile statements about the derogation of others. 248) = 3. However. ANOVA results showed that ethnic groups differed significantly with respect to mean total HAT scores.314. that internality moderates the relationship between aggression and total BIT scores was supported. Only H12. No significant differences were observed between age groups with respect to total HAT scores or to scores on any of the three HAT subscales. and about revenge F(2. Chinese-Malaysian automobile drivers had significantly lower scores than IndianMalaysian automobile drivers (p<. with the sample of taxicab drivers.885.01 and revenge: t(249) = 3.01 but not on about the derogation of others. 249) = 5. p<.05).01.263. Post hoc analysis indicated that Chinese-Malaysian automobile drivers had significantly lower scores on the subscale measuring statements about physical aggression than did either Malay automobile drivers (p<.01. There were also significant differences between ethnic groups on subscale scores measuring statements about physical aggression F(2. F(2. 4.dimensions of locus of control moderate the relationship between aggression and total BIT scores were supported.3. t(249)=2. 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 3.1. p<.737.6.13 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. that externality-chance and externality-powerful-others moderates the relationship between aggression and BIT scores were not supported.343.279. p<. p<. On the subscale measuring statements about revenge. t(250) = 3.05) or Indian-Malaysian automobile drivers (p<. 156 .
01. it is concluded that the Hypothesis 14.01.364. p<. H14. derogation of others and revenge) positively influence total BIT scores. the higher the total HAT scores. that gender and ethnicity respectively would have significant direct effects on hostile automatic thoughts. (that thoughts about physical aggression. H14.01 and B = . This means that. B = . B = .192.01 and destination-activity orientation. freeway urgency. the higher were automobile drivers’ total BIT scores and scores on the four components. derogation of others and revenge had a significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1C B =. respectively.01. that demographic variables would influence hostile automatic thoughts.379. p<.2 and H14. Therefore. were supported.307. p<. This means that.Therefore. Linear regression analyses indicated that subscales measuring thoughts about physical aggression.1.3. that age would influence hostile automatic thoughts.3. H13. B = .14 Hypothesis 14: Hostile Automatic Thoughts Influence Behaviour in Traffic In Study 1C. with the sample of automobile drivers studied. the higher were total BIT scores. B = . was supported.277. linear regression analyses indicated that total HAT scores predicted total BIT scores. p<. the higher the scores on the three classes of hostile automatic thought.01. externally-focused frustration.1 and H13.6. p<.394. was partially supported.01. p<. that hostile automatic thoughts would influence behaviour in traffic. on total BIT score were also tested. 4. B = . p<.224. it is concluded that the Hypothesis 13. H13. B = .413.2. were supported. p<. was not supported.01. 157 . The effects of HAT subscales measuring the three classes of hostile automatic thoughts. and also scores measuring the four BIT component factors: usurpation of right-of-way.
Normality Residuals: Skewness=.01.4.8). R2 values changed after the HAT x AQ interaction was added in the regression model (R2=. F=57.002.15 Hypothesis 15: Hostile Automatic Thoughts Moderate the Aggression-BIT Relationship Hierarchical regression analysis indicated that HAT scores moderated the relationship between aggression and BIT.085). 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. R2=.-554.297.8: Moderating Effect of Externality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship It was observed that two of the HAT subscales. p<. p<. and the moderating effect of HAT-Physical 158 .809. Physical Aggression and Revenge.297.565. p<.072).911.188. Kurtosis=.6.013.05. In other words. and the moderating effect of HAT was significant.01. aggressive drivers who frequently entertained hostile automatic thoughts about others would have higher total BIT scores compared to drivers who seldom entertained hostile automatic thoughts about others (see Figure 4. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-. The R2 value changed after the HAT-Physical Aggression x AQ interaction was added in the regression model (R2=. B = . Effect for aggressive drivers with high HAT score BIT Level Effect for aggressive drivers with low HAT score Aggression Level Figure 4. R2=. also moderated the relationship between aggression and BIT. Kurtosis=. F=55.
F=59.294.092). The R2 value also changed after the HATRevenge x AQ interaction was added in the regression model (R2=. B = . p<.297.16 Summary of Hypothesis Testing The following table provides summarised results for the hypotheses and subhypotheses in this study (see Table 4. R2=.3.01. Kurtosis=. and the moderating effect of HAT-Revenge was significant. that total HAT score would moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic.246. B = . p<. The HAT subscale measuring thoughts about the derogation of others did not moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic.33).1 and H15.01. Normality Residuals: Skewness=. Therefore. However. were supported. H15.6.Aggression was significant.475.01. that hostile statements about the derogation of others moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic. H15. p<. was supported.207.026. it is concluded that Hypothesis 15.2. 4. that hostile statements about physical aggression and revenge respectively moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic. 159 . was not supported.
S P.S 2 S S S S S S S S S S S P.3: Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.S S S N.S N.2.S 1C P.1: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.S N.S N.S N.S N.S P.1: Ethnicity will influence the Locus of Control: Internality H4.2.1: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.S S S N.S P. S N.2.1.2.S N.S S S S P.S S S N.1: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.S S S N.3: Age will have a negative influence on total BIT score H4: Demographic variables will influence the Locus of Control H4.S S N.S N.S.Table 4.S S N.3: Gender will influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H4.S S S S S S N.S N.2: Ethnicity will influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.1.S P.S S S S S N.S S N.S N.2: Traveling frequency will have a negative influence on total BIT score H2.S 160 .S N.2: Freeway urgency will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.S N.S 1B S S S S S S S S S S S S S S P.S N.2: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.S N.2.2.1: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Internality H4.1: Driver experience will have a negative influence on total BIT score H2.3.S N.S P.S N.2: Ethnicity will influence total BIT score H3.1.S S S N.S S N.S N.S N.S P.1: Gender will influence total BIT score H3.S N.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 3 P.33: Summarised Results of the Hypotheses and Sub-hypotheses STUDY 1A H1: BIT will have a positive influence on motor vehicle crash outcomes H1.1.3: Ethnicity influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H4.S S P.1.2: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.2 :Freeway urgency will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.S S S S S N.1.S N.1: Age will influence the Locus of Control: Internality S S S S S S S S S S S S S S P.4: Destination-activity orientation will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H2: Driver characteristics will influence behaviour in traffic H2.S S S S S N.S N.1.S N.3:Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.2.4:Destination-activity orientation will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.
S N.S N.3: Age will influence Hopelessness H6: Locus of Control will influence Hopelessness H6.S N.S= Partially Supported.2: Externality-Chance will have a positive influence on total BIT H8.S 2 N.2: Ethnic background will influence Aggression H10.2: Age will influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.3: Age will influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H5: Demographic variables will influence Hopelessness H5.S S S N.S N.S 1B N.Table 4.S N.S N.33 (Continued) 1A H4.S N.S P.S N.2: Ethnic background will influence of Hopelessness H5.S N.S S S S S P.S N.S N.S N.3: Age will have a negative influence on Aggression S=Supported.S N.3.S= Not Supported.S P.1: Internality will have a negative influence on Hopelessness H6.S N.S S N.1: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Usurpation of right-of way H7.S 3 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.1: Gender will influence Aggression H10.S N.1: Internality will have a negative influence on total BIT score H8.S S S N.S N.S P.S N.S N.S N.S S S S S S S S P.S P.S N.S N.S N.S N.S S N.S N.S S N.3.S P.S S S N.1: Gender will influence Hopelessness H5.1: Hopelessness will moderate the Internality-BIT relation H9.S S S N.S N.S N. N.2: Hopelessness will moderate the Externality-Chance--BIT relationship H9.4: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Destination-activity Orientation H8: Locus of Control will influence behaviour in traffic H8. P.2: Externality-Chance will have a positive influence on Hopelessness H6.S N.S S S S S S S N.S N.3: Hopelessness will moderate the Externality-Powerful-Others--BIT relationship H10: Demographic variables will influence aggression H10.3: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Externally-focused frustration H7.S S S S S S S S S S S S S S N.S STUDY 1C N. blank=Not Applicable N.2: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Freeway urgency H7.S N.S P.S N.S 161 .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 S S S S S S S S S S S S S N.
33 (Continued) 1A H11: Aggression will have a positive influence on behaviour in traffic H11.3: Externality-Powerful-Others will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H13: Demographic variables will influence Hostile Automatic Thought s H13.2: Externality-Chance will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12.3: Age will have a negative influence on hostile automatic thoughts H14: Hostile Automatic Thoughts will have a positive influence on behaviour in traffic H14.2: Thoughts about the Derogation-of-Others will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H15.S S N.S S N.S S 2 3 P.Table 4.1: Thoughts about Physical Aggression will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H15.2: Aggression will have a positive influence on Freeway urgency H11.3: Thoughts about Revenge will have a positive influence on total BIT score H15: Hostile Automatic Thoughts will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H15.S S S N.S S S N.S S S S S P.2: Ethnic background will influence hostile automatic thoughts H13.1: Aggression will have a positive influence on usurpation of right-of way H11. blank=Not Applicable 1B S S S S S S S S S STUDY 1C S S S S S S S S S P.1: Internality will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12.2: Thoughts about the Derogation of Others will have a positive influence on total BIT score H14. N.S= Partially Supported.S N.S 162 .3: Aggression will have a positive influence on Externally-focused frustration H11.S= Not Supported.4: Aggression will have a positive influence on Destination-activity orientation H12: Locus of Control will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12.3: Thoughts about Revenge will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship S=Supported.1: Gender will have a positive influence on hostile automatic thoughts H13. P.S P.S N.1: Thoughts about Physical Aggression will have a positive influence on total BIT score H14.
02 d.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. This contextual mediated model was tested six times and the goodness-of-fit indices for these models are indicated in Table 4. AQ. 2002). F4 F1. P I. BHS. Hopelessness.38 100. C. P.96 . Externality Chance (C). two were worthy of further examination. F3. P.90 110. C. F2. These models were re-specified by adding different proximal context factors.7. Aggression (AQ).52 (Jöreskog and Sörbom. AQ and Hostile Automatic Thought (HAT). F2. HAT I.4. externality (Chance) and externality (Powerful-Other) as distal context factors. Hostile Automatic Thought (HAT). P.00000 . Study 2: motorcycle driver.58 35. HAT Proximal Factors F1. F4 F1. Externality Powerful-Other (P).05522 . AQ. F2.00000 . C. All proposed models measured: (1) internality. Model 1C5 had better fit but necessitated dropping one of the component factors. 23 28 33 38 24 33 p-value GFI . F2. 4.087 . HAT I.060 Note: Internality (I).g.93 . freeway urgency (F2). Table 4. and (3) crash occurrence and injury occurrence as outcome. F4 F1. F3 F1.96 RMSEA . F3. BHS.045 . C. P. e.093 . F4 F1.068 .f. 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.97 . P. Three studies (Study 1C: automobile driver. F3. F4 χ2 49. 163 .00126 .93 . F2. F3.102 . AQ I. externally-focused frustration (F3) and destination-activity orientation (F4) Of the six models tested. C.80 104. C. hopelessness or subtracting the latent variables in order to obtain the optimal goodness-of-fit index. F2. BHS I.93 . Hopelessness (BHS). (2) usurpation of right-of-way.97 63.34.1 Study 1C The contextual mediated model in this study was tested with four distal factors – Locus of Control.34: SEM Comparison (Study 1C) Distal Factors 1C1 1C2 1C3 1C4 1C5 1C6 I. freeway urgency. Usurpation of right-of-way (F1).00000 . externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation as proximal context factors. AQ.00111 . F3.
The five distal variables accounted for 70% of the variance in BIT scores.42. Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thought had effects on BIT. values were: NFI=. of the BIT score. which are detailed in sect. Externality (Chance). d.91. Making a decision to select one of these models over the other raised a number of interesting points. . The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that all possible paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant: Internality.=24. Externality (Chance).26. 164 .96.23 respectively (see Figure 4. ECVI=. values for these additional indices were: NFI=. C6.32. .060.045.043. RMSEA=. and PGFI=. AGFI=.94. . For Model C5. For Model C5. with path coefficients = -.92) on accident involvement. subsequent additional analysis was carried out to calculate a range of comparative fit indices.10).29 and . CFI=.10). RMR=. CFI=. Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thought had effects on BIT.35. To aid this discussion.48.5. d.96.98).42.26. For Model C6.97. .97.92) on accident involvement. GFI=.28 and . GFI=.destination-activity orientation (F4). RMSEA=. . The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=.f.3.51 and PGFI=. The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=.97. retained all four of the BIT component factors and fit indices were acceptable. The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that all possible paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant: Internality. Externality (Powerful-Other).22 respectively (see Figure 4. Externality (Powerful-Other).14. .02. but not as good as for C5. ECVI=. The five distal variables accounted for 67% of the variance in BIT scores. 5.f.13. For Model C6. goodness-of-fit was characterised as very good (χ2=63. goodness-of-fit was characterised as excellent (χ2=35. AGFI=. with path coefficients = -. RMR=.99) and constituted the best fit of all six of the tested models.043.=33. An alternate model.
9: Contextual Mediated Model 1C5 (Three BIT Factors) 165 .Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome Internality -.05 BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way.29* Aggression (AQ) .79* . BITF4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4.22* Hostile Automatic Thought Model Statistics χ2=35.f =24 CFI=.57* Injury Occurrence . BITF2=Freeway Urgency.97 d.97 GFI=.99 P-value = . *p<.92* Accident Involvement .13* Externality (Powerful Other) BIT1 BIT2 BIT3 .045 RMR=.32* Externality (Chance) .63* . BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration.51* .58* .26* Crash Occurrence Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) .043 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.005522 N=252 RMSEA=.
060 RMR=.13* Externality (Powerful Other) BIT1 BIT2 BIT3 BIT4 .05 BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way.31* Externality (Chance) .Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome Internality -.63* .56* .00126 N=252 RMSEA=.02 GFI=.29* Aggression (AQ) .f =33 CFI=. BITF2=Freeway Urgency.50* .26* Crash Occurrence Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) .10: Contextual Mediated Model 1C6 (Four BIT Factors) 166 . *p<.77* .96 d.043 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.98 P-value = .92* Accident Involvement .22* Hostile Automatic Thought Model Statistics χ2=63. BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration.39* .58* Injury Occurrence . BITF4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4.
ANG. ANG. IND.66 153. externally-focused frustration (F3) and destination-activity orientation (F4) As depicted in Figure 4.080 . F3. HAT-R PHY. the contextual mediated model was tested using Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thoughts and their latent variables (component factors) as distal context factors. F2. HAT-R PHY.91 .13 respectively. F2.10. 42 61 50 61 61 p-value . RMSEA=. Hostile Automatic Thought was found to have a direct effect on the AQ (path coefficient=. 167 . The proposed contextual mediated model was tested five times (see Table 4. HOS.80) on the accident involvement. 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).084 .91.94 169.00000 GFI RMSEA . Hostility (HOS). Usurpation of right-of-way (F1).00000 . Verbal aggression (VER).00000 .00111 .95). GFI=. HOS. Hostile Automatic Thought-Revenge(HAT-R). Angry (ANG).92 . F4 χ2 108.65 and .91 . F3.35: Different Contextual Models (Study 1C) Distal Factors PHY.=61. HAT-D. HAT-P.91 . Hostile Automatic Thought-Physical aggression (HAT-P). path coefficients = . The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=.00000 .66). HAT-P. The results for the goodness-offit indexes are shown as follows: Table 4. IND PHY.f.35). IND. HAT-R PHY. VER. HAT-D. F2. HAT-P.078 Note: Physical aggression (PHY). using automobile drivers sampled in Study 1C. HOS. VER. d.41. ANG. F2. HAT-R Proximal Factors F1. Indirect aggression (IND).078. CFI=.41 d. VER.084 . freeway urgency (F2). Hostile Automatic Thought-Derogation of others (HAT-D).73 169. HAT-D. F2. IND. F3. HOS. the final model has provided a reasonable fit to the data (χ2=153. ANG. F3 F1. ANG. Aggression (AQ).081 . F3 F1.93 . F4 F1.66 131. HAT-P. F4 F1. HOS.In addition. HAT-D.f. IND.
BIT4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4.13* Model Statistics χ2=153. BIT2=Freeway Urgency.29* Hostility .68* Aggression (AQ) BIT1 BIT2 BIT3 BIT4 . *p<.95 P-value = .82* Revenge BIT1=Usurpation of Right-of way.11: Contextual Mediated Model Study 1C (Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thoughts) 168 .Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome Physical Aggression .63* Indirect Aggression .058 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.69* Anger .62* .90* Derogation of Other Hostile Automatic Thought . BIT3=Externally-Focused Frustration.83* .05 .66* .65* Crash Occurrence Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) .078 RMR=.58* .72* .61* .80* Accident Involvement .000 N=252 RMSEA=.41 GFI=.65* .91 d.60* Injury Occurrence Physical Aggression .f =61 CFI=.
F3.=28.94 .17631 .06722 . BHS F1. 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. freeway urgency (F2). the participants were motorcycle drivers. F2. The four distal variables accounted for 49% of the variance in BIT. RMSEA=.f.2 Study 2 In Study 2. Externality Chance (C). Hopelessness (BHS). GFI=.047 . Usurpation of right-of-way (F1). path coefficients = -.33 33.07580 . The goodness-of-fit indexes for these models are shown as follow: Table 4. The contextual mediated model was tested using locus of control and hopelessness as distal context factors. the final model for the student motorcycle drivers did not include hopelessness.80 respectively (see Figure 4. P I. BHS I.058 .4.65 and .94 .66) on the accident involvement. Externality Powerful-Other (P). P.98). Internality and Externality (Chance) the Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) but not Externality (PowerfulOther). F2. The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that three paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant.86 23 28 23 . C. F4 F1. F4 39.7. F2.f. Compared to the Study 1 for student car drivers.94.12 d. F3 F1. p-value GFI RMSEA I. C.36).047.062 Note: Internality (I).12). The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=. d. CFI=. 169 . The proposed contextual mediated model was tested three times (see Table 4.95 .12. F3. P. C.36: Different Contextual Models (Study 2) Distal Factors Proximal Factors χ2 29.
BIT2=Freeway Urgency.f =23 CFI=.046 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.89* .05 BIT1=Usurpation of Right-of way. BIT3=Externally-Focused Frustration.88* Crash Occurrence .12: Contextual Mediated Model Study 2 170 .12 GFI=.80* Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) .17631 N=122 RMSEA=.65* Externality (Chance) .Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome BIT1 BIT2 .047 RMR=.05 Injury Occurrence Model Statistics χ2=29.99 P-value = .78* .57* Internality -.70* BIT4 .66* Accident Involvement Externality (Powerful Other) . *p<. BIT4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4.83* BIT3 .95 d.
have effects on the Behaviour in Traffic (BIT). P. The four distal variables accounted for 12% of the variance in BIT. but not Externality. F4 Crash Occurrence 18.03084 .20 respectively (see Figure 4.3 Study 3 In Study 3. F4 50. F3. F3.f. RMSEA=. the participants were taxi drivers. F2.068 Injury Occurrence Crash Occurrence. C. C. GFI=. Externality Powerful-Other (ExPo). I.20 and . F3. F2.95). Usurpation of right-of-way (F1).=21.59 17 .37: Different Contextual Models (Study 3) Distal Factors I. externally-focused frustration (F3) and destination-activity orientation (F4) Model included locus of control. F2. path coefficients = -.f.97 .39.06743 . d. P.95 . The goodness-of-fit indexes for these models are shown as follow: Table 4. C.37). CFI=. The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=. The contextual mediated model was tested using locus of control and hopelessness as distal context factors.40) on the accident involvement.00524 .027 I. F3. AQ and only crash occurrence as outcome has provided the best goodness-of-fit to the data (χ2=31. AQ F1. 171 .94 .39 21 . AQ F1.061. F4 Crash Occurrence 31. F2. AQ F1. Externality Chance (ExC).061 Note: Internality (I). The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that two out of four possible paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant.93 . P Proximal Factors F1. Hopelessness (H).95.7. freeway urgency (F2). C.82 28 . p-value GFI RMSEA Crash Occurrence. 37.35265 .4. Internality and AQ. This contextual mediated model was tested four times (see Table 4.22 23 .079 Injury Occurrence I.13). F4 Outcomes χ2 d.
95 d.061 RMR=. BIT3=Externally-Focused Frustration. BIT2=Freeway Urgency.20* Aggression (AQ) Model Statistics χ2=31.06743 N=133 RMSEA=.40* Crash Occurrence Externality (Powerful Other) .13: Contextual Mediated Model Study 3 172 .053 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.03 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) .74* -.05 BIT1=Usurpation of Right-of way.95 P-value = .Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome BIT1 BIT2 .13 .20* Externality (Chance) .63* BIT3 . *p<.f =21 CFI=. BIT4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4.61* BIT4 .39* Internality -.39 GFI=.
1 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hopelessness and Crash Outcomes In all studies. and. Table 4. 4.8.8. Step2=independent variable has a significant effect on the dependent variable.8 Testing Mediational Relationships Using SPSS The mediating effects of BIT on: (1) the relationship between hopelessness and accident involvement.4. 173 .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 4.38: 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. Therefore. (2) the relationship between locus of control and accident involvement. Step 3=mediator has a significant effect on the dependent variable. 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). (3) the relationship between aggression and accident involvement. 4. (4) the relationship between hostile automatic thoughts and accident involvement were tested using the four-step procedure proposed by Baron and Kenny (1986).39). Not applicable = mediating effect could only be tested when conditions in Step1. consistent with path analysis results. hopelessness did not significantly influence the crash outcomes (see Table 4. 2 and 3 are satisfied. the mediating effect of BIT on hopelessness and crash outcomes relationship could not be estimated. BIT was a complete mediator for the relationship between AQ total score and crash occurrence.
8. Externality-Chance (C) and Externality-PowerfulOthers – and crash outcomes (See Table 4. 1B and 1C.8. Table 4. behaviour in traffic (BIT) had complete or partial mediating effects on the relationship between the three locus of control dimensions – Internality (I). Exceptions to this were found only with respect to the relationship between P and both crash outcomes in Study 1A. in Studies 1A.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 4.40). Table 4.41).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. where the 174 .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.4 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Crash Outcomes For automobile drivers.
C or P and the two crash outcomes. Table 4. For taxicab drivers in Study 3.mediating effect of BIT total scores could not be estimated because requisite conditions in the second step of the analysis were not satisfied. For motorcycle drivers in Study 2.41: BIT Mediates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Crash Outcomes BIT mediates I-Crash Occurrence Relation Study 1A Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 Study 3 BIT mediates I-Injury Occurrence Relation Study 1A Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 Study 3 BIT mediates C-Crash Occurrence Relation Study 1A Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 Study 3 BIT mediates C-Injury Occurrence Relation Study 1A Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 Study 3 Step 1 Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 1 Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 1 Significant Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Step 1 Significant Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Step 2 Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Not Significant Step 2 Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Not Significant Step 2 Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 2 Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Step 4 Complete Mediator Partial Mediator Partial Mediator Not Applicable Not Applicable Step 4 Complete Mediator Partial Mediator Partial Mediator Not Applicable Not Applicable Step 4 Partial Mediator Complete Mediator Partial Mediator Complete Mediator Not Applicable Step 4 Partial Mediator Complete Mediator Partial Mediator Complete Mediator Not Applicable 175 . With respect to the relationship between I and the crash outcomes and the relationship between P and the crash outcomes. BIT had a complete mediating effect on the relationship between C and both crash outcomes. no mediating effect of BIT could be estimated since requisite conditions in the second step of the analysis were not satisfied. BIT had no mediating effects on the relationship between I.
993. p <. Study 1B vs. Motorcycle Drivers and Taxicab Drivers 4. automobile drivers scored higher than motorcycle drivers on I. Automobile drivers in Studies 1A.1 Differences between Automobile Drivers and Motorcycle Drivers In a subsequent analysis.837. 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. p <. It was found that there were significant differences in scores for hopelessness. Study 1C vs. Study 1A vs. With respect to the three dimensions of locus of control. Study 1A vs.442.162.41: 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 2: t(421)= -3.Table 4. 176 . p <.01. p <. Study 1A vs.426.9 Comparison of Automobile Drivers. Study 1C vs. Study 2: t(372)= -3.665. p <.01.663.9.01.01.01. Study 1B vs. 1B and 1C scored significantly lower on hopelessness than did motorcycle drivers. Study 2: t(372)= 8. p <. There was no significant difference in scores on the P dimension between automobile drivers and motorcycle drivers. Study 2: t(421)= -4. Study 2: t(422)= 8. Study 2: t(422)= -2.01.05. Automobile drivers also scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers on C. Study 2: t(421)= 7.
Study 2: t(421)= -3.687. Study 1A vs. p <. t(986)= 6. t(986)= 3. There were no differences between motorcycle drivers and taxicab drivers on the P dimension. p <.01.01.200. and on all four BIT subscales: “usurpation of right-of way”. t(986)= 7. p <.747.977.01.01. Also. 4.9.01. 177 .261.01. t(986)= 37. p <.01. t(253) = 2. Study 1C vs. Motorcycle drivers scored higher than taxicab drivers on C.01. Study 2: t(422)= -4. Automobile drivers scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers in injury occurrence. Study 1B vs.9. Study 2: t(372)= -6.01. p <. p <. There were no significant differences scores on either C or P between the automobile drivers and taxicab drivers. “externally-focused frustration” and “destination-activity orientation”. p <. p <. Study 2: t(421)= -8. p <. Study 1B vs. p <. p <. Study 1C vs.861. p <.Automobile drivers scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers with respect to the total BIT score.01. respectively.01.211.484.926. t(253)= 8.775. taxicab drivers scored higher than automobile drivers on the I dimension. p <.01. Automobile drivers scored higher that taxicab drivers on total BIT scores. Study 1A vs. automobile drivers scored higher than taxicab drivers with respect to crash occurrence. Study 2: t(372)= -5. Study 2: t(422)= -6.801.402. t(986)= 5. p <. p <. p <. p <. Study 1C vs. and t(986)= 35. Study 2: t(372)= -7. “freeway urgency”.186.2 Differences between Automobile Drivers and Taxicab Drivers With respect to locus of control. Study 2: t(421)= -7.01.01. Automobile drivers scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers in crash occurrence.3 Differences between Motorcycle Drivers and Taxicab Drivers Taxicab drivers scored higher than motorcycle drivers on the I locus of control dimension. t(986)= 30. p <.614. 4.433. Study 1A vs. t(986)= 34.837.01.01.577.704. and to injury occurrence.01.01.
01. t(253)= 8. p <.Motorcycle drivers had higher total BIT scores than taxicab drivers.881. t(253)= 8.567. and all four BIT subscales: “usurpation of right-of way”.01.982. Also.016.01. respectively. drivers scored higher with respect to crash occurrence. p <. p <. “freeway urgency”.01. and t(253)= 37. 178 . “externally-focused frustration” and “destination-activity orientation”.946.01. t(253)= 31.737. p <.977. t(253)= 11.01.01and to injury occurrence. p <. p <. p <. t(253)= 39. t(253)= 35.
Papacostas and Synodinos (1988) investigated four dimensions of driving behaviour conceptually related to the Type A behaviour pattern (TABP). Composite BIT scores were comprised of measures of usurpation of right-ofway. including gender.2.. upon examination. 1995. 2. Evans.4. Elander et al. freeway urgency. They found gender. researchers have been frequently frustrated when attempting to quantify the effects of psycho-social variables on either driving behaviour or crash outcomes. Often. In an earlier study. Elander et.1). externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation. The present research applied Sümer’s concept of a contextual mediated model.CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION 5. 1991).1 A Contextual Mediated Model for Understanding Factors Influencing Unsafe Driving Traffic psychologists. human factors that conceptually might be expected to have a strong influence over driving behaviour and crash occurrence end up. Parker (2004) and others have stressed the importance of examining crash causation from a broader. al. While it has been generally assumed and frequently stated that driver characteristics. 2002b). age and personality may be the most important factors in crash causation (Bridger. multi-factorial perspective. in which the roles played by variables in mediating and moderating effects of personality factors are more closely examined than in the past. 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. ethnic and driver experience differences with respect to 179 . in which a set of personality and demographic factors are thought to exert effects. (1993). not directly on driving behaviour and crash outcomes but rather on some intervening variable located more proximally to the event (see sect. 1993. exerting weaker influence or more equivocal results than anticipated (Dewar.
BIT composite scores are also expected to mediate the effects of locus of control. One recurrent complexity that arises when trying to understand traffic safety. This was true with respect to both the composite BIT score and individual scores of each of the four component factors. hopelessness. In the present research. In the contextual mediated model. but did not examine the effects of BIT scores on crash outcomes. Every aspect of the traffic system is in some way connected to every other aspect. and did so in all cases but hopelessness. Results reported here suggest an elaborate relationship. A rich variety of individual factors exists which. 180 . But findings were more complex than that. the term “cause” conveys the notion of a single causative element. Type A individuals were significantly more likely to have found themselves involved in traffic crashes and. As a result. In other words. except with taxicab drivers. which somewhat complicates our attempt to stay true to our title: “Cause and Prevention of Roadway Crashes”. BIT. alter the outcome or probability of occurrence of crashes and these have been classified into broad categories using different schemes (Evans. the proximal variable. if different. significantly predicted selfreported crash occurrence in all replications and with all classes of drivers studied.total BIT score and component scores. All too often. Since high BIT scores indicated driving behaviour consistent with TABP. were significantly more likely to have been injured while driving. Further. though. for automobile drivers and motorcyclists. BIT scores are considered proximal to the crash event. in the deterministic sense in which it is used in the physical sciences or engineering. particularly between psychological variables and crash outcomes. 1991). aggression and hostile automatic thoughts on crash and injury occurrence. The matrix proposed by Haddon (1972) is one example. is that factors interact with each other. it predicted self-reported injury occurrence in all cases.
… the word cause has largely disappeared from the technical literature on safety, and for good reasons. Suppose that on a dark rainy morning a young man argues with his wife about the purchase of a sofa, leaves the house late for work in a rage, drives his poorly-maintained car too fast on a badly-designed, poorly-lit curve. Suppose further that he skids, and is killed in a crash with a truck driven by an older driver. It is of little value to say that the death was caused by the car driver’s youth or maleness, the truck driver’s old age, the car’s bald tires, the high cost of sofas, emotional stress, the non-use of a safety belt, inadequate police enforcement, rain or any other of the many factors which, if different on this particular occasion, would have prevented the death (Evans, 1991; p. 60)
Causative factors, then, are difficult to partial out and, it might be argued, cannot really be studied in isolation. For this reason, the use of a model based on interactive relationships between personality or demographic characteristics of drivers and the components making up a particular pattern of driving behaviour, in this case a Type A behaviour pattern, makes good sense. The model proved useful in describing and
explaining the relationship between distal and proximal variables involved in crash and injury occurrence. Personality and demographic variables had significant effects on a measure of behaviour in traffic which, in turn, had a robust association with selfreported crash and injury occurrence. What may have resulted here is less an identification of causes and their prevention and more a framework in which to consider the complex interactions of several factors that contribute to motor vehicle crashes.
Within the contextual mediated model used here, a significant relationship was observed between the BIT construct and outcome measures, suggesting that the contention of Papacostas and Synodinos (1988), that it may be preferable to existing measures of TABP, is supported. As has been already noted, a range of personality and
demographic variables were observed to interact with BIT scores and the remainder of this discussion is devoted to a consideration of these findings.
Hopelessness It has been noted by several authors that little attention has been paid to affective
characteristics of drivers (Rothengatter, 1998; 2002; Elander et al., 1993). It is widely accepted that emotions alter attention, thought patterns, decision making and memory (Groeger, 1997). Hopelessness is a personality trait with strong affective and cognitive components, characterised by a sense of despair, pessimism about the future, chronic exhaustion and a deep personal orientation that nothing one can do to bring meaning, zest or enthusiasm to life (Farran et al., 1995). Hopeless individuals tend to believe that nothing will turn out right for them, that they will never succeed at what they attempt to do, that their important goals can never be attained, and that their worst problems will never be solved (Beck & Steer, 1993). They score high on scales measuring
neuroticism and low on extraversion, feel as though they lack physical fitness and selfconfidence and are often dissatisfied with their accommodation, marital state and workplace (Tanaka, Sakamoto, Ono, Fujihara & Kitamura, 1996; 1998). Often people with a high degree of hopelessness feel compelled to do more and more as a way of compensating, feeling as though “they must climb a mountain that has no top and that there is no way to end the necessity of climbing” (LeShan, 1989; p.108). Often these efforts are seen as impulsive, irrational and generally without an apparent goal, and are just as frequently prone to premature termination.
Certainly, it is not difficult to see that internal states arising from this interplay of despondency, perceived fatigue and sense of slowing down while feeling compelled to do more, have a strong potential to influence driving behaviour negatively. In the present research, hopelessness was associated with less cautious self-reported behaviour in traffic. The higher were participants’ scores on a measure of hopelessness, the more they indicated they would be likely to engage in BIT that was unsafe. Specifically, persons reporting a high degree of hopelessness had a tendency to disrespect others’
right-of-way, to engage in risky lane deviations and to commit lapses or violations at intersections or stoplights. Generally, very little is known about demographic and
personality characteristics of drivers who fail to halt at stop signs or pedestrian crossings, commit red light violations or make risky lane deviation manoeuvres (Brodsky, 2001; Romano et al., 2005a; 2005b). The finding that hopelessness is
associated with risky right-of-way behaviour may be consistent with the attention deficiencies, impulsivity and lack of caring thought to characterise persons with this trait (Farran et al., 1995).
When it comes to the relationship between hopelessness and driving behaviour, motorcyclists present some unique differences. Motorcycle drivers had higher
hopelessness scores than either automobile or taxicab drivers. Among motorcyclists, males were significantly higher than females in hopelessness and Malay motorcycle drivers had higher hopelessness levels than their Chinese-Malaysian or IndianMalaysian counterparts. Motorcyclists generally have a high frequency of right-of-way crashes at three-legged junctions, crossroads and roundabouts where the driving manoeuvres tend to be fairly complex, requiring vehicle control skills and focused attention to avoid conflicting movements with other road users (Pai & Saleh, 2008). Clarke, Ward, Bartle and Truman (2007) have also noted that, because of their configuration, motorcycles are particularly prone to ‘right of way crashes’ and those involving loss of control on curves or bends. With the likelihood of this type of crash already fairly high for motorcyclists, the finding in the present study that hopelessness was strongly associated with driver behaviour involving the usurpation of right of way may signal an exacerbated level of danger that needs to be explored in future research.
For motorcyclists, also, hopelessness moderates the relationship between both I and C locus of control dimensions, such that motorcyclists with a strong internal locus of control who score high on the hopelessness trait tend to report that they engage in less safe behaviour in traffic than do motorcycling internals who score low on the hopelessness trait. On the other hand, motorcyclists with a strong belief that their life is
determined by chance or fate and that their future is coloured by feelings of hopelessness tend to report more dangerous driving than do fatalistically-directed externals who are not feeling hopeless.
The relationship between hopelessness and locus of control is complex, in that logically either a high or a low sense of internal control can be a component of hopelessness. Often persons who feel hopeless have a low sense of personal control. They have lost faith in their own ability to achieve some goal and therefore have an image of themselves that they feel has been devalued both by themselves and by other people (Engel, 1968; Isani, 1963; Prociuk et al., 1976). In other cases, however, persons have a high but unrealistic sense of internality. They may feel very responsible for their own fate and may feel that no other help is available to them (Engel, 1971). “In this situation, even though individuals are making some attempt at maintaining control, their goals may be inappropriate or their resources may not be adequate to meet the desired outcome” (Farran et al, 1995; p. 33).
Similarly, either a high or a low sense of external control can also be a component of hopelessness. A person with a high external locus of control may
unrealistically anticipate that help from others or from the external environment will resolve the dilemma (Engel, 1968), thus assuming little or no personal control. However, persons who are feeling hopeless may also have a low sense of external control simply because they believe that others have so frequently failed or frustrated them (Engel, 1971). Farran et al. (1995) called for further studies to explore the nature of hopelessness and other moderating variables like self-esteem, locus of control and self-efficacy. Future research investigating the process through which locus of control interacts with hopelessness in influencing driver behaviour are needed in particular.
Locus of Control Internal and External Locus of Control as Determinants of Driving Behaviour Previous studies investigating the effects of locus of control on driving behaviour
arrived at inconsistent results. For example, Guastello and Guastello (1986) found that internals had been involved in fewer crashes than externals on their transitional scale but that there was no such relation between crashes and scores on the Rotter (1996) I-E scale. Özkan and Lajunen (2005) found that internals reported a higher number of total crashes, ordinary traffic violations and driving errors, although scores on externality dimensions had no effect. In the present study, locus of control was found to play a significant role in influencing driving behaviour. Drivers who had a strong internal locus of control regardless of automobile, motorcycle or taxicab drivers, reported engaging in behaviour in traffic that was relatively safe. This observation was true for all three groups studied: automobile drivers, motorcyclists and taxicab drivers. On the other hand, those who believed life events to be determined by chance or fate reported engaging in behaviour that was far more consistent with a less safe TAPB pattern. This was true for the samples of automobile and motorcycle drivers, all of whom were university students, but not for professional taxicab drivers.
In short, all participants in this study who were internals reported driving more safely than those who were not; and university students who were strongly externally controlled reported driving less safely than those who were not. This finding is exactly what the general body of thought about locus of control and driving would predict it to be. It has been generally assumed that, because externals believe that they have little personal control over what happens to them, they tend to consciously focus less on the driving task (Elander et al., 1993). In cognitive ergonomic terms, it is as if they are willing to cede responsibility for shouldering the mental workload (de Waard, 2002) associated with the driving task because they consider it to be under the control of external forces.
It might be expected, though, that this effect would be become less pronounced as drivers become more experienced. Groeger (2002) has pointed out that, with more
experienced drivers, more of what they do becomes routine and, as a result, not under direct conscious control. With increasing automatisation of the driving process, the influence of externality over specific decisions and actions that the driver must make would be diminished. Shiffrin and Schneider (1977) described how automaticity
develops as a function of consistent reactions to a particular stimulus, even to the point where there is little recollection of specific elements of the task (Underwood & Everatt, 1996). Of course, there will always be “black events”, or risk-predisposing circumstances, in which the driver switches from automatic to personally controlled processes but, even at those times, drivers with more experience will have better knowledge and quicker reactions due to their broader exposure to prior stimuli (Brown, 1982).
Because more of the driving task is performed automatically by experienced drivers, cognitive attributions about an internal or external locus of control become less important, unless one makes a basically untestable assumption about sub-conscious factors operating on what is generally described as an open-loop control system (Groeger & Clegg, 1997). Given that this sort of system involves sequences of actions which do not rely on feedback from the results of preceding actions before subsequent actions are performed (Bridger, 1995), even if attributional cognitions could theoretically operate at the sub-conscious level, it is hard to envision the sort of mechanism through which they could influence automaticized driving behaviour.
Further, Laapotti et al. (2001) have argued that novice drivers make errors in applying knowledge models at both the lower (vehicle manoeuvring) and upper dimensions (incorporating lifestyle goals and skills) within the driving process (see Figure 2.8; sect. 18.104.22.168). 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
internals reported that they engaged in safer behaviour in traffic. Hijar and Tovar (2005) have noted that social capital. Further research is needed to examine the influence of driving experience. as it did with the less experienced university students in the other groups. and 36. traffic exposure and other variables on the effects that internality and externality exert on driving behaviour.5. By virtue of their age and occupation. Malaysian-Indian automobile 187 . They were also more experienced (266.7 months.6 months as licensed drivers. For taxicab drivers. Of course.66) than the automobile drivers and motorcyclists (20.25 years. SD=1.63.53. 5.2 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.1 months. SD=131. social trust and norms that promote coordination and cooperation.01years. SD=22. although driving frequency was not measured for taxicab drivers. SD=1. SD=11. the extent to which an individual is connected to others through interpersonal networks. the continued operation of their vehicle is fundamental to their livelihood so motivational factors may take precedence over attributions of external control. it might also be assumed that their traffic exposure was greater than that of the students.1.16. there are other possible influences. Inclán. it might be assumed that taxicab drivers could well have a broader social network. 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. taxicab drivers were considerably older (43.hierarchy. This would be an error more likely to be made by younger novice or less experienced drivers. For taxicab drivers. affected driving behaviour and decisions about the use of public roads. Because of occupational demands. respectively). as well. In the present study. respectively). 20.3. but the externality-chance dimension had no significant effect.10) than the automobile drivers and motorcyclists (28. SD=.2 years.
to cultural values of intra-family dependency and parental influence that have persisted within the Tamil and other Indian communities in Malaysia (Abdullah & Peterson. rife with bureaucracy. There were no significant differences between Malay and Malaysian-Chinese participants on any of the three locus of control dimensions. Since perceived success under such circumstances might be expected to be largely due to personal proficiency in such areas. 2005). in terms of political ideology and interaction with the social system. findings with regard to locus of control differed from Carment’s (1974) earlier results. that the Indian students were strongly external with respect to matters in their personal life. along with selfpromotion skills. for support in effecting the life outcomes that are important to them. He explained this by pointing to the close and interdependent Indian family structure. in which members look to each other and especially to maternal figures within the home. The finding that Indian- 188 . influence peddling and status-related privileges. financial matters and social affiliations are made.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). when compared to Canadian students. corrupt practices. Research completed some thirty years earlier by Carment (1974) found that university students in India were strongly internally-controlled. Carment (1974) also found. spousal selection. In an environment where career choice. were necessary to succeed. 2003. perhaps due as argued earlier. He attributed this to the socio-political environment of the time. With the Indian-Malaysian sample studied in the present research. which would have led young Indians to perceive that skills in overcoming systemic barriers. it is easy to see how expectancies for the external control of life outcomes can develop. however. Devashayam. or at least strongly influenced by outside forces. Participants scored high in terms of attributions about the controlling nature of fate and powerful others. individuals would be more likely to develop attributions of internal control.
as a group. as a result. than between Singaporean-Chinese and Chinese participants from China. 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. Nandy. The size of the urban population in Malaysia increased by 4. Salih &Young.5 million in 1991 to 11.5% annually from 9. This is consistent with recent findings among Malay and Chinese ethnic groups in Singapore. 1999.Malaysian participants scored lower in internality was contrary to Carment’s earlier conclusions with individuals from India. there is considerable evidence that the socio-political environment in current-day Malaysia is different from that of India in the mid-1970s (Corbridge & Kumar. Gomez. Again. the proportion of the population residing in urban areas increased from 51% in 1991 to 55. including locus of control. 1999). 2002. 1999. Willford (2003) concluded that Indian-Malaysians. Armstrong (1987) argued that urbanisation has affected 189 . have been largely limited from participation in social and political processes that would necessitate that sort of social skill development and. 1966. but two possible influences stand out. although they were consistent with more recent research by Sinha & Watson (2007). 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.8 million in 1996. 1999) where one’s skills at manipulating the system may have fostered a need for greater internal control.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. Indeed. and. Closer proximity of cultural groups can be assumed to increase contact and transmission of knowledge and awareness of value systems (Hofstede. In reference to Carment’s explanation of the earlier results. 5. (2006) found greater commonalities in personality traits. 1998. an internal locus of control.3. by extension. where Cheung et al. Sendut. 1981). the reasons for this commonality in outlook are probably multi-factorial.7 in 1996.
Jenkins. feeling more frustrated at external sources. driving in a more urgent fashion and concentrating more on destination activities than on road and traffic 190 . Miller & Rodgers. Lynch. 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. 2003. 2001. 2008. 318).women’s friendship patterns. including perhaps attributions about the control of events.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. Dukes. Lawton & Nutter. King & Parker. Nonetheless. 5. Government initiatives have aimed at re-positioning Malaysia as a highly networked information economy and society. more recently. Miles & Johnson. Consistently. among automobile drivers and motorcyclists. 2000. there is a large body of evidence that aggression plays a significant role in unsafe driving behaviour and in crash outcomes (Deffenbacher. bringing them closer together in outlook. 2002). Hewstone and Ward (1985) showed that participants of Chinese descent in Singapore and Malaysia made about the same attributions about behaviour of Malay subjects as they did with regard to same-ethnicity subjects. in which members of ethnic groups are encouraged to adopt a ‘Malaysian outlook’ on life. by the enraged driver. 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. Clayton. Huff. 2001) In the present research. participants scoring higher on a measure of total trait aggression reported driving patterns that involved right-ofway violations. Oetting & Salvatore. aggression had a strong influence on behaviour in traffic. Parkinson. 2002. Brown (2007) has examined educational practices in Malaysia within the context of ethnicity and nation-building.
(1999) found that near accidents provoked feelings of anger. particularly where drivers felt that they were not at fault in the incident. Oetting et al. (1996) and Deffenbacher. Further. While there are plenty of studies establishing the link between aggression and driving behaviour. With taxicab drivers. higher aggression levels related to a strong tendency to commit right-of-way violations and to drive more urgently. physical aggression. Petrilli et al. Underwood et al. a little less strongly when they thought about taking revenge (“I want to get back at this person”) and least 191 . there are only a few that have attempted to explore the mechanism through which external or cognitive contexts trigger the effect. either verbally or as unspoken thoughts (“self-talk”). during such incidents. verbal aggression and indirect aggression. Finland and the Netherlands. Angry and aggressive driving episodes have been related to hostile cognitive statements that drivers make.conditions. 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. found that drivers were more likely to report anger when congestion was present. but had no significant effect on externally-focused frustration or destination oriented activity. on a journey by journey basis. but that there was no evidence that the drivers who generally experienced higher level of congestion also experienced more anger. (2003) found that drivers engaging in hostile automatic thoughts tended to report more aggressive and riskier driving. the more dangerously they behaved in traffic. but there were no gender differences with respect to anger or hostility. Lajunen & Summala (2002) similarly found that traffic density may play a role in triggering anger and aggression among drivers sampled in three countries: Great Britain. Their findings were replicated in the present research where it was shown that the higher the total frequency of hostile automatic thoughts reported by drivers. Underwood et al. Male drivers tended to score higher than female drivers with respect to total aggression. Parker.
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. These moderating effects were significant when the content of the cognitions involved physical aggression or revenge motives. 2006). Such responses. one’s interpretations of the environment lead one to react emotionally toward features within the environment (Galovski et al. 1997). perceiving another person’s slow driving as purposeful may lead to the emotional experience of anger. and that cognitive event in turn triggers an aggressive or punitive type of traffic behaviour. That is. however. and (c) cognitive distortions (ways in which people misinterpret their environment).. a cognitive distortion which stimulates a cognitive response related to physical aggression or revenge. In essence. (b) schemas (underlying general assumptions about life). in the samples studied here. were also modified by the drivers’ locus of control. 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 . The effects of aggression on behaviour. when entertaining cognitive statements that made derogatory comments (“What an idiot!”) about other drivers. Not only did drivers’ angry cognitions have a direct effect on their behaviour in traffic. would be most likely to involve the usurpation of right-of-way or more urgent speeding behaviour. as well. but they were found to moderate the effects of aggression on behaviour in traffic. although still significantly. Each class of hostile automatic thought can be thought to represent a reaction to these three factors (Snyder et al. Beck (1987b) hypothesised that three cognitive factors play an integral role in the way emotion affects behaviour: (a) the native triad (a negative view of self. the world and others). but not when they involved the derogation of others.strongly..
Finally.are determined by chance or fate. Generally.e. 1987. has a workload associated with it” (Bridger. 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. The relationship between aggression and driving behaviour is both important and complex. It is moderated by cognitive processes.e. has been shown to be difficult to process (Dodge & Coie. A driver’s mental workload is increased by the number of task demands with which one must contend in performing a function and. Novaco. like any other mental task. This last finding replicated and extended earlier research by Gidron et al. this process may be instrumental in the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic (“I’d like to knock his/her teeth out. Language loaded with emotional content. aggressive drivers of both automobiles and of taxicabs who had low levels of internality (i. “in ergonomics.. and also by attributions regarding locus of control. 1990. 193 . in the form of hostile automatic thoughts. 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. the original cognitive behaviourists tended to regard cognitive statements as internal mental stimuli that. Downe & Loke. so I’ll overtake him/her at high speed on the inside and feel great – i. (2003). and particularly with negative emotion. 401). evoked specific behavioural responses that then became subject to contingent reinforcement (Kanfer & Goldstein. 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. 1977). Similarly. 1995. 1994. 2004. receive positive reinforcement – when I see the shocked look on his/her face!”). true to operant learning principles. Certainly. Meichenbaum. 1979. p. language comprehension can be regarded as a mental task which. Hochschild. but there may be more to it than that.
1999. As the costs of achieving or maintaining a certain target level of performance increase. 1997)..g. Additional studies are needed to investigate whether this relationship is best explained through an internal stimulus-response process.Robbins. they may well reach a “red line” at which more mental effort is required than is available. 2000. and at the same time processing feelings of responsibility arising from one’s internal locus of control requires the investment of mental effort. 1993).5. Watson & Wan. 2004. 5. Taylor & Fragopanagos. Hinojosa. This can happen both in conditions of very high task demand and in conditions where the driver’s state is affected (p.1 Advantages of Using SEM Harlow (2005. Performance (e. As drivers contend with heightened feelings of aggression and increased internal chatter. 2005). Lambie & Marcel. and attempting to exercise control over. MartinLoeches. internal locus of control and tendencies toward more dangerous behaviour in traffic. subject to ambiguous interpretation (Chan. Tomkins. The present research has demonstrated linkages between hostile automatic thoughts. As de Waard (2002) has argued: There are limits to the investment of effort. p. Stein. 162). 2002. Trabasso & Liwag. hostile automatic thoughts. 1996. 1979) and disruptive to attentional processing of external stimuli (Adolphs. so too does the mental effort required (de Waard & Brookhuis. Dien. as well as other task demands of driving in traffic. Carretie. In fact.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 . Martin. Tavris (1989) referred to anger as the “misunderstood emotion”. aggressive emotionality. Mercado & Tapia. 2002. 2000. Making sense of. lane control in driving) will drop if effort investment is insufficient or ceases. an overburdening of cognitive workload capacity or both.
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. Structural equation modelling (SEM). In addition. By estimating and removing measurement error. a multivariate technique. Hair et al. or dependent. According to Williams. The constructs may be comprised of unobservable. or independent variables. Having the characteristics of multiple regression analysis. variables but also determine which specific predictors are most important in predicting dependent variable outcomes (Maruyama. the reliability of measurement can thus be accounted for explicitly within the analysis. 195 . EQS and AMOS. 2004. Finally. advanced the idea of combining features of econometrics and psychometrics into a single model (Klem. p. who in 1970. involved in the analysis. similar to the variables representing factors in a factor analysis. Gavin and Hartman (2004).. Second. When composing a model. 2000). or latent. SEM is deemed to be a unique combination of factor analysis and multiple regression analysis (Hair et al. 2006). explain criterion. Karl Jöreskog. The earliest use of SEM has been attributed to Swedish Statistician.434). 2006). SEM can not only tell how well the predictors. using SEM to examine relationships among factors allows the relationships to be free from measurement errors “because the error has been estimated and removed. and perhaps most important. 1998). allows the simultaneous estimation of multiple equations (Hair et al.. 2004. 2006). First. leaving only common variance” (Hardy and Bryman. researchers are attracted to the benefits that SEM can offer. the SEM depicts all of the relationships among constructs..multivariate methods provide a richer and more comprehensive examination on the variables. the growth in application of SEM techniques has paralleled researchers’ access to computer based data analysis software programs such as LISREL. including dependent and independent variables. factors represented by multiple variables.
the comparative fit index (CFI). (2004) noted that.e. TLI. 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. despite the prominence of SEM as a statistical tool. Shook et al.e. but that very few studies have used multiple fit indices. 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. etc) One badness-of-fit index (RMSEA. CFI. etc) 196 . Although many researchers have used SEM to examine a theoretically proposed model. GFI. the goodness of fit index (GFI). CFI or TLI) One goodness-of-fit index (GFI. Ketchen.5. fit indices such as chi-square statistics. (2004) commented on inconsistencies in the way SEM results have been reported in the literature. Hair et al. and the root mean square residual were included. Sümer (2003) added that. Therefore. RMSEA or SMRM) One incremental fit index (i.2 Goodness of Fit SEM is considered a confirmatory analysis for testing and potentially confirming theory. In the present research. (2006) have argued that no single ‘magic value’ for the fit indices has been found to differentiate good from poor models. there is a lack of consensus on how best to evaluate the extent to which a proposed model fits the data. (2004) has been critical of most studies. Hult & Kacmar (2004) and Williams et al. It is therefore not practical to apply a single set of cutoff rules to the measurement models. when assessing the fits of measurement models. (2006). SRMR. several alternative models were tested against different propositions in order to arrive at a model with the best possible fit. Shook. model re-specification by citing theoretical support for the changes made is desired.5. Williams et al. as suggested by Hair et al.
Although chi-square is the most fundamental absolute fit index. 2000). 2006). be a process that balances utility with statistical 197 . we would argue. 2006. Md-Sidin. 5.00 have been recommended to indicate good model fit (Hair et al. This has become such a widely accepted principle that decisions over model selection have become almost automatic (Klem. It is widely agreed that selection of the model should be a very good or an excellent fit. 1998.g. As a general rule. Fit index values (e. both dealing with traffic psychology (Sümer. GFI. 2000) and there are many examples of research studies. but there is little guidance in the literature as to what course of action should be taken when two models each meet standards for goodness-of-fit. it has been stressed repeatedly by several authors no definitive set of rules has been established for model selection (Byrne. RMSEA lower than . Structural equation modelling should. 2006) such that for analyses of sample sizes more than 250. 2001. Maruyama. 1998).3 Best Fit or Best Model It is important to test multiple plausible rival models. Sümer (2003) reported that some researchers have used critical χ2 /degrees of freedom ratios from 2 to 5 to indicate an acceptable fit.5.08 and a χ2 /degrees of freedom ratio less than 3.90. the fit indices for assessing the model included χ2 value and the associated df. At the same time. 2009) that have tended to select the model that has the best fit indices.. the model with the best goodness-of-fit indices is selected over alternate models. 2001.In the present research. CFI and CFI) greater than . it should not be used as the sole indicator of SEM fit because it is affected by sample size (Hair et al. CFI. RMSEA and the χ2 /degrees of freedom ratio.. It is argued here that. Sambasivan & Ismail.. Hair et al. 2003) and other disciplines (Elangovan. it may be advisable to select one that offers the most useful information even if indices are slightly lower than its alternative. significant p-values can be expected. so that stronger evidence supporting the correct specification of a model can be adduced (Thompson. provided competing models both present a pre-determined standard for goodness-of-fit.
it is concluded that the selection of Model 1C5 would be preferable 198 . Thus. they can in no way reflect the extent to which the model is plausible. the choice between the two would be Model 1C6 given its superior index coefficients.1.7. In the case at hand. two structural equation models. However. of intervariable relationships for high-risk undergraduate automobile drivers were compared using an initial set of goodness-of-fit indices (see sect. Model 1C5 (see Figure 4. assessment of model adequacy must be based on multiple criteria that take into account theoretical. destination-activity orientation. In some cases. There is some support for this position in the literature. Sobel and Bohrnstedt (1985) pointed out that exclusive reliance on goodness-of-fit indices is unacceptable. it makes sense to choose a model with a slightly poorer fit but more useful information over the best-fitting model.3). If selection criteria were to be based solely on goodness-of-fit parameters.soundness. while Model 1C6 (see Figure 4. “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. provided the chosen one meets pre-determined standards for goodness-of-fit. Both models were judged to have an excellent or very good fit.9) included all four components of the BIT scale. stating that. 88). More importantly. a finding that was further supported by additional subsequent analyses using a further series of goodness-of-fit indices. statistical. when taking into consideration “practical considerations”. and practical considerations (p. Index coefficients from the original and subsequent analysis are shown in Table 5. 4.10) excluded the fourth factor. 1C5 and 1C6. 158). Byrne (2001) argued that: Fit indexes yield information bearing only on the model’s lack of fit. as suggested by Byrne (2001). this judgment rests squarely on the shoulders of the research.
BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration. AQ.045 0. 199 . BITF2=Freeway Urgency.96 1.1: Goodness of Fit Statistics for Model 1C5 and 1C6 (Initial and Subsequent Analyses) Model 1C5 Distal Context: I. HAT Proximal Context: BITF1.96 0.99 0.043 129. BITF4=DestinationActivity Orientation Outcomes: Crash Occurrence.060 0.91 0.909 0. F2.02 0.94 0.42 11.02 0. C. Injury Occurrence 35.97 1. BITF2=Freeway Urgency. BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration. F3 & F4 BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way.51 Very Good Model 1C6 Distal Context: I. F3 BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way. HAT Proximal Context: BITF1.034 97. P. AQ. Fit Statistics (Threshold values) Outcomes: Crash Occurrence.97 0.499 0. C.97 0. Given that multivariate analysis revealed a significant association between this BIT component and crash outcomes. Injury Occurrence Degrees of Freedom RMSEA GFI Chi-sq/Df RMR AIC NFI CFI AGFI PGFI NCP ECVI Overall model fit 63.02 0.Table 5.48 30. F2.39 Best because it includes important information about destination-activity orientation behaviour that would be lost if Model 1C6 were chosen. it is apparent that this factor may be important to consider in future research and crash prevention programmes and should not be excluded from models on which they are based.97 0.98 0.97 0. P.
goodness-of-fit. the standard should be to include as much relevant information as possible. 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. 2006). the PGFI coefficient for Model 1C5 is 0. one that favours the maximum use of information in the cause of saving lives. 1990. et al. this is an important component to retain in a contextual mediated model of behaviour in traffic even if it does render a lower. Manstead & Stradling. Kayumov. when variables do not improve the AGFI and PGFI. For practical reasons. Reason. Parker. it is 0. but still acceptable. they should be dropped. farther along. provide the key to reducing injuries and saving lives (Reason. Storey. 1996). the decision was made to select Model 1C5 over Model 1C6. while for Model 1C6. When dealing with systems that are safetycritical. 1995. based on the notion that each variable included may. Hair et al. 2006. Nahn & Shapiro.42. Results of this and other research have demonstrated that.It can be argued here that safety research demands a somewhat different standard in terms of model construction and selection.48. when drivers do let their attention wander from current road and traffic conditions they are at increased risk of experiencing a crash outome (Moller. Schwebel.. However. 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. By selecting Model 1C5.1). Sambasivan (2008) stated that. in particular. (2006) have noted that models with a higher PGFI are preferable over competing models because they have a better fit relative to their complexity. in this analysis. Further discussion in this section refers only to Model 1C5. a central psychological feature of the TABP in driving is not overlooked and the BIT framework is kept intact. 200 .
crash occurrence (r = -.29). Examination of the predictive relationship between distal and proximal variables yielded support for the contextual model and were consistent with previous findings (e. Rothengatter. for automobile drivers sampled. via BIT. This suggested that automobile drivers with high levels of 201 .18) and injury occurrence (r = -. externally-focused frustration. The results suggested that the alternative model. Internality was significantly but negatively correlated with BIT (r = -. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) had significant effects on BIT scores (path coefficients = . indicating the importance of this factor in crash outcomes.28 and .28 respectively).4. 2001. Sümer. externality-powerful other.1 Study 1C: Automobile Drivers Sümer (2003) pointed out that comparing the goodness of fit indices of several alternative models can help to clearly identify where lack of fit arises within a model.35 and . . Findings in this study underscored the strong role of BIT in predicting accidents. externality-chance. four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way.5. Total scores of BIT were significantly correlated with crash occurrence (r = . and hostile automatic thoughts).34) and injury occurrence (r = . They appeared to be the strongest predictors among the five distal factors (path coefficients = -. externalitychance.45). Distal factors (locus of control: internality.23 respectively) and the BIT displayed a significant effect on crash outcomes (path coefficient = . . 2003). indicating that driving behaviour is closely related to involvement in motor vehicle crashes.g.6.5. 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. As observed from the investigation of structural paths.66). internality and aggression had direct effects on BIT and indirect effects.14. externality-powerful other. 1991.35. freeway urgency.26. with five distal factors (internality. In Study 1C.21). aggression. .4 Testing the Contextual Mediated Models Using SEM 5.5. Evans. on crash outcomes.1). the base model (with only locus of control variables) was compared against five alternative models (see section 4.
externally-focused frustration. had a better fit than other alternative models.internality were more likely to have low total BIT scores. One of the most compelling findings in Study 2 was that externalitychance scores had the highest correlations with BIT (r = .2 Study 2: Motorcyclists In Study 2.23) and injury occurrence (r = . with hopelessness removed as a distal factor but four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way. and destination-activity orientation) as proximal factors. and high probabilities of crash and injury occurrence. externality-chance. 5. and four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way. freeway urgency. internality and externality-chance (path coefficients = -. The second alternative model also had four distal factors but only three latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way. 202 . Aggressive automobile drivers tended to have high level of BIT scores. 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. on the other hand.80) indirectly and the proximal factor-BIT (path coefficient = . externality-powerful other and hopelessness).24). crash occurrence (r = . and destination-activity orientation) comprising the proximal factor and two latent constructs (crash and injury occurrence) comprising the crash outcome variable.5.41).66) directly predicted crash outcomes. as well as low probability of crash and injury occurrence. was significantly and positively correlated with BIT (r = .65 and .4. freeway urgency. Aggression. Investigation of the path parameters revealed that only two of the distal factors. the base model (with only the locus of control variable) was compared against two alternative models. crash occurrence (r = . The first alternative model had four distal factors (locus of control: internality.25). freeway urgency and externally-focused frustration) for the proximal factor. which sampled motorcyclists.55). Results indicated that the first alternative model. externally-focused frustration.20) and injury occurrence (r = .
externally-focused frustration. and destination-activity orientation) as proximal factors. Finally.4. as a result. 203 .5. All models included four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way. the results of measurement model analysis showed that one of the distal factors. freeway urgency. aggression). the base model (with only the locus of control variable) was compared against three alternative models (see sect. externality-powerful other and aggression). Both dimensions of external locus of control had insignificant results. The second and third alternative models only had one latent construct. for the sample of taxicab drivers.20 and . such as internality. had significant direct effects on the four latent constructs that comprised the proximal variable (BIT) and. for crash outcomes.3). Results indicated that the third alternative model.5 What Can be Learned from Testing Contextual Models with SEM? The use of SEM provided support for the contextual mediated model. their crash occurrence. 5. with the sample of taxicab drivers. to measure outcome. internality and aggression (path coefficients = -. externality-chance. However. the result was slightly different as a belief in chance as an outcome determinant had a significant effect on BIT scores. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts. via BIT. hopelessness. four latent constructs (usurpation of right-ofway. externally-focused frustration. Distal factors. Investigation of the path parameters revealed that there were only two of the four distal factors. the bestfitting model used only a single latent construct. on the two latent variables comprising crash outcomes. For motorcyclists. The first alternative included four distal factors (internality. in turn and indirectly. crash occurrence. crash occurrence.6. and destination-activity orientation) comprising the proximal factor and one latent construct (crash occurrence) comprising the outcome variable. freeway urgency.3 Study 3: Taxicab Drivers In Study 3. externality-chance.5.24 respectively) that had direct effects on the proximal factor and a simultaneous indirect effect on crash occurrence.5. had a better fit than alternative models. externality-powerful other. This suggested that internality and aggression play important roles in affecting the behaviour in traffic of taxicab drivers and. with four distal factors (internality. 4. had no significant effect on BIT scores.
Further. Sekaran (2003) points out. In the present research. by virtue of their age and driving experience within the highest risk group. Huguenin. 204 . the fact remains that participants constituting the four student samples were. To a large extent. a total of five samples were taken. that convenience sampling is indeed the least reliable of all sampling designs in terms of generalisability. an argument used by Montag & Comrey (1978) and others who have studied young drivers. 278279). the present research was intended as an initial attempt to examine the influence of psycho-social variables on driving behaviour and crash outcomes among a given high risk sample. 2005). four of which were comprised of students from a single university. With very few studies having been completed on Malaysian drivers to date. 2004). 2005. chosen at random from taxi stands. both and particularly the student samples constituted a convenience sample that may have curtailed the generalisability of findings.6 5.1 Limitations of the Study and Methodological Considerations Generalisabilty of Findings A key feature of all research is the capacity for results obtained from a sample to be applied to a larger population with proportionately the same degree of diversity (Langdridge. however.5. Some authors have commented on the lack of generalisability of findings in traffic psychology research (Dunbar. “but sometimes it may be the only viable alternative when quick and timely information is needed” (pp. The fifth sample was comprised of professional taxicab drivers.6. 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.
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.55).2%). Selangor. The proportion of the total sample for Studies 1 and 2 falling within the 16. in Malaysia. Sabah.2). 205 . with a mean age of 20. Since. The Spearman rank correlation coefficient for these two sets of scores is rs=. during the interval from 2000 to 2003. as elsewhere. involved drivers aged 16 to 25 years.In Malaysia.2% and Study 2: 99.to 25-year old high-risk group was 99. Approximately one-third of all automobile crashes. Table 5. 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. individuals usually obtain their license in the state in which they are registered as resident. it is helpful to examine the distribution by state in which research participants obtained their driving licenses. With regard to whether the sample was representative of peoples of the various states and regions of Malaysia. Ages of participants in this research ranged from 18 to 29 years.31.6% (Study 1A: 99. contributed the largest proportion of the sample. Study 1B: 100%. young drivers are among the most likely to experience a motor vehicle crash. Sarawak and Kelantan were under-represented in the sample. Study 1C: 99.6%. The most populous state.13 years (SD = 1. making it the single highest risk age group (see Table 2. the sample does not appear to be very repreresentative of the Malaysian population. while Malacca and Negeri Sembilan were overrepresented.
7 (2) 2.807 733.5 (4) 4.887. 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.0 4.200.000 215.396.000 3.000 1.19 Per cent (rank) of participants sampled 17. Not all states have the same number of drivers.880 3.6 5. and there are different crash frequencies in each one. Table 5.000 2.503.576 2.2: 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) 7.2 11.2 (1) 3.150.4 5.6 (10) 7.300.0 12.7 (14) But. in this case. It is important to remember that the purpose of this research was to study the population of young.4 provides similar comparisons for the state of origin of the sample of motorcyclists.3 compares the state of origin of participants in Study 1 with the more relevant measures of vehicle registrations and crash occurrence.000 Per cent of national population 26. 206 .286 1.6 0.2 (5) 0.188 1.6 2.1 (7) 8.2 (13) 11. the state of origin is defined as the state in which the participants’ driving licenses were issued. attempting to determine sample representativeness based on only state population would be flawed.500 1.674 1.2 3.9 9.9 (9) 7.3 (12) 11.004.0 8.8 (6) 6.818.000 1.Table 5.6 6.9 (3) 2.500.2 7.2 (11) 12.260. In both cases. high-risk drivers in Malaysia. Table 5. For that reason.8 6.100.5 (8) 3.000 2.387.
230 266.428.4 4.55 7.97 12.98 0.Table 5.89 3.43 2.768 6.13 6.774 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 12.3: State of Origin Compared with Crash Frequency and Vehicle Registrations (Study 1) Average Motor Vehicle Crash Frequency (2000-2003) 34.90 5.22 17.27 14.617 10.88 3.064 9.785 393.96 3.606 24.144 12.36 8.19 3.19 7.026 10.88 2.467 25.093 5.91 2.496 187.24 0.70 3.93 9.137 698.63 207 .041 92.003 10.170 13.76 3.104 6.212 39.920 181.70 12.75 4.251 324.84 11.588.561 1.635 1.24 2.20 12.45 9.16 2.92 25.28 3.029 273.35 4.46 8.85 1.496 Private Automobile Registrations (until 2003) 703.198 156.34 11.68 7.163 10.93 0.600 135.37 3.735 165.50 29.490 525.05 2.19 4.34 3.725 70.
37 3.768 6.63 13.98 0.725 70.305 276.112 347.92 25.14 7.45 2.221 36.496 % Private Vehicle Registrations (until 2003) 933.02 7.026 10.133 705.958 % 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 12.28 3.33 4.93 7.989 6.727 161.27 14.Table 5.35 4.03 4.15 5.66 11.561 1.38 4.36 8.615.722 255.38 0.02 10.064 9.48 1.606 24.49 12.88 2.82 9.59 12.170 13.467 25.283 770.63 11.43 2.93 9.679 90.4 4.74 208 .029 273.75 5.20 15.617 10.995 233.49 0.288 444.992 776.4: State of Origin Compared with Crash Frequency and Vehicle Registrations (Study 2) Average Motor Vehicle Crash Frequency (2000-2003) 34.46 5.104 6.212 39.856 310.76 3.59 1.656 821.10 9.22 3.64 1.003 10.79 13.64 2.88 3.144 12.46 14.
This sample was comprised of individuals within the age group that has the most motor vehicle crashes. Table 5. it is possible to say that sampling.796** 1 Were the participants studied in this research representative of high-risk Malaysian drivers? In terms of their age and their regional origin. At least on these dimensions.701** 1 Study 2: Motorcyclists Motorcycle crash frequency (by state) Vehicle registrations (by state) Participants’ state of origin 1 2 3 1 . participants came from – or. it can be argued that they were. Future studies of Malaysian driving behaviour will need to expand the range participant 209 .5 shows the The Spearman rank correlation coefficient (rs) for the variables in Tables 5.4. at least. was representative of a high risk driver population. both for the studies of automobile drivers and for the study of motorcyclists.824** . 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.Table 5.3 and 5. Of course.5: Spearman rank correlations for States of Origin for Participants in Study 1 and Study 2 1 2 3 Study 1: Automobile Drivers 1 Automobile crash frequency (by state) 1 2 Vehicle registrations (by state) . there are many other dimensions on which members of a sample can or cannot be representative of the population from which they have been drawn.908** 1 3 Participants’ state of origin .814** 1 . Even though data collection was carried out at a single university location. were licensed as drivers in – the states with the most registered vehicles and the highest numbers of crashes.903** .
in studying driving behaviour. 1998. Keskinen. 296). Much important data is available in official statistics.. 2001). 1979). Additional studies should be carried out in order to validate findings within the broader population. attitudinal factors.characteristics used as a basis for sample-to-population comparisons. However. however.6. Exposure. The issue becomes even harder to resolve when dealing with cognitive variables that cannot be observed directly (Groeger & Rothengatter. Rothengatter. 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. (1993) have similarly argued that other methods for studying the 210 . unless the variation within the group is very small. Elander et al. Self-report data are prone to inaccuracy due to participant memory lapses. is that this kind of data is usually aggregated … From aggregated data we cannot study the connections between accidents and age and exposure. accidents. as in other psychological research. Hatakka. violations and accidents should be linked together. 1998. the data has to be disaggregated. 5.g. the easiest way to get data on several factors from the same subjects is by simply asking the subjects (p. We can also get rough data of exposure by age. demographic factors.2 Use of self-report methods The use of self-report methods in traffic psychology has been strongly criticised by af Wählberg (2002). accident distributions by age. Again. the use of questionnaire data provides the only practical possibility for gathering data at a low cost. The problem. None of these variables can be substituted by group means. e. Katila and Laapotti (1997) have argued that. social desirability response sets and fakeability (Aiken.
combined interview and observational methods. 13). In the present research. Yet.. blood pressure. subjects would tend to under-report dangerous or illegal activities and that this tendency might usually be expected to be consistent across compared groups. the more information is lost through memory lapses. 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. Visser and Denis (2004). self-reported crash and injury histories and self-reported driving patterns measured by the Behaviour in Traffic scale could be prone to inaccuracy. all data may be subject to the shortcomings of self-report methods.3 Timeframe for Data Collection Elander et al. therefore. 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.6. as in a study reported by Chalmé. 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.. steering wheel reversals and speed change frequencies)” (p. The assumption. Particularly. subjective accounts of crash or injury history should be validated against objective measures. inadequate data are collected when the research is conducted over short periods of time. perhaps drawing from drivers’ insurance records or. muscle tension. Miles and Johnson (2003) have noted that. errors of recall or contamination by post-event information (Belli & Loftus. questionnaires were administered to measure all variables and. though. 1996). for instance. Since generally motor vehicle crashes are fairly rare events. In future studies.effects of personality on driving have drawbacks that cannot be overlooked. 5.g.g. 211 . heart-rate acceleration and electrodermal activity) and to overt driving behaviours (e. as well. in studies of driving behaviour. the longer the time period for data collection. (1993) and af Wählberg (2003) have commented on the problem of data collection timeframes in studies of motor vehicle crashes.
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. 1997.2) that higher levels would result in less risky behaviour in traffic was supported. it has to be acknowledged that the measure is subjective. Unfortunately. Some authors have asked participants to estimate the distrance travelled during a particular period (Lajunen & Summala. participants were asked to recall if a crash or resulting injury had occurred within the past twelve months. in that the measure tells us little about the circumstances under which participants drove other than their perceived use against some unstated. other measures of driving frequency present as many or more problems. and the hypothesis (H2.4 Measurement of Driving Frequency One of the self-report measures used in this research requires particular discussion.In the present research. This method has been used in previous studies by other authors (Pelz & Schuman. 5. 2002). Mercer. a timeframe that is consistent with reasonably accurate recall (Haber & Haber. The driving frequency measure was alaso used a co-variate in analyses of relationships between other distal variables and proximal variables. and that one participant’s perception of frequent automobile or motorcycle use may seem infrequent to another’s. 1999). First. 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.6. The problem with this approach is that it is every bit as subjective as the categorical judgements of 212 . there is a certain imprecision to the measure. Traits included in the contextual mediated model as distal variables have been found to be relatively consistent and resistant to change over this interval. Second. as well. individual standard. Results were used as a measure of driving frequency for Studies 1 and 2. 1971).
In much the same way. but because they are inherently easier to think about. 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. on how available it is in our memories (Kahneman. because they have taken place recently. 1993). 1974). 2002). 1973. 2003. Slovic & Tversky. 1982). 2004). But. but not always. and that people are consistently poor at making these sorts of estimates accurately (Saad. p. 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. and the likelihood of encountering a traffic jam (Wood. 121). it is argued here that such inaccuracy is also likely due to a cognitive phenomenon known as the availability heuristic. this strategy leads us to overestimate their actual occurrence. Levy (1997) argues that: Unfortuantely. 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. Specifically. because they are highly emotional and so forth” (Plous. 213 .. Often. as opposed to reporting perceptions in categorical form (Tversky & Kahneman.frequency that were used in this research. Wood & Boyd. although this has not been firmly established. 181). This is why individuals tend to irrationally overestimate the number of murders per year (Jaffe. in which the perceived probability of an event corresponds to the ease with thich the event comes to mind or. 2003). their chances of winning a lottery (Griffiths. eventful or recent. 2008). in other words. There is some evidence that the availability heuristic exerts a greater impact when specific quantitative amounts or percentages have to be estimated. frequency or distribution in the world (p. Kahneman. 1993. “Some events are more available than others not because they tend to occur frewquently or with high probability. experiences that are more common than others tend to be the ones that are most available.
but training participants in standardised record-keeping. A logbook approach was considered during the design of the present research. Sansone. it might be expected that participants’ driving estimates would be particularly prone to influence by the availability heuristic. road conditions. 1991). during periods of low traffic volume. Deffenbacher et al. emotionally-laden seasonal and holiday travel (Richardson & Downe. asked participants to record the time of day. many of the inaccuracies involved with the use of self-reported frequency data could have been solved by taking direct odometer readings. Driving 30 kilometres daily on quiet city thoroughfares. 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. where driving histories generally include lengthy. Similarly. the use of distance travelled doesn’t really solve the main problem in travel frequency measurement.. traffic volume and so on in logbooks as a means of controlling for differing driving circumstances. (2003). on one hand. 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. which is the lack of information about the circumstances under which road use occurred (Odero et al. and the availability of the resources necessary to operationalise them. 2001) . in the form of more vividly remembered trips to family reunions during festive seasons. for example. it was felt that the collection of logbook data would have overextended time and financial resources at hand for the five 214 . poorer pavement and more surrounding vehicles (Åkerstedt & Kecklund. Morf and Panter (2004) argue that psycho-social research generally involves a balancing act between idealised research questions. Finally.In the Malaysian environment. Given that sample sizes for this research had to be large enough to apply structural equation modelling procedures. Of course. 2000). in their studies of roadway aggression.
studies undertaken. collected logbook data would have been largely qualitative in nature. are testable and contain no contradictions. Ranney. 2005). 5. 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. 2002. 1985. Models in Traffic Psychology It has been noted earlier that the emerging field of traffic psychology has yet to arrive at a unified. While some authors have considered the terms “theory” and “model” as synonymous (e. the decision was made to use participants’ subjective. 2004). creating new difficulties in their quantification (King. 1994).1 Implications and Areas for Further Study Theory vs. selfreported measure used here. 1991). Further research is required. over-arching theory (Rothengatter. Rothengatter (2001) has argued that better measures of risk exposure are needed in traffic psychology. To summarise. categorical perceptions of driving frequency.7. 2004). but that considerable effort has gone into the development of descriptive models.7 5. 2005). that associated methodological disadvantages were fewer than those of the competing approaches. are of nomological character and can be applied irrespective of time and space (Langdridge. Summala. It was felt. 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. 1997). In the present research. have high information content..g. during the study design process. Good theories are simple. the difference is that models are generally seen as “more modest affairs that aim to illustrate 215 . 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. drawn from empirical studies and demonstrating inter-variable relationships (Chaloupka-Risser. Michon. In addition. but this was done with an awareness of the shortcomings of this measure.
debate as to whether the greater need exists for more theory or for more data. on the other hand. Hauer (1987). the fact remains that we have enough guidance already from mainstream psychology. Throughout the development of traffic psychology. Attempts to develop ‘traffic- specific’ theories have proved far less fruitful than has the importation of established theories from other areas of psychology. in particular to structure data. The answer to this question is possibly yes. stating that. 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. if they are modest in ambition. create links to other fields of knowledge or to explain or predict circumstances. The first question is whether we need traffic psychology theories. Grayson (1997) agreed. there has beeen an ongoing discussion and. The second question is whether we need traffic psychology models. 32). 294). 1997. The answer is probably not. p. Wilde (1982) has expressed concern that the study of traffic safety “is characterised by a sparsity of comprehensive and articulate conceptions” (p. 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”. at times. Huguenin (1997) has similarly argued that theories are necessary to treat a subject scientifically. and while any data collection procedure must have some element of theory if it is to have real purpose. check facts. if they aim to illuminate and encourage research on specific topics rather than the 216 . 94).patterns of relationships. or represent processes. often in graphical form (Grayson.
The problem arises from an intrinsic dilemma. and if they are resultscentred (pp. for instance. it seems unlikely that general theories offering much more can be formulated. While many models offer insight into specific aspects of driver behaviour. 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. In this case. those variables included a diverse set of human traits including locus of control. but the framework constructed here can easily accommodate a potentially endless range of both distal and proximal variables.3). aggression and hostile automatic thoughts. 1985) – that could hinder scientific progress. who argued that. In the present research. In 217 . the contextual mediated model developed here may also go some distance toward breaking out of the narrow monist frame of reference eschewed by Evans. Yet. 95-96). This latter point was also stressed by Evans (1991). argued that with theory-centred methods there was an inherent danger of confirmation bias – a tendency to evaluate ideas in a manner the meets existing expectancies (Chaplin. The debate often seems to revolve around the comparative merits of result-centred versus theory-centred methods in research. This dichotomy of perspectives is not unique to traffic studies and driving behaviour but seems to permeate all areas of applied psychology. 2. Greenwald and Pratkanis (1988). 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.entire spectrum of traffic behaviour. it has proved capable of linking psychological and demographic variables with a pattern of driving behaviour to illustrate influences on crash outcomes and injuries. while ignoring other factors which are much too important to be ignored (p. 304). hopelessness.
lead to the conclusion that we should abandon the differential accident paradigm and define alternative measures of safe driving. as defined by Grayson (1997).7. for instance.4).. anxiety. 2. With several exceptions. … has used performance-based measures to predict individual accident histories. competence or hierarchical level of information processing (see sect. sensation seeking (Sümer. it may be even more fruitful to focus the model on the interaction of variables that contribute to safe. psychoticism. openness. provides breadth of focus and a more holistic perspective than many other attempts at modelling driving behaviour. conscientiousness. 5. extraversion.3. the process through which drivers make adjustments based on their perceptions of risk. 2003). has focused primarily on accident-causing behaviour.other studies. Kerlinger (2000) and others. The contextual mediated framework. The general lack of success in identifying predictors of safe driving. together with methodological difficulties associated with the use of accident measures. agreeableness and neuroticism (Sümer et al. Rather than describing and predicting the interaction of factors involved in causing crashes. According to Ranney (1994). while still very much a model and not a theory.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). not on everyday driving. While the present research 218 . it has been conducted without the benefit of a process model of driving. 2005) were included as distal variables. crash-free driving. depression. Future research should attempt to expand the contextual mediated approach beyond studies of crash histories. much current research. and has relied heavily on post-hoc explanations.
will always maintain more direct involvement with the driving task than those scoring high on externality dimensions. fail by not considering individual driver characteristics or the range of motivations that determine driving behaviour. As a result.did not test any of those theories specifically. those with an external locus of control may be more likely to give up control to an external device. relying on it to competently perform the task it was designed for. they will become less involved with the driving task and be less likely to react. 219 . They argued that locus of control. along with trust in automation and sensation seeking. Conversely. is a concept that should be incorporated as an element in theories seeking to explain BA and its role in driving. Such individuals would be more likely than internals to over-rely on a device to keep them oriented and alert. Within their proposed conceptual framework. while intuitively appealing and providing some useful insight. or at least to react more slowly. should the device fail to perform the task for which it was designed. no matter how reliable a safety device. 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. 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. some of the variables considered are conceptually tied to them. BA to in-vehicle safety measures may also be under the influence of drivers’ locus of control. On the other hand. Brown and Noy (2004) stressed that theories of BA and driving behaviour in general. Following this reasoning. believing that fate will achieve its predetermined goals no matter what the individual does. those who see themselves playing little or no part in the unfolding of events will act in a less cautious manner.
changes in driver behaviour might be better targeted. Gidron & Davidson. Christ et al. 2005. 5. these approaches require special therapeutic training and large efforts on behalf of drivers. 2006) or cognitive processing (Keskinen. consistent with the earlier findings of Gidron et al. (2003) to moderate the effects of aggression on driving outcomes. Drivers may need to undergo cognitive restructuring about their beliefs about their own responsibility over road safety in order to increase levels of internality. an area of increasing importance in fleet management (Barjonet & Tortosa. 1996). scarce resources for screening drivers. 2004). which may mitigate the negative effects of roadway hostility. 2002. locus of control was found to exert effects on Type A driving patterns and. 1997. though. Further research is required to investigate implications for improving driving performance. al. 220 . The treatment or rehabilitation of dangerous drivers has relied heavily on cognitive behaviour modification applications (Deffenbacher et. Training and Rehabilitation The results of the present research have important implications for the improvement of driving behaviour. can be focused specifically on combinations of risk factors at both the distal and proximal levels. whether that adaptation is the result of perceived risk (Wilde. 1982).. Luckner (1989) and others have successfully developed training curricula that encourage internality. Summala. Coupled with simulated or actual driving experience and methods to modify patterns of hostile selftalk. Findings from the present research can guide planners of remedial courses and counsellors to teach methods for increasing internal attributions. task capability (Fuller.In the present research.3 Driver Selection. Typically. once identified. Programmes with content focused on building internal attributions and a sense of personal responsibility would enhance training outcomes.7. external locus of control and hostile attributions. Drivers with combinations of TABP and aggression. Specifically. Further research should focus on the role played by locus of control in influencing patterns of BA. could be screened out. 1996).
in the the traffic engineer’s role has increasingly become one of improving the efficiency of an existing roadway system rather than building new higher capacity roads.4 Preventive Measures: “The Three E’s” 5. 1957. the technologies sophisticated and the interactions among humans. From this has emerged the growing 221 . Unlike 100 years ago. 5. At the same time. the tasks we ask operators to perform today are highly cognitie.7. the Haddon Matrix (Haddon.5.2 Engineering Interventions Engineering applications in transportation have become increasingly cogniscent of human thinking processes. recognised that the cardinal bases of accident prevention fall into three categories: engineering. for the last fifty years.1 Generating and classifying crash prevention interventions Ergonomists and safety scientists have. Specific measures aimed at reducing accident occurrence or injury can be classed according to whether they are predominantly based on engineering principles.4). education.7. 1957). and machines are highly intricate (p. or legal intervention. This framework can be integrated with the “Three E’s” to identify specific crash prevention measures arising from the findings of the present research. teams of humans. Cooke and Durso (2008) have noted that: Most industrial tasks require human operators to interact with various technologies. These have been euphemistically termed the “three E’s”. 1961.4. educational programming (including public awareness and driver training). Slinn. World Health Organisation. Matthews and Guest (1999) have argued that traffic engineering has also undergone a transition in emphasis over the last decade. 1970) provides another system for classifying highway events for the purposes of research or accident prevention (see Figure 2.7. and the effective enforcement of regulatory legislation (Wheatley. 1).4.
The aim should be to assist drivers by making routine actions simpler. Maggio & Jin. Holzmann (2008) argues that there is considerable potential for crash reduction in this sort of technology. Sadano. (Bishop.6). not to overwhelm them with complicated or difficult override processes.application of computer and information technology to transportation infrastructure and vehicles. These have been applied to in-car. roadway and environmental settings (see Table 5. 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. Bishop (2005) has noted that there is still a lack of knowledge about the threshold levels at which to set in-vehicle modifications. for instance. Lane-keeping Assist Systems (LKA). Such systems are based on a shared control paradigm. 2001). 222 . there may be limits to the number and level of sophistication of devices installed in motor vehicles. The amount of toque needed to adjust vehicle direction at highway speeds is quite small. with the resulting transport systems generally referred to as Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS. in which in which the control of functions shifts between machines and human beings dynamically. At the same time. operator workload and performance (Inagaki. there is an adaptive and cooperative relationship between the driver and the vehicle in ensuring that lane deviation and roadway departure are controlled. Murazami. Suda & Ono. 2003). so the systems are easily overridden by even the weakest drivers when needed (Kawazoe. In the case of LKA. The findings of the present research that usurpation of right-of-way. 2001). 2005).6). depending on environmental factors. or the adaptive automation concept. as well as other in-vehicle technologies now being tested for future implementation in automobiles and other vehicles (see Table 5. Stough. is strongly associated with crash outcomes would support the importance of further development of LKA systems. Other authors have cautioned against engineering so many devices and signals that driver attention becomes diverted from vehicle control tasks. Several intelligent in-car systems have been developed to assist lane manoeuvring and to control lateral deviation in the forward motion track.
The present research also found that freeway urgency. This finding would lend support to the myriad of speed control devices now under development. Intelligent Speed Adaptation (ISA) and Adaptive Cruise Control (ACC) systems (see Table 5. Fountaine and Knotts. 1998). in the form of driving above the speed limit and driving consistently in the fast lane. Hebl & Grossman-Alexander. traffic 223 . was associated crash outcomes. 1997). Brown & Noy. Given that the present research found that driver frustration and attentional lapses in the form of destination-activity orientation were associated with risk of crash outcome. 2003. Safety benefits from traffic management can result from changes in the patterns of trffic flow. Herzog. changes in traffic speed. in particular to pursue environmental. 1999.6). 1993. Richardson & Downe.with a resulting increase in crash risk (Noy. 2004. A number of studies have reported that roadside vegetation and predominantly natural environments elicit lower levels of driver frustration and stress (Cackowsky & Nasar. Traffic management may also be carried out for easons other than safety. and management of parking and loading arrangements that influence the speed of traffic. Tassinary. Black. 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. Recovery from lapses in attention has been faster in “restorative environments” enhanced with horticultural and aesthetic features (Heerwagen & Oriens. Parsons. 2000). Ulrich. such as Automated Speed Enforcement (ASE). Engineering solutions have also been suggested with respect to the design of roadways and the general driving environment. initiatives aimed at improving environmental aesthetics may have a positive impact on roadway safety.
This refers to driving while thinking about things unrelated to the driving task. but extends into city-wide suppression of traffic. ostensibly satisfying wandering attentional needs and allowing vehicle operators to concentrate on tasks at hand. however. Dietze. Probably. p. engineering solutions have the least to offer in terms of behaviour in traffic that involves risky levels of destination activity orientation. journey purpose or other human factors. Lippold and Mayser (2003) have noted that new driver assistance systems offer some promise for safety improvements by providing additional information to drivers. 1996. and whether this information varies according to the situation. 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. 224 .efficiency (capacity) or access objectives (Ogden. 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. Current discussions of speed management go even beyond traditional traffic management approaches. This view embraces a philosophy and a set of goals that go far beyone mere physical control and management of traffic. 1991). and substantial lifestyle changes aimed at achieving an environmentally sustainable future (Ogden. and now encompass the principle of “traffic calming” (Brindle. however. Proctor. 1996. 309). inexperienced drivers. Maakip (2003) has also added that there is little understanding of exactly what specific pieces of information drivers require or prefer to have. Gregersen and Falkmer (2003). 1992). questions of alternative urban structure.
1. generally comprehensive lateral control controlled from a central assistance (LCA) – a point. traffic drivers when their speed is definition. unsafe blind spot monitoring systems lane deviation. and likelihood of. created intelligent traffic of impending hazards. thermoplastic management systems – Many ability to detect lane and epoxy materials to metropolitan areas have departures and to alert drivers designate lane configurations. – 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. departure warning.6: Engineering Applications for Crash Prevention Finding Drivers who usurp the right-ofway and commit lane violations are more likely to experience crash outcomes. infrastructure. 225 . management centers (TMCs) integrated lane marker with closed-circuit television road departure warning applications – these combine (CCTV) camersas. traffic and systems (RDWS) – curve different materials to increase weather sesors.Table 5. Integrated with combination of radar and roadside sensors. to allow easier lanes and synchronised actuated increase in steering overtaking and lane signals decreases the need as the vehicle nears a lane. transitions for. the systems vision sensing technology to transmit information to combine lane and road drivers about traffic flow. etc. reversible corrections through a motorlanes. keeping. Hi H 1. blind spot sensing and lange change assist. variable speed warning systems advise lane conspicuity and message signs (VMS). 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. 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.1 Vehicle Road Environment lane departure warning lane marker improvements – integrated traffic systems (LDWS) – have the using plastic. “rumble strips” in expressways. lane road conditions.
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.1. the host vehicle. including those in adjoining lanes. including controlled from a central cruise control but also track street and link closures. t-junctions or or (at maximum) to limit the warning signs for vehicles pedestrian crossings. Integrated with vehicles in the lane ahead of roadside sensors. the systems intersection modification. traffic lights) safe. communication systems (ACC) – acting as a Driving speed can be reduced embedded in the roadway “longitudinal control cothrough infrastructure infrastructure.. ACC systems provide modifications. adjusting transmit information to Intersection devices (yield speed as needed to maintaina drivers about the speed at and stop signs.1. 226 .2 lane deviation feedback systems – systems calculate the number of lane changes as a function of speed and cue the driver with performance data. generally pilot”. to in-vehicle display terminals. vehicle’s speed to comply travelling at speeds higher cooperative vehicle highway with the speed limit.(continued) H 1. systems (CVHS) – wireless adaptive cruise control road network modifications.and millimetre-wave (MMW)-based inter-vehicle communications – systems that send data about the proximity of approaching or following vehicles. than the safety standard. point.1 Drivers scoring high on a measure of freeway urgency are more likely to experience crash outcomes. 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”. deriver-selectable interwhich surrounding vehicles provide speed modification at vehicle gap. Radar. a particular high-risk part of the thoroughfare. are travelling. H 1.
(continued) Externally-frustrated drivers are more likely to experience crash outcomes. The use of properly designed humps are effective in causing vehicles to reduce speed in their vicinity. “Speed tables”. horizontal displacement – these design features cause the driver to change direction quite sharply and change the visual cues presented by the roadway. Such devices include chicanes. signs with calming or vehicles. has an advantage over intersection redesign by saving space. humorous content to evoke a contradictory affective response to frustration. automated speed enforcement – the use of high-volume speed cameras to regulate the speed of motor vehicles on roadways. 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. traffic flow management training to better frustration and effect a moderation and other cope with frustration caused calming influence on drivers.3 vertical displacement. H 1.1. at which the whole road space at an intersection is raised. environment and other frustrating stimuli. coupled with stress vegetation to reduce traffic signals. pinchpoints and gateways or arches. measures that can reduce by driver interactions with congestion and other contrary messages – roadroad. 227 .
notification of construction ahead. weather-related road conditions.4 in-vehicle biofeedback devices – systems that measure driver arousal and eye focal points and cue the driver when measures do not calibrate with attention to road conditions. dedicated broadcast of safety messages – radio or broadband messages with reminder to focus attention on driving tasks at hand. 228 . H 1. driver assistance systems – capable of providing information about destination conditions or journey progress. to reduce wandering thoughts and focus attention on driving tasks at hand. prepare for stress-provoking conditions and external frustration. at least. Destination-activity orientation is associated with a higher risk of crash outcomes. notice of future road construction and notice of public events.1.(continued) electronic variable message signs (VMSs) – roadside signboards which change messages to provide updated information about traffic congestion. safety messages. This information allows drivers to avoid or.
teachers or the police. it may be effective to conduct such awareness bulding within cultural centres.4. and must include broader awareness about the dangers of roads and traffic.5. publicity campaigns and incentive schemes to be offered as part of the activities within mosques (Che Ali Bin Che Hitam. 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. They concluded that there is clarealy a need to improve road safety education. Effective road safety education goes beyond driver training programmes. 2001). to inadequacies in driver training and testing. to some extent.3 Education According to Jacobs and Baguley (2004). It suggests that. however. it is also important for them to devote some time to the affective and cognitive components of the driving task. Downing and Sager (1982) reported that children were significantly less likely to recive advice than in the United Kingdom from members of thir family.7. In a study of traffic awareness in developing countries. This is consistent with previous calls in Malaysia for safety awareness education. and (c) driving test standards and requirements are inadequate” (p. in addition to teaching the practical manoeuvres and driving techniques associated with managing a vehicle. 229 . the probems of poor driver behaviour and knowledge in developing and emerging countries “are likely to be due. Training skills for anger management and frustration tolerance. 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. given ethnic differences observed with respect to drivers’ behaviour in traffic. like community centres or places of worship. 73). Professional driving instruction tends to be inadequate because (a) driving instructors are not properly tested or monitored. The present research suggests that.
1978.4 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. 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 .4. and (3) legal measures providing rules governing the interaction of pedestrians and traffic. 2007. Jacobs and Baguley (2004) have stressed that changes in road laws and police operations need to be well advertised in order to be effective. N6).5. road safety campaigns and media coverage” (Cheah. however. p. The results of the present research would suggest that messages about the link between personal responsibility for one’s action. legal measures change least often. from the findings of the present research. The Belief in a Just World bias is the tendency “to belive that they live in a world where people generally get what they deserve” (Lerner and Miller. evoke the least expectation and are least often evaluated in terms of their effect on accidents” (p. They also stated. or an internal locus of control. and driving within safe legal limits could be included within future public information campaigns. one practical and the other touching on the development of theory. First. Second. that “Of these three approaches. The bias of false consensus. (2) exhortatory and educational measures to encourage the development of appropriate skills and attitudes. 265).7. p. 1030). such as visibility of enforcement. Yergil (2005) has discussed a number of cognitive biases that tend to enhance a false sense of safety among drivers. or the tendency to attribute one’s own attitudes and behaviour to others. This twinning of psychological and legal perspectives derives two implications. and penalties for infringement to ensure that the rules are obeyed.
sample of drivers by Manstead. Ajzen. 1992). Stradling. Future research is needed to determine the extent to which beliefs in a Just World and the false consensus bias influence both subjective norms and attitudes underlying 231 . drivers create a sense of belionging to a majority group and therefore negate the possibility that they are behaving in a socially deviant manner (p. The theory of planned behaviour (TPB. Parker. 2001) provides an interesting theoretical framework for considering the influences of these cognitions and their interplay with regulatory controls. They showed that the frequency of violations was related to the evaluated percentage of other drivers who commit the same violations. Azjen & Fishbein. By doing so.” One possible way to minimize this contradiction and the resulting dissonance is to attribute the same behaviour regarding violating the law to other drivers (the bias of the false consensus). opinions about what significant others would think of the behaviour (subjective norms) and perceived behaviour control (PCB). to consensual beliefs of powerful others. on one hand attributing outcomes to a fatalistic notion of Just World and. Reason & Baxter. 1991. drivers need to resolve the contradiction between cognitions: “traffic laws are laws” and “I violate traffic laws. Both biases seem rooted in an external locus of control. on the other. 498). Yergil (2005) notes that: In order to maintain the self-concept of a law-abiding citizen. 2001. 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). 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. after all.
it may be possible to come closer to the integration of legal and psychological perspectives advocated by Siegrist and Roskova (2001). 232 . Similarly. to traffic regulations. or not adhere.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. By examining drivers’ response to traffic laws in the context of the theory of planned behaviour.
aggression and tendency to entertain hostile automatic thoughts all act upon driving behaviour patterns which. Results have indicated that. 2002. such human factors are important contributors to crash outcomes. contribute to the occurrence of crashes and injuries. 2006) and it is anticipated that there will be many more. as proximal to the crash outcomes. A contextual mediated model. 233 . In doing so. when risky. structural equation modelling (SEM) was found to be a valuable technique for articulating interactive relationships in a holistic manner. it was concluded that driver experience. Wállen Warner & Åberg. 2003. 2005. hopelessness. In the present research. with demographic and personality variables posited as distal and patterns of behaviour in traffic consistent with the Type A behaviour pattern. Sümer et al..CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION The present research was an attempt to investigate interaction effects of experiential. age. 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.. Studies using structural equation modelling to interpret complex inter-variable relationships have become increasingly prevalent within the traffic psychology literature (e. Sümer. as expected. ethnicity. derived from the earlier work of Sümer (2003).g. locus of control. gender. demographic and psychological characteristics of drivers on the occurrence of self-reported motor vehicle crashes and crash-related injuries. Iverson & Rundmo. was used to frame the relationship between these human factors.
it is argued here. This is Of the variables studied. like Brown and Noy (2004).. 2000) and hierarchical motivation theories (Näätänen and Summala. Hoyt. that when faced with competing models in safety studies. 1974). 1973). Some previous studies have shown a link between ‘fatalism’. Further. traffic psychologists and other researchers are advised to make the choice based on theoretical and practical. 1986. and accident risk (e. or external locus of control. 1982). In the present research. The present research replicated earlier findings about the important influences of internal and external locus of control over behaviour leading to safety problems and. 1983) and was earlier found to moderate the effects of aggression on driving behaviour (Gidron et al. it has been argued here that it may be an important factor in behavioural adaptation processes underlying risk homeostasis (Wilde. the best fit usually implies the best model.g. It is further concluded that aggression also plays a significant role in behaviour leading to crash outcomes. Of particular interest was the fact that the effects of aggression on TABP were moderated by cognitive self-talk containing two content types: physical aggression and revenge. one conclusion is that the locus of control construct plays an important role in safety behaviour. measures of aggression had direct effects on all components of self-reported behaviour in traffic. 1995. the selection of one SEM over competing models has been generally based on which has the better goodness-of-fit.In the current literature. consistent with the position taken by Byrne (2001) and other authors. as well as statistical grounds.. Montag & Comrey. while internal locus of control has been frequently associated with safer work and lifestyle practices (Guastello & Guastello. In most cases. although it is widely acknowledged that this is not a hard and fast rule. Harrell. 1987). task capability (Fuller. Some inter-ethnic differences in 234 . However. 2003). 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. the locus of control variable has been long recognised as a moderator variable in a range of psychological processes involving stress (Lefcourt.
It is argued that this is a In interpreting these effects.g. and a psychologist who studies cognition and driving while turning away from laws and government. cultural anthropology. it became apparent that motor vehicle crashes are indeed multi-factorial phenomena and that prior assumptions of causality should always be subject to review. 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. Rothengatter. including psychology (especially cognitive and information processing). an economist who researches economic factors of transportation without much concern for geography. as well. However. Several authors (e. promising approach to future studies of crasch occurrence. Each system has its own experts whose lenses are focused almost exclusively on their own subject matter. In examining inter-relationships among and between these variables. bird’s eye view of the factors contributing a given outcome. As Rothe (2002) has pointed out: Traffic-safety systems are composed of complex behaviours that imply complex causes and entangled factors.. One of the benefits of using structural equation modelling in such research is that it allows for a holistic. road engineering and ergonomics. For example. 1998. they 235 . all are professionals who know their area of expertise has collegially or self-imposed limitations.aggression were observed. Groeger & Rothengatter. 2005. a civil engineer who uses laboratories to measure asphalt wearing under different conditions. in combination. a multi-disciplinary approach was used. Huguenin. 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.
Through a multi-disciplinary approach. Additional studies should aim toward a conceptual common ground and further examination of models and theories from which broader understanding can be derived. findings with regard to four components of behaviour in traffic gave rise to a number of interventions in the engineering. 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. regulatory and social science specialists should be encouraged. a multi-disciplinary approach leads not only to the greater level of understanding described by Rothe (2002). but it also opens the door for a wider range of preventive measures. Continued sharing between professional associations and between design. management. injuries and death. 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. 236 . significant impacts can be made in reducing motor vehicle crashes. educational and enforcement spheres.form a complex traffic-safety reality in which systems form a web of interdependent fields (p. In the present research. 313). Indeed.
 af Wählberg..REFERENCES  Abdel-Aty. (2007). 289-296. Accident Analysis and Prevention. On the validity of self-reported traffic accident data. (1979). The effectiveness of motorcycle safety campaigns on motorcyclists. A. and Anurag. Musa. 5. T.. R. (2003).. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.S. MY: Pearson.B. 237 . (Research Report 1/99) Kuala Lumpur: Malaysia Road Safety Council. Review of global menace of road accidents with special reference to Malaysia – a social perspective.T. 1867-1874.  Abdullah. (2002). A. A.  af Wählberg. 10(2). L. 35.  Abdul Rahman. 473-486.E. Puzzles & Irritations. N. Journal of Safety Research. (1993). R. 12.H. Some methodological deficiencies in studies on traffic accident predictors. Mohd Zulkifli. (2002).A. 169-177. S. M. E140 Proceedings of the Safety on Roads International Conference (SORIC). Drinking and driving: intention. Radin Umar.H. P.  Aiken. Crash data analysis: collective vs.  Åberg. and Law. 581-587. A.R. 38(5). Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies. Accident Analysis and Prevention.  Ahmad Hariza. individual crash level approach.  Abdul Kareem. (2005). H. Bahrain. K. H. P. (2003). and Kulanthayan. 31-39. Psychological Testing and Assessment.  Adolphs. Understanding Multicultural Malaysia: Delights. Current Opinion in Neurobiology. and Pederson. Petaling Jaya. (1999). Mohd Nasir... Third edition.E. Subramaniam. L. M. Malaysian Journal of Medical Sciences. Car occupants accidents and injuries among adolescents in a state in Malaysia. Neural systems for recognizing emotion. attitudes and social norms of Swedish male drivers. 25. (2003).
and Kerrich.  Ajzen. Learning. I. (1997). S. 10. M. Aggressive Behavior. 340-342. and Hewston. (2001). J. 52. 27-58. and Fishbein.) Action-Control: From Cognition to Behavior. J. Convergence of self-report and archival crash involvement data: a two-year longitudinal followup. 7. T. and Beckmann.. Ethnic differences and married women’s employment in Malaysia: do government policies matter? Journal of Socio-Economics. Accident statistics and the concept of accident proneness. (Eds. Edwards. W. 47. (2003). Beliefs about aggression among male and female prisoners. A. T. E. (2005). Personality. Women’s Studies International Forum. From intentions to actions: a theory of planned behavior.  Amin. (1985)..T.  Åkerstedt. Tubré.E. In Stroebe. S. and Haigh. From attitudes to behaviour: basic and applied research on the theory of planned behaviour.  Ajzen. In Kuhl. 303-313. I. Social. and Christian.C. Annual Review of Psychology. W. J.  Arthur. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 10(6). Women’s friendships under urbanization: A Malaysian study.J.. (2001). and Kecklund (2001).  Archer.A. (1987). 404-415. Biometrics.J. Attitudes and the attitude behavior relation: reasoned and automatic processes. Age. 22(3). (1991). A. M.  Armstrong. J. and Tubré. Bell. 33(3). 238 . 623-633. 179-211. B. Day. Human Factors. J. The theory of planned behaviour. 23. (2004). A.  Arbous.D.G. 50(2). C. I.  Armitage.) European Review of Social Psychology. gender and early morning accidents. M. I. London: John Wiley & Sons. Journal of Sleep Research.105-110. 291-307. 187-195.H. Nature and operation of attitudes. Current Psychology: Developmental. (Eds. Heidleberg: Springer-Verlag. (1952). Ajzen.  Ajzen.
A.. Improved safety through improved technical measures? Empirical studies regarding risk compensation in relation to antilock braking systems. J.  Asian Development Bank (2005). October 18).-E. R. P.  Barjonet. F. B. Asian Development Bank – Association of Southeast Asian Nations regional road safety program (accident costing report AC5: Malaysia). (Eds. R. Transport psychology and transport in Europe: a general overview. P. (1991). Retrieved April 4. 51(6).V. (2002). Accident Analysis and Prevention. Wilde. K.  Ballesteros. and Kenny. 1173-1182. and Carbonell Vaya E.) Challenges to Accident Preventions: The Issue of Risk Compensation Behaviour. W.  Bakri Musa. and Tortosa.S. (Ed. An alternative accident prediction model for highway-rail interfaces. F. 239 . (Eds. P. When hope becomes hopelessness. 34. Amsterdam: Elsevier. (1986). (1994).M. 2(4). (2002). 4(2). Characteristics of traffic crashes in Maryland (1996-1998): differences among the youngest drivers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. P-E.M. (2005. and Tortosa.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. (1998).-E. T. Human Performance. 21-30). In Rothengatter. 34. 2007 from http://www. M. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual.D.31-42. Manila: Philippines.C.M.L.  Barjonet.. Boston: Kluwer. G. Continuing carnage on our carriageways. S. Barrett. GJ. 231-234.. NL: Styx. M. 14-29). R. Prediction of vehicular accident involvement: a meta-analysis.  Aschenbrenner. 89-105. (1997). Groningen.com/archives/continuing-carnage-on-our-carriageways. In Trimpop. R.F.  Austin. and Alexander. D. and Carson. (2001).  Baron. European Journal of Oncology Nursing. strategic and statistical considerations. and Biehl.  Aylott. Transport psychology in Europe: a historical approach.A. and Dischinger. 279-284.bakrimusa. In Barjonet. Arthur.) Traffic Psychology Today (pp. Accident Analysis and Prevention.
F. (1993). (Eds. The level of and relation between hope.G.. 73-84..  Benzein. New York: Meridian. 234(11). A. Manual for Beck Hopelessness Scale. (Ed.  Beck.  Beck. (2005).G. and Weissman. (1975).K. J. Hartos. R. Cognitive models of depression.  Beck. and Mills. In Rubin.T. 88.  Bentler. Hopelessness and suicidal behavior. E.) The Evolution of Psychotherapy (pp.T. hopelessness and fatigue in patients and family members in palliative care. The measurement of pessimism: the Hopelessness scale. In Zeig. Lester. (pp.H. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. New York: Brunner/Mazel. (1987a). Journal of the American Medical Association. J. D. and Bonnett. P. Teen driving risk: the promise of parental influence and public policy.  Beck.T. New York: Perennial Harper Collins. D. 1(1). New York: Cambridge University Press.C. Theory: the necessary evil.T. (1999). and Berg. E. D. and Steer.  Belli. A.. Kovacs.) Theory and Concepts in Qualitative Research: Perspectives from the Field.. D.) Remembering Our Past: Studies in Autobiographical Memory (pp. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy: An International Quarterly. 19.T. A. Cognitive therapy. L. K. Beck.S. A. A. A.F. (Ed.. 240 . (1996).C. Health Education and Behavior. 157-179). Palliative Medicine. and Trexler. 149-178). 234-240. Cognitive Therapy and the Emotional Disorders.J.  Beck.T. San Antonio TX: Psychological Corporation. 5-37. 42  Becker. G. Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Weissman. (1974). A. (1993). In (Flinders. M. A. New York: Teachers College Press.A. The pliability of autobiographical memory: Misinformation and the false memory problem.  Beck. R.T. Psychological Bulletin. and Loftus.E.M. A. (1980). A. Prisoners of Hate: The Cognitive Basis of Anger. (1976). 29(1). H.  Beck. Hostility and Violence. 218-229). 588-606. 1146-1149. and Simons-Morton (2002). (1987b).
. Psychology and road safety.  Bettencourt. Journal of Personality Assessment. Personality and aggressive behavior under provoking and neutral conditions: a meta-analytic review.my/bernama/v3/printable..  Boyce. A technology to measure multiple driving behaviors without self-report or participant reactivity. 313-322. H.S.  Bridger.. A. Ben-Zur.  Boff. and Shimmin. Applying Psychology in Organizations. and Valentine. R. Malaysian National News Agency. March 12). 44-51. Applied Ergonomics. S. New York: Routledge.E. 43. Revolutions and shifting paradigms in human factors & ergonomics.  Blumenthal.  Bina. (1994). T. Benjamin. Managing the high costs of road deaths. Anxiety.C. 45(1). (2006). Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis.B.com. Nordic Journal of Psychiatry. 132(5). J. S. (1984).bernama. Applied Psychology: An International Review. (2006. (2001). Introduction to Ergonomics. 472-481  Binzer. 95-104.  Blasco. (1981). Talley. 34(1). (2006) Risky driving and lifestyles in adolescence. Psychological Bulletin. Graziano. F. 751-777.php?id=185148.A. 37. K. J. 39-55. T. (2006). 15(1). A. New York: McGraw Hill. 53. Accident analysis and Prevention.. Retrieved March 30. and Bonino. F.J. E. Hopelessness and locus of control in patients with motor conversion disorder.  Blacker. Assessment of conceptual tempo in the Type A (coronary prone) behavior pattern. 38(3).  Bernama. 391-399. McKee. 2007 from http://www. 37-40.D.. R. (2002). M. B. M.S. Stress and Coping. (1995). and Geller. Williams.A. Associations of Type A behavior with the emotional traits of anger and curiosity. R. D. 241 . and Haney.
International Journal of Educational Development. I. 14. and Noy. 4(4).  Brown. The Fatality Analysis Reporting System as a tool for investigating racial and ethnic determinants of motor vehicle crash fatalities.D. Personality and Individual Differences. E. Briggs. (1997). T. (1992). 641-649.  Brown. 29-38  Brodsky. E. Accident Analysis and Prevention.C.E. observational data and driver records. 20-23.C.  Burns. C. (2000). 445-455. The effects of music tempo on simulated driving performance and vehicular control. R. (2002).  Bunnell. (Re) positioning Malaysia: high-tech networks and the multicultural rescripting of national identity.M.E. Making ethnic citizens: the politics and practice of education in Malaysia. D. (1995). Behavioural adaptation to in-vehicle safety measures: past ideas and future directions. and Wilde. W. Political Geography. Local street management in Australia: is it ‘traffic calming’.S. 345-352. 32(1).D. P.J. (1989). Multivariate Behavioral Research. (Eds. 27(3). 219-241. I.  Brown. C.C.G. and Carbonell Vaya. In Rothengatter. and Cudeck. I..W.  Brindle.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application. 24(1).. N. 105-124. (2007). Goldzweig. How traffic and transport systems can benefit from psychology (pp. Single sample cross-validation indices for covariance structures. 21.D. In Rothengatter. 267-278. (Eds. Journal of Applied Psychology. Levine. 9-19). Haliburton. Exposure and experience are a confounded nuisance in research on driver behaviour.W. (2004). 37(4). R.K.  Brown. Accident proneness among street car motormen and motor coach operators. (1948). Amsterdam: Pergamon. R. G. 18(2).) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application. and Huguenin. Risk taking in male taxi drivers: relationships among personality. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. Schlundt. Amsterdam: Elsevier. T. 24. (2005).P. W. I. R.  Brown. Accident Analysis and Prevention. and Warren.S.  Browne. 318-330. 242 . T. G. M.. R. (1982). and Ghiselli.. Ergonomics.
The restorative effects of roadside vegetation. L. J..W. E. M. (Eds. (1998). Human Factors for Highway Engineers. (Eds). Gonzalez. Manual for Aggression Questionnaire. A. J. T. (2001). M. and Cortes.. PRELIS and SIMPLIS: Basic Conccepts.. and Warren. In Bohrnstedt.. 343-349. and Borgatta.H.  Byrd. Environment and Behaviour.M. Human Brain Mapping. O. F. (2004). 15981613. Cohn. Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Conccepts.G. 65-115).  Byrne. Applications and Programming. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.K.F..  Carretie. 63-65. (1981). (1999). Los Angeles CA: Western Psychological Services. Mercado. B. 31..  Carmines. (1957). and Kline. (2004).  Carment.D.L. 45-50. R. Ergonomics. A. 243 .. (2002). Multiple perspectives. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Hinojosa. M. Internal versus external control in India and Canada. Seatbelt use and belief in destiny among Hispanic and non-Hispanic drivers.  Buss. In Fuller. and Nasar. Buss.L.J. and McIver. 290-299. & Santos.  Caird. E. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 9.) Social Measurement: Current Issues (pp. Applications and Programming. L. and Tapia. An inventory for assessing different kinds of hostility. J. Martin-Loeches. Oxford: Elsevier Science. D. 47(15). E. 35(6).  Carsten. Analyzing models with unobserved variables: analysis of covariance structures. J. B. W.  Byrne. International Journal of Psychology. (1974). (2003). Journal of Consulting Psychology. 22.A.H. J. G. 21. and Durkee. M.A. J. T. Beverly Hislls CA: Sage. (2000). A. Parada.P. 736-751.  Cackowski.W. The relationship between organizational and individual variables to on-the-job driver accidents and accident-free kilometers. Structural Equation Modeling with LISREL. Automatic attention to emotional stimuli: neural correlates.
 Cheung.H. Pacific Grove CA: Duxbury.. and Lim.  Chalmé.  Chaplin.  Chaloupka-Risser (2005). N6. Cognitive effects of environmental knowledge on urban route planning strategies. Retrieved October 15. 2008 from http://www.-H. J. F. T.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. and Huguenin. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. (2004).  Cheah. 10(2). Cheung. Monash University. Y. H. J.ghipr. (1985). March 20-22. 2007 from http:www. Personality across the ethnic divide in Singapore: are “Chinese traits” uniquely Chinese? Personality and Individual Differences. Retrieved March 31.M.D. Doing data analysis with SPSS 10. R. Campo Grande.-H. S. and Denis. 557-562. T. (2007).ictct. November 12). R. 109-122. D. New York: Dell. Malaysia. 467-477. Matto Grosso do Sul. Personality and Individual Difference. What are we allowed to ask. (2006). Carver. Self-consciousness in Chinese college students in Hong Kong. Paper presented at the Traffic Engineering and Management in Malaysia workshop. (Eds. and Yeh. Taiwan. (2007.W. S.com/statefarm/chop/youngdriversurvey/PDF/NYD_Survey_FIN..  Che Ali bin Che Hitam (2001. P. Sunway Campus.-L. Traffic management and road safety along federal roads in Malaysia. Amsterdam: Elsevier. R. In Rothengatter. (2000). what can we know – traffic psychological analysis of Driver Behaviour. Kuala Lumpur.. Brazil.  Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and State Farm Insurance (2007). Dictionary of Psychology.  Chang.org/workshops/05CampoGrande  Chan. Driving: through the eyes of teens. The Star. Howard. Proceedings of the International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT) Extra Workshop. R. gender and risky behaviors in Taipei.P.F. November).0. M. W. Motorists more careful because of Ops Sitak. and Nash.pdf 244 . Visser. 41. (1996).G. Motorcyclist accident involvement by age. 61-71). 21(4).
. Bakou.  Commission for Global Road Safety (2006.. M. 377-390). and Ward.. Patient-related barriers to cancer pain management in a palliative care setting in Hong Kong. (2002). French.G. In Chmiel.  Chliaoutaks. Make Roads Safe: A New Priority for Sustainable Development. Kasniyah.D. J.  Chipman. 28(2)..  Clarke. N. P. M. 33. June). Demakakos. and Chan.. and Costello. 24(2).. 679-684.K. V. P. Towner. S. and Huguenin. 39. 245 . S. 1283-1289. D. (Eds. (Ed. (1996). C. P. C. C. and Lee-Gosselin. 13(2). 193-200.. Panosch. (2000). M. N. T. (1992). G. Cairns. Accident Analysis and Prevention. R. (2007). R. C. E.T.  Chmiel. A. Bartle. P. Personality and Individual Differences.  Christ.org/documents/make_roads_safe_low_res.P. Koumaki. 974-981. and Darviri. Driver selection and improvement in Austria. MacGregor. (2005).E. Aggressive behavior while driving as predictor of self-reported car crashes. W.C. 255-274). 125-129. Retrieved December 7. 38(6). 196-203. Journal of Safety Research. Bradshaw.M. Cancer Nursing.D. Helmets. Chioqueta. Smiley. H. Y.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp.S. In Rothengatter. T.. (1999). Time vs. How exposure information can enhance our understanding of child traffic ‘death leagues. )2007). Personality traits and the development of depression.. E.  Chung.. 22(3). Accident Analysis & Prevention. The role fo motorcyclist and other driver behaviour in two types of serious accident in the UK. A. Safety at work. B. 2007 from http://www. Amsterdam: Elsevier. R. hopelessness and suicide ideation.pdf  Conrad.makeroadssafe.’ Injury Prevention. London: Wiley-Blackwell. Ward.. Accident Analysis and Prevention. distance as measures of exposure in driving surveys.L.. N. 431-443. (2004).. and Bukasa. and Truman. N.) An Introduction to Work and Organizational Psychology: A European Perspective (pp. Tzamalouka. Lamsudin. and Stiles.. injuries and cultural definitions: motorcycle injury in urban Indonesia..  Christie.
16(5). F. R.D. In Fuller. Legal and Criminological Psychology.J. P. (1996). W. (1961). 20(5). D.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application.my/permalink. Editorial: Get out of my @%^$! way: there are a few things we should remember about this whole rudeness-on-the-road thing.  Davin Arul (2005. N. American Psychologist. 161-175). 5(1). D. or variable accident tendency? Journal of the Statistical and Social Inquiry Society of Ireland.J. [Letter to the Editor] The Star Online. and Ponjaert-Kristofferson (2004). (1995). The influence of car and driver stereotypes on attributions of vehicle speed. 2007 from http://blog. (2005). H.R. (1991). 10.  Costa.  Davies.thestar. 246 . The Star.T.M. (2002). In Rothengatter. and Santos.S. L. 98-117.asp?id-7003.A.L. R. Retrieved April 5. 21-50. Engineering psychology and the highway transportation system.M. and van Koppen. Cooke.W. Stories of Modern Technology Failures and Cognitive Engineering Successes.  Crittendon. P. 95-104.  de Waard. p. Asian self-effacement or feminine modesty? Gender and Society. Cognitive/neuropsychological functioning and compensation related to car driving performance in older adults. and Patel.  Cowardly Malaysian drivers. and Durso. Applied Cognitive Psychology. K. 64. Accident proneness. R. Crashing memories and the problem of ‘source monitoring’.A. and Froggatt. N48  de Raedt. Journal of Personality Assessment. Wagenaar. T.. and McRae. 152-171.  Cozan. Mental workload. Boca Raton Fl: CRC / Taylor & Francis. and Huguenin. G. Amsterdam: Elsevier. position on the road and culpability in a road accident scenario. R. Domains and facets: hierarchical personality assessment using the Revised NEO Personality Inventory. 45-62. 10.  Crombag.F. 263. February 8). J.  Cresswell. P. Human Factors for Engineers (pp. (Eds. (2006. (1962). October 18). W. Amsterdam: Elsevier.com.
(1996). (Eds.  Deffenbacher.R.F. J. 123132. Lynch. R. K.B. Oetting. 333-356. (1997). 1-20. 5-17. 729-730.T. Petrilli. Age differences – drivers old and young.. 111-142). Huff.  Dharmaratne.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. Characteristics and treatment of high anger drivers. 26(1). Ergonomics.D. and Meyer. R. E. AZ: Lawyers & Judges.R. 28. (1998). (2002a). and Salvatore.L. E..  Delhomme. In Dewar. Oetting. Behaviour Research and Therapy. R. J. Individual differences.  Deffenbacher.L. 34. Filetti. T.A. 383-402.) Human Factors in Traffic Safety (pp...W. Journal of Counseling Psychology.  Devashayam. 41.L. (2005). (2000). Journal of Counseling Psychology. Lynch. In Rothengatter. 575-590. and Brookhuis. E. and Olson. Journal of Physicians and Surgeons Pakistan. T..L. and Carbonell Vaya. M. P.S. J. S.L. R. (2003). R. (2002b).C. T. D. E. The expression of anger and its consequences. and Morris. Amsterdam: Pergamon. (1999). 50(2). AZ: Lawyers & Judges.E..E. E. Power and pleasure around the stove: the construction of gendered identity in middle-class south Indian Hindu households in urban Malaysia. L. (Eds. T. and Olson. 161-171).. and Ameratunga. Differential lateralization of trait anxiety and trait fearfulness: evoked potential correlates. E. 209-233). de Waard.  Deffenbacher. Personality and Individual Differences. R.S.) Human Factors in Traffic Safety (pp.E. 373-393. 247 . R. (2004). E. Road traffic injuries in Sri Lanka: a call to action. C. R. 47.L.. and Swaim.N.L. Richards.  Deffenbacher.D. The Driver’s Angry Thoughts Questionnaire: a measure of angry cognitions when driving. S.S. 27(4). Tucson. Lynch. P. R. Oetting. Tucson. J. In Dewar.  Dewar. N. On the measurement of driver mental workload.S. P. R. Lynch. 14(12). Cognitive Therapy and Research. Control motivation and young drivers’ decision making. Characteristics of two groups of angry drivers.  Dewar.R.. (Eds. and Oetting. J. Women’s Studies International Forum. (2003).R.  Dien.
(2003).) Proceedings of Agriculture Ergonomics Development Conference (pp. A. 33. In Dorn. Mohd Yusuff. W. Aggression and ethnicity in Malaysia: a preliminary investigation. S.  Dodge.D. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. The safety potential of the new driver assistance system (CSA). (1987). and Mayser. R. and Carbonell Vaya.. Malaysia.  Dula. 323-331.M. (1999). Lippold.  Dobson. C. Health Education Research. (Eds.G. 278-285).) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. Social Science Journal 38.  Dukes..P. Effects of aggressive driving and river characteristics on road rage. In Rothengatter. T. and Loke.. accident causation and prevention: issues for health promotion from an exploratory study in a Yoruba town.  Downe. Social information-processing factors in reactive and proactive aggression in children’s playgroups. 14(2). 248 ..a. N. (2004.. Kedah. R. Science & Technology.T. 31. 85-92).Y. S. 1146-1158. Dietze.A. L..E. T.L. (Eds. December). Asian Institute of Medicine. Ebersbach. M. Ball. J. and McFadden. In Khalid. Amsterdam: Pergamon. L. 525-535.L..  Downe. (Ed..A. 53.L. and Rodgers. 263282. 197208. Kuala Lumpur MY: IEA Press. C. socio-demographic characteristics and accidents. T. Development and evaluation of a measure of dangerous aggressive. Clayton. M.) Driver Behaviour and Training (pp. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. (2003). locus of control and worker safety in three Malaysian plantations: moving toward a contextual-mediate research model. H. J. ‘Fatalism’.. D. and Che Doi. A. (2007. Miller. A. negative emotional and risky driving. C. S. Women drivers’ behaviour. Bahar. Traffic safety and the new research paradigm in human sciences. Aldershot UK: Ashgate.. and Ballard. M. Powers. 223-231).E. Sungai Petani. Nigeria.G..  Dixey. R. Knowledge transfer.S. (1999). Paper presented at the First International Conference-Seminar on Culture. M. (2001). November). Lim. and Coie.  Draskóczy. Accident Analysis and Prevention. (1997). Brown. J. Jenkins. M.R. K. E.
J. J. New York: Academic. Annals of Internal Medicine. 201-22.. Causal ordering of stress. G. Amsterdam: Elsevier  Dyal.org/workshops/02-Brno/Elvik. and French D. Ménard-Buteau. Psychological Bulletin. A. (2005). (2001). A life setting conducive to illness: the giving up complex. Chawky. G.. Journal of Transport Geography. Lalovic.M. Boyer. Volume 3: Extensions and Limitations (pp.. Kim. H. C. R. 159165. C.pdf  Engel.) Research with the Locus of Control Construct.D. Retrieved December 25.ictct. and Turecki.(Ed..L. 771-782. 4(3). A. 74. Dumais. 50(13).R. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry. Leadership and Organizational Development.) Traffic and Transport Psychology (pp.  Elangovan.  Dunbar. R. (1996).. Czech Republic. Annals of Internal Medicine.L. (2002). Cross cultural research with the locus of control construct. Brno.  Elander.  Elvik. (1968). A.. New York: Lyle Stuart Press.  Ellis. Lesage. In Underwood.A. (1984). 2007 from www. Sudden and rapid death during psychological stress. (Ed. (2005). 69. Reason and Emotion in Psychotherapy. Using epidemiological data to address psychological questions about pedestrian behavior. (1971).B. Weather-related road accidents in England and Wales: a spatial analysis.  Engel. 113. J. (1962). A. 17-26). In Lefcourt. G. 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. (1993).. 22(4).. 209-306).  Edwards. A. Psychiatric risk factors for motor vehicle fatalities in young men. and intention to quit: a structural equations analysis. 838-844. R. G. 293-300. 249 . G. West. satisfaction and commitment.. Behavioral correlates of individual differences in road-traffic crash risk: an examination of methods and findings. March 20-22. N.
(1984). and Popovich. December 10).. (1939). L. 250 . Racial differences in adolescents’ perceived vulnerability to disease and injury. Hope and Hopelessness: Critical Clinical Constructs. Risk Homeostasis Theory and traffic accident data.  Farmer. 19-36. (1926). (Industrial Fatigue Research Board Report No. Hadley. and Chambers. B. K. (Industrial Fatigue Research Board Report No.G. S. London: Medical Research Council. G.  Evans.000 and RM5. Worse than a war zone: our roads claim 6. Risk Analysis. 55).M.. (1996). L. E. W. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.  Farran. Comment: the dominant role of driver behavior in traffic safety. (2000). Klesges. Herth.G. London: Medical Research Council. Patterson. 23(5). 16.  Evans.  Farmer.G. Traffic Safety and the Driver. (1991). Evans. A study of personal qualities in accident proneness and deficiency..  Farik Zolkepli (2007. (1995). (1986).A. The Star.J. New York: McGraw Hill. Journal of Behavioural Medicine.6bil losses yearly. E. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage. A study of accident proneness among motor drivers.. and Chambers. 421-435. E. 84).  Ferguson. Statistical Analysis in Psychology and Education. Accident Analysis and Prevention. C. L. (1929). E. L. p. Driver fatalities versus car mass using a new exposure approach. and Chambers. E. 86(6). J.M. M.  Farmer.  Evans.A. 784-786. 6(1). London: Medical Research Council. A psychological study of individual differences in accident rates. E. (1976). Barnard. N22. 81-94. L. and Alpert. S..M.S. (Industrial Fatigue Research Board Report No.  Ey. 38). American Journal of Public Health.
P. S. B. Towards a general theory of driver behaviour. Accident analysis and Prevention. and Richardson. In Proceedings of the 24th International Congress of Applied Psychology. In Fuller. The task-capability interface model of the driving process. Journal of American College Health.  Fontaine.  Firestone. R. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. I. R. and Ajzen. P. P.. 12(4).  Fuller. Suicide and the continuum of self-destructive behavior. and Bragg. (1998. K. causes. Perception of the risk of an accident by young and older drivers. The intention to commit driving violations – a qualitative study. Intention and Behavior.18(4). and Rosenman.  Forward. 51(1).  Frazier. R. M. 461-472. New York: Knopf. Malays and Indians compared.  Fuller. R. Belief. R. and Seiden. (2000). Cross Cultural Management. Progress in teenage crash risk during the last decade. 412-426.  Friedman. R.  Fishbein. S. 115-134. (1990). E. S. (2005). and Järmark. (2002).A. Attitude. H. and Santos. (1974).W. (2005).A. 251 .  Finn. Human factors and driving. Type A Behavior and Your Heart.W. A. Accident Analysis and Prevention. (2006). (1986). 137-145.T. R. J. Tix. Journal of Safety Research 38. 63-77.E. 207-213.  Forward. (2004). 47-55. and McCartt. Recherche Transports Sécurité. 289-298. M. Journal of Counseling Psychology. A. 66. Amsterdam: Elsevier.  Fuller. Human Factors for Engineers (pp. 9. 77-97).H. consequences and considerations. Testing moderator and mediator effects in counseling psychology. August)..A. I. Reading MA: Addison-Wesley. Women and traffic accidents.. 37. (1975). (2007). S. San Francisco. S. Cultural values in Malaysia: Chinese. R.R. Ferguson. Teoh. and Barron. Linderholm.. 38(5).
C. 58(1). R. MY: Sage. 167-202). G. and Pender. Attitude towards online purchase of fish in urban Malaysia: an ethnic comparison. Y. Internal locus of control moderates the effects of road-hostility on recalled driving behavior. Behavior Paterns. Ergonomics.B. and Davidson. D. 540-546. Washington DC: American Psychological Association. Mutu. and Syna Desevilya. 13-21. L. (Eds. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. (1999). A. McHugh. Rajasingham-Senanayake. (1949). (1997).S. S. 1233-1248. (2006). (2006). E. 93-96). Journal of Applied Psychology. 16(5). European Journal of Public Health.. and Mahbob.  Gidron.  Graham. Hillsdale. Aggressive Driver. 42(9).S. 203-220. Nandy. H. Theories and models in traffic psychology – a contrary view. and Brown. 109-116. (1999).) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. C.A.. Petaling Jaya. 19. Fuller. Malta. Gal. In Rothengatter. Amsterdam: Pergamon.E. E. 252 .A. 12(4). Stress and Coronary Disease.) Ethnic Futures: The State and Identity Politics in Asia (pp. (1977). Task difficulty and risk in the determination of driver behaviour.  Gomez. Use of auditory icons as emergency warnings: evaluation within a vehicle collision avoidance application. R. In Pfaff-Czarnecaka. A.D.  Ghazali.  Gidron.E. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. Road Rage: Assessment and Treatment of the Angry.  Glass. A.  Ghiselli.. Journal of Behavioural Medicine. 33(6). 109-128. T. 487-491. and Blanchard. E. J. Revue européenne de psychologie appliquée. 6. N. and Hyder. (2003). C. E.. T.T. (2008). (1996). N. (2006).T.. D. Y.B. K.  Galovski. E. Development and preliminary validation of a brief intervention for modifying CHD-predictive hostility components. Tracing the ethnic divide: race. and Gomez..  Garg. E. Journal of Food Products Marketing. R.W. and Carbonell Vaya. rights and redistribution in Malaysia. (Eds.  Grayson. The prediction of accidents of taxicab drivers. Exploring the relationship between development and road traffic injuries: a case study from India.
 Gregersen, N.P. and Falkmer, T. (2003). In-vehicle support systems and young, novice drivers.
In Dorn, L. (Ed.) Driver Behaviour and Training (pp. 277-292). Aldershot UK: Ashgate.
Green, P. (2002). Where do drivers look while driving (and for how long)? In Dewar, R. E. and Olson, P.L. (Eds.) Human Factors in Traffic Safety (pp. 77-110). Tucson, AZ: Lawyers & Judges.
Greenwald, A.G. and Pratkanis, A.R. (1988). On the use of ‘theory’ and the usefulness of theory. Psychological Review, 95, 575-579.
Greenwood, M. and Woods, H.M. (1919). The incidence of industrial accidents upon individuals with specific reference to multiple accidents. (Industrial Fatigue Research Board Report No. 4). London: Medical Research Council.
Greenwood, M. and Yule, C.V. (1920). An inquiry into the nature of frequency distributions representative of multiple happenings, with particular reference to the occurrence of multiple attacks of disease or repeated accidents. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 89, 255-279.
Griffiths, M. (2003). Communicating risk: journalists have responsibility to report risks in context. British Medical Journal, 327, 1404.
Groeger, J.A. (1997). Mood and driving: is there an effect of affect? In Rothengatter, T. and Carbonell Vaya, E. (Eds.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp.335342). Amsterdam: Pergamon.
Groeger, J.A. (2000). Understanding Driving: Applying Cognitive Psychology to a Complex Everyday Task. Hove, UK: Taylor & Francis.
Groeger, J.A. (2002). Trafficking in cognition: applying cognitive psychology to driving. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 5, 235-248.
Groeger, J.A. and Clegg, B.A. (1995). Automaticity and driving: time to change gear? In Rothengatter, T. and Carbonell Vaya, E. (Eds.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp.137-246). Amsterdam: Pergamon.
Groeger, J.A. and Rothengatter, J.A. (1998). Traffic psychology and behaviour. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 1(1), 1-9.
Guastello, S.J. and Guastello, D.D. (1986). The relation between the locus of control construct and involvement in traffic accidents. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 120(3), 293-297.
Haber, R.N. and Haber, L. (2002). Why witnesses to accidents make mistakes: the cognitive psychology of human memory. In Dewar, R. E. and Olson, P.L. (Eds.) Human Factors in Traffic Safety (pp. 663-695). Tucson, AZ: Lawyers & Judges
Haddon, W. Jr. (1963). A note concerning accident theory and research with special reference to motor vehicle accidents. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 107, 635-646.
Haddon, W. Jr. (1970). A logical framework for categorizing highway safety phenomena and activity. Paper presented at the 10th International study Week in Traffic and Safety Engineering, Rotterdam, 7-11 September.
Haddon, W. Jr. (1972). A logical framework for categorizing highway safety phenomena and activity. Journal of Trauma, 12, 193-207.
Harrell, W.A. (1995). Factors influencing involvement in farm accidents. Perceptual Motor Skills, 81(2), 592-594.
Hauer, E. (1987). The reign of ignorance. Proceedings of Conference on Transportation and Deregulation and Safety.. Chicago: Northwestern University.
Hair, J.F. Jr., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E. and Tatham, R.L. (2006). Multivariate Data Analysis. Sixth Edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Haight, F.A. (1986). Risk – especially risk of traffic accident. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 5, 359-366.
Haight, F.A. (2004). Accident proneness: the history of an idea. In Rothengatter, T. and Huguenin, R.D. (Eds.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. 421-432). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Hale, A.R. and Glendon, A.I. (1987). Individual Behaviour in the Control of Danger. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Hampson, P.J. and Morris, P.E. (1996). Understanding Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
Harbin, T.J. (1989). The relationship between the type A behavior pattern and physiological responsivity: a quantitative review. Psychophysiology, 26(1), 110-119.
Harlow, L.L. (2005). The Essence of Multivariate Thinking: Basic Themes and Methods. London: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.
Harper, J.S., Marine, W.M., Garrett, C.J., Lezotte, D. and Lowenstein, S.R. (2000). Motor vehicle crash fatalities: a comparison of Hispanic and non-Hispanic motorists in Colorado. Annals of Emergency Medincie, 36(6), 589-596.
Harré, N. Foster, S. and O’Neill, M. Self-enhancement, crash-risk optimism and the impact of safety advertisements on young drivers. British Journal of Psychology, 96(Pt 2), 215-230.
Harris, J.A. (1997). A further evaluation of the Aggression Questionnaire: issues of validity and reliability. Behaviour Research & Therapy, 35, 1047-1053.
Hattaka, M., Keskinen, E., Gregerson, N.P., Glad, A. and Hernetkoski, K. (2002). From control of the vehicle to personal self-control; broadening the perspectives to driver education. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 5, 201-216.
Hattaka, M., Keskinen, E., Katila, A. and Laapotti, S. (1997). Self-reported driving habits are valid predictors of violations and accidents. In Rothengatter, T. and Carbonell Vaya, E. (Eds.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. 295-304). Amsterdam: Pergamon.
Heerwagen, J.H. and Orians., G.H. (1993). Humans, habitats and aethetics. In Kellert, S.O. and Wilson, E.O. (Eds.) The Biophilia Hypothesis. 9 (pp. 138-172) Washington DC: Shearwater Books / Island Press.
Henderson, J.T. (1976, April). Hope and self-destruction: the ratio of external threat to feelings of personal competence on the underlying continuum of self-destructive behavior. Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the Southwester Psychological Association. Albuquerque, NM.
Hernetkoski, K. and Keskinen, E. (1998). Self-destruction in Finnish motor traffic accidents in 1974-1992. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 30(5), 697-704.
Herzog, T.R., Black, A.M., Fountaine, K.A. and Knotts, D.J. (19970. Reflection and attentional recovery as distinctive benefits of restoratie environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 17,, 165-170.
Hewstone, M. and Ward, C. (1985). Ethnocentrism and causal attribution in Southeast Asia. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48(3), 614-623.
Hochschild, (1979). Emotion, work, feeling rules and social structure, American Journal of Sociology, 85, 551-575.
Hofstede, G. (1998). A case for comparing apples with oranges: international differences in values. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 39, 17-29.
Hofstede, G. (1999). Cultures and Organizations: Intercultural Cooperation and its Importance for Survival. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Holder, E.E. and Levi, D.J. (2006). Mental health and locus of control: SCL-90-R and Levenson’s IPC scales. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 44(5), 753-755.
Holzmann, F. (2008). Adaptive Cooperation Between Driver and Assistant System: Improving Road Safety. Springer.
Hong, I., Iwasaki, M., Furuichi, T. and Kadoma, T. (2006). Eye movement and driving behavior in curved section passages of an urban motorway. Proceedings of the Institute of Mechanical Engineers, 220(D10), 1319-1331.
Horswill, M.S. and Coster, M.E. (2002). The effect of vehicle characteristics on drivers’ risktaking behaviour. Ergonomics, 45(2), 85-104.
 Howarth, C.I. and Gunn, M.J. (1982). Pedestrian safety and the law. In Chapman, A.J., Wade,
F.M. and Foot, H.C. (Eds.) Pedestrian Accidents (pp. 265-290). Chichester UK: John Wiley & Sons.
Hoyle, R.H. and Robinson, J.C. (2004). Mediated and moderated effects in social psychological research: measurement, design and analysis issues. In Sansone, C., Morf, C. and Panter, AT. (Eds.) Handbook of Methods in Social Psychology (pp. 213-233).
Hoyt, M.F. (1973). Internal-external locus of control and beliefs about automobile travel. Journal of Research in Personality, 7, 288-293.
Hsieh, T.T., Shybut, J., and Lotsof, E.J. (1969). Internal versus external control and ethnic group membership. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 33, 122-124.
Huguenin, R.D. (1997). Do we need traffic psychology models? In Rothengatter, T. and Carbonell Vaya, E. (Eds.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. 31-40). Amsterdam: Pergamon.
Huguenin, R.D. (2001). Models in traffic psychology. In In Barjonet, P.-E.. (Ed.) Traffic Psychology Today (pp. 31-59). Boston: Kluwer.
Huguenin, R.D. (2005). Traffic psychology in a (new) social setting. In Underwood, G.(Ed.) Traffic and Transport Psychology (pp. 3-14). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Hyder, A.A. and Peden, M. (2003). Inequality and road-traffic injuries: call for action. Lancet, 2034-2035.
Hyman, G.J., Stanley, R. and Burrows, G.D. (1991). The relationship between three multidimensional locus of control scales. Educational and Psychological Measuresment, 51(2), 403-412.
Inagaki, T. (2003). Adaptive automation: sharing and trading of control. In Hollnagel, E. (Ed.) Handbook of Cognitive Task Design (pp. 147-169). LEA
Isani, R. (1963). From hopelessness to hope. Perspectives in Psychiatric Care, 1(2), 15-17.
Islam, Z. and Hoque, N.M.S. (2004, December). Road users behavioral culture of Dhaka, Bangladesh: an anthropological perspective. Paper presented at the First International Conference-Seminar on Culture, Asian Institute of Medicine, Science & Technology, Sungai Petani, Kedah, Malaysia.
Iverson, H. and Rundmo, T. (2002). Personality, risky driving and accident involvement among Norwegian drivers. Personality and Individual Differences 44, 1251-1263.
Jacobs, G. and Baguley, C. (2004). Traffic safety. In Robinson, R. and Thagesen, B. (Eds.) Road Engineering for Development (pp. 57-77). London: Spon.
Jaffe, E. (2004). What was I thinking: Kahneman explains how intuition leads us astray. Association for Psychological Science Observer, 17, 5.
James, L. and Nahl, D. (2000). Road Rage and Aggressive Driving. Amherst NY: Prometheus.
James, L.R., Mulaik, S.A., and Brett, J.M. (1982). Causal Analysis: Assumptions Models and Data. Beverly Hills CA: Sage.
Johnson, H.M. (1946). The detection and treatment of accident-prone drivers. Psychological Bulletin, 43(6), 489-532.
Johnston, I. (2007). Road trauma in the region – avoiding a pandemic. Journal of the Road Engineering Association of Asia & Australasia, 14(2), 5-12.
Jonah, B.A. (1997a). Sensation seeking and risky driving. In Rothengatter, T. and Carbonell Vaya, E. (Eds.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. 259-267), Amsterdam: Pergamon.
Jonah, B.A. (1997b). Sensation seeking and risky driving. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 18, 255-271.
Joseph, C. (2006). Negotiating discourses of gender, ethnicity and schooling: ways of being Malay, Chinese and Indian schoolgirls in Malaysia. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 141), 35-53.
Kahneman, D. (2003). Maps of bounded rationality: psychology for behavioral economics. American Economic Review, 93, 1449-1475.
Kahneman, D., Slovic, P. and Tversky, A. (1982). Judgement Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kanfer, F.H. and Goldstein, A.P. (Eds.) (1990). Helping People Change: A Textbook of Methods. London: Allyn & Bacon
Karlberg, L., Undén, A.-L., Elofsson, S. and Krakau, I. (1998). Is there a connection between car accidents, near accidents, and Type A drivers? Behavioral Medicine, 243(3), 99-106.
Kawazoe, H., Murakami, T.., Sadano, O., Suda, K. and Ono, H. (2001). Development of a lanekeeping support system. Proceedings of Intelligent Vehicle Technology and Navigation Systems pp. 29-35). Warrendale, PA: Society of Automotive Engineers.
Kenny, D.A. (2006. February 7). Mediation. Retrieved April 9, 2006, from http://www.davidakenny.net/cm/mediate.htm
Kerlinger, F.N. and Lee, H.B. (2000). Foundations of Behavioral Research. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Keskinen, E., Hatakka, M. and Katila, A. (1992). Inner models as a basis for traffic behaviour. Journal of Traffic Medicine, 20(4), 147-152.
Keskinen, E., Hatakka, M., Laaapotti, S., Katila, A. and Peräho, M. (2004). Driver behaviour as a hierarchical system. In Rothengatter, T. and Huguenin, R.D. (Eds.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. 9-24). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
King, A. (2004) Measures and meanings: the use of qualitative data in social and personality psychology. In Sansone, C., Morf, C.C. and Panter, A.T. (Eds.) The Sage Handbook of Methods in Psychology (pp. 145-172). Thousand Oaks CA: Sage
King, Y. and Parker, D. (2008). Driving violations, aggression and perceived consensus. Revue européenne de psychologie appliqué, 58(1), 43-19.
Klem, L. (2000). Structural equation modeling. In Grimm, L.G. and Yarnold, P.R. (Eds.) Reading and Understanding More Multivariate Statistics. Washington DC: American Psychological Association.
Klockars, A.J. and Hancock, G.R. (2000). Scheffé’s more powerful F-protected post hoc procedure. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Sciences, 25(1), 13-19.
Koh, S. (2005, October 31). Stop the road carnage! Malaysian Chinese Association (MCA) Online. Retrieved April 5, 2007 from http://www.mca.org.my/services/printerfriendly.asp?file=/articles/exclusive/2005/10/47611.html &lg=1
Korff, R. (2001). Globalisation and communal identities in the plural society of Malaysia. Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography, 22(3), 270-284.
Krishnan, R., & Radin Umar, R.S. (1997). An update on road traffic injuries in Malaysia. Journal of University Malaya Medical Centre, 2(1), 39-41.
Laapotti, S. and Keskinen, E. (1998). Differences in fatal loss-of-control accidents between young male and female drivers. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 30(4), 435-442.
Laapotti, S. and Keskinen, E. (2004a). Are female drivers adopting male drivers’ way of driving? In Rothengatter, T. and Huguenin, R.D. (Eds.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application. (pp. 201-208). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Laapotti, S. and Keskinen, E. (2004b). Has the difference in accident patterns between male and female drivers changed between 1984 and 2000? Accident Analysis and Prevention, 36, 577-584.
Laapotti, S., Keskinen, E. and Rajalin, S. (2003). Comparison of young male and female drivers’ attitude and self-reported traffic behaviour in Finland in 1978 and 2001. Journal of Safety Research, 34(5), 579-587.
Laapotti, S., Keskinen, Htakka, M. and Katila, A. (2001). Novice drivers’ accidents and violations – a failure on higher or lower hierarchical levels of driving behaviour. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 33, 759-769.
Lajunen, T. (2001). Personality and accident liability: are extraversion, neuroticism and psychoticism related to traffic and occupational fatalities? Personality and Individual Differences, 31(8), 1365-1373.
Lajunen, T. and Summala, H. (1995). Driving experience, personality, and skill and safetymotive dimensions in drivers’ self-assessments. Personality and Individual Difference, 19, 307318.
Lajunen, T. and Summala, H. (1997). Effects of driving experience, personality, driver’s skill and safety orientation on speed regulation and accidents (pp. 283-294). In Rothengatter, T. and Carbonell Vaya, E. (Eds.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. 283294), Amsterdam: Pergamon.
Lam, L.T. (2004). Environmental factors associated with crash-related mortality and injury among taxi drivers in New South Wales, Australia. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 36, 905908.
Lambie, J.A. and Marcel, A.J. (2002). Consciousness and the varieties of emotion experience: a theoretical framework. Psychological Review, 109, 219-259.
Langdridge, D. (2004). Introduction to Research Methods and Data Analysis in Psychology. London: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Lau, G., Seow, E. and Lim, E.S.Y. (1998). A review of pedestrian fatalities in Singapore from 1990 to 1994. Annals of the Academy of Medicine, 27(6), 830-837.
Law, T.H., Radin Umar, R.S.,and Wong, S.V. (2005). The Malaysian government’s road accident death reduction target for year 2010. IATSS Research / International Association of Traffic and Safety Sciences, 29(1), 42-49.
Law, T.H., Radin Umar, R.S., Zulkaurnain, S. and Kulanthayan, S. (2005). Impact of the effect of economic crisis and the targeted motorcycle safety programme on motorcycle-related accidents, injuries and fatalities in Malaysia. International Journal of Injury Control and Safety Promotion, 12(1), 9-21.
. Malay dominance and opposition politics. R.  Lefcourt. Neerincx and Schreibers (2006). and Morgan.M.M. Mahwah. 397-401. H. 303-304.  Lee.  Levenson. 41. The locus of control as a moderator variable: stress. H. Locus of Control: Current Trends in Theory and Research. 37. 177-196. W.  Levenson. K.) Research with the Locus of Control Construct. Applied Ergonomics. Journal of Personality Assessment.. 97. D. and Nutter. H. L. Moscati.V. Barrett. 2nd Edition.G.J. (1973).. Jehle. Janssen. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 262 . (1974). D. Journal of Social Psychology. H.  Lenior. Billittier.P.  LeShan. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. SPSS for Intermediate Statistics: Use and Implementation. pp. R. Additional dimensions of internal-external control. Cancer as a turning point.L. (2001). British journal of Psychology. Multidimensional locus of control in psychiatric patients..C.M. 93.A.M.  Levenson. 659-662. (2002). Conner. IV.M. C. The influence of demographic factors on seatbelt use by adults injured in motor vehicle crashes. H. (1976). 377-383. G.K. 253-269). (1975). A. and Stiller. Dutton. New York: E. Human-factors engineering for smart transport: decision support for car drivers and train traffic controllers. Lawton. (Ed. H. 38. Volume 2: Developments and Social Problems (pp. (2005). New York: Academic.407-423.  Leech. In Lefcourt. (2002). (1989). Accident Analysis and Prevention. In Southeast Asian Affairs 2002: An Annual Review. E. Activism and powerful others: distinctions within the concept of internalexternal control. H. 479-490..B. G. A comparison of reported levels and expression of anger in everyday and driving situations.  Lerner. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychiatry. 3.  Lefcourt. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. A. (1983). N.
(2004). In Rothe.com. March 26). Internal and external control as determinants of decision making under conditions of risk.my/news/story. K. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 213-222.  Lonczak.. L-L. Edmonton AB: University of Alberta Press. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. 8-9  Liverant. R. New York: Academic.M. Predicting risky and angry driving as a function of gender. Tools of Critical Thinking: Metathoughts for Psychology. 125-127.P. Hwang. The Star Online. and Scodel.) Research with the Locus of Control Construct. In Lefcourt. Role of primary personality factors in the perception of traffic signs and driver violations and accidents. H-F. 15-63). (1979). Neighbors. L. H.  Lonero. Media Statement released by the Office of the Malaysian Parliamentary Opposition Leader and Democratic Action Party Secretary-General. H.  Lindsey. (1997). Psychological Reports.. C. and Yen. (1960). 7. Volume 1: Assessment Methods (pp.  Looi.S. Accident Analysis and Prevention.) Driving Lessons: Exploring Systems that Make Traffic Safer.asp?file=/2007/3/26/nation/17254652&sec=nation&focus=1. Levenson. 10. (Ed. 263 .P. The effect of crash experience on changes in risk taking among urban and rural young people. Differentiating among internality. A. Accident-proneness: does it exist? Occupational Safety and Health. Retrieved May 14. H-D.S.M. (2007. powerful others and chance.. (1981).. 11. February 2). I. J. 2007 from http://thestar. W.com/archive/1999/feb99/sg1541. Wu. D. (1999. 59-67.A. (1980). Retrieved April 5. Huang. Accident Analysis and Prevention. F. H. 39(3). and Donovan. 2007 from http://www.  Lim. M-R.limkitsiang. E.  Levy.  Lin. (2007). 536-545.. (Ed. (2002) Driver skill: performance and behaviour. D. 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. 36. Defensive driving a must under new curriculum. S.  Loo.htm.
A. and Williams.  Macdonald. Balla. 185-217. Campbell.R.M. G. Accident Analysis and Prevention. (2000). S.. behavior and cognition. 27(1). Watson. M. R. Annual mileage. of affect.M. W. 18(4). and Balla. H. Altering locus of control of individuals with hearing impairments by outdoor-adventure courses. 68(5). 55(2). driving violations and accident involvement in relation to drivers’ sex. and Jessurun. In Dorn. (1998).M. Vissers.28.  Marsh. Quality & Quantity. Accident Analysis & Prevention. Malaysia. May). and Mooran.A. Goodness-of-fit indexes in confirmatory factor analysis: the effect of sample size. K.W. Goodness-of-fit in CFA: the effects of sample size and model parsimony. 869-897. C.  Massie. Young driver research program – a review of information on young driver performance characteristics and capabilities. 593-597.  Marcoulides. Basics of Structural Equation Modeling.  Marsh. Psychological Bulletin.R.A. A three-factor model of trait anger: dimensions. Multivariate Statistical Methods: A First Course.. M.L. Lourens.  Martin. (2003). 299313. and level of education. 233-252). Report No. 391-411.  Maakip. R. (1986). Australia. (1999). (Ed. P..  Luckner. D.F. L. Driver information systems: a preliminary investigation of motorists information requirements in Kuala lUmpur.P. J. Age differences in male drivers’ perception of accident risk: the role of perceived driving ability.  Maruyama. (1995). 264 . D. and Hershberger. J. 103..L. (1997). Accident Analysis and Prevention. 62-67.L. 31. C. J. and Wan. (1989). (1994. Journal of Rehabilitation. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.W. R.K. H. Victoria NSW.L. Monash University Accident Research Centre.) Driver Behaviour and Training (pp. I.. 73-87. A. G. (1988). J. age. Traffic accident involvement rates by driver age and gender.  Matthews.L.F. (1994). Aldershot UK: Ashgate. 129.A. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Journal of Personality. and McDonald.R.
D. Gilbody. Perspectives Psychiatriques. and Neilly..E. New York: Guilford. (1977). F.  Md-Sidin. Malaysia Today.  Mercer.net/Bloge/2005/11/malaysia-records-highest-single-day. Risk Analysis. G. (1986). Retrieved April 5. I. 34(47). 37(6). 71-77. M..P. November 6).R. J. Understanding Human Behavior. (2007).E. Journal of Managerial Psychology. F. Can we predict suicide and nonfatal self harm with the Beck Hopelessness Scale? A metanalysis.V..P. and Burkes.htm  McConnell. (1989). S. Duncan. (1989). Malaysia records highest single-day death toll during holiday period.. 2007 from http://www. (1998). New York: Plenum. Sambasivan..P. 649-663.W.  Mendel. Psychological Medicine. Hampshire UK. Personality in Adulthood.D. F. P. A. Fort Worth TX: Holt.  Meichenbaum. The University of Reading. Accident Analysis and Prevention. (1974). M. Beresford. 23. Male and female drivers: how different are they? AA Foundation for Road Safety Research. 45-52.. S.  McKenna. G. R. Waylen. 769-778. [ in press]. (2005. Ergonomics. and Brown. Relationship between work-family conflict and the quality fo life: an investigation into the role of social support. (2009). 173-181. 265 . Rinehar and Winston.  McRae. Traffic accidents and convictions: group totals versus rate per kilometer driven. and Costa. 9.  McMillan. I. Unconscious suicides. (1983).malaysia-today. Cognitive abilities and safety on the road: a re-examination of individual differences in dichotic listening and search for embedded figures. 29.  McKenna. L. E. Accident proneness: a conceptual analysis. (1990). D. Cognitive-Behavior Modification: An Integrative Approach. Ismail.  McKenna. J.
L. 75-85. 335-342. 341-353. (2003). Washington DC. 44(2). R.L.org/pdf/agdr3study. Turku. from http://www. 195-211.A. Finland.panducermat. AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety. Safety Science. J.J. 2007. J. 2006 from http://www. New York: Plenum. and Laflamme.php. First year as a licensed car deriver: gender differences in crash experience. 38(6). (2006). Michon.  Mikkonen.  Michon. Journal of Applied Psychology. 33(3). Time intervals between accidents. J. A. May).L. J. Aggressive driving. Bulmas. D.  Mintz. Kayumov.pdf  Moller. In Helkama. (Eds. Retrieved May 23. Retrieved December 15.  Mintz. P. Journal of Applied Psychology.  Mizel. C.) Proceedings of the Finnish-Soviet Symposium on Cognitive Processes.  Miles.C. (2006). (1949). and Niemi.org.E. Explanatory pitfalls and rule-based driver models.M. E. Hasselberg. what should we do? In Evans. Statistics. (1997). L. 21(4). M. and Keskinen. A critical review of driver behaviour models: what do we know. (Eds. A re-examination of the accident proneness concept.L.) Human Behaviour and Traffic Safety. Journal of Psychosomatic Research. (1985). (154). Simulator performance. (1983. and Shapiro.. and Blum. (1989). A.aaafoundation. E. microsleep episodes. 147-161. and Johnson. M. Cognitive theory of traffic behaviour. H. 266 . and Schwing.A. 6(2). Accident Analysis and Prevention. L. 401406. K.my/en/street_smart_statistik. Nhan.. In Aggressive driving: three studies. Aggressive driving behaviors: are there psychological and attitudinal predictors? Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour.. and subjective sleepiness: normative data using convergent methodologies to assess driver drowsiness. 61(3). l. V.  Ministry of Transport Malaysia (2007). G..  Monárrez-Espino.
267 . Nandy. R.E. Montag.L. 137-144. (1956). 51-63. Road User Behavior and Traffic Accidents. and Astur. R. 6. 320-388).  Nandy. 243-261. (Eds. A model for the role of motivational factors in drivers’ decision-making. R.. 15(2). Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches.  Niméus. (1974). 42. (1994). and Maniam. 72. Accident proneness and road accidents.. I. A. Journal of Affective Disorders. 32-37. (2003). MY: Sage. S. Journal of the Institute of Automobile Assessors. Petaling Jaya. Hopelessness and suicidal behavior. (Eds. In Pfaff-Czarnecaka.  Morris. W. New York: Allyn & Bacon. W. In O’Donoghue .) Ethnic Futures: The State and Identity Politics in Asia (pp.) Handbook of Psychological Skills Training: Clinical Techniques and Application (pp. A. (2001) Ethnicicity and suicidal behaviour in Malaysia: a review of the literature. (2007). 38(1).L.S. and Summala H. E. Defining ‘modern’ Malay womanhood and the coexistent messages of the veil. L. R. K. Rajasingham-Senanayake.  Moore. Transcultural Psychiatry.L. A. 164-174. Religioin 37.. D. (1976). A. T. H. Amsterdam: North Holland.  Most. Journal of Applied Psychology. Träskman-Bendz and Alsén (1997).  Neuman. 167-202). 8.  Näätänen. and Gomez.B. Fifth Edition. and Krasner. Coping with the politics of faiths and cultures: between secular state and ecumenical traditions in India. 339-343.  Mousser. 125-132.  Näätänen. A.  Novaco. (1999). Clinical problems of anger and its assessment and regulation through a stress coping skills approach. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Feature-based attentional set as a cause of traffic accidents. P. J. Internality and externality as correlates of involvement in fatal driving accidents.T. Boston: Pearson. (1987). and Summala. Visual Cognition. (2007). and Comrey.
December 9). (1997). (2001). K. Straits Times. 4. Driver perception-response time. In Baenninger. A. Ergonomics. [Letter to the Editor] The Star. 171. UK: Ashgate. Garner. 4(2).S. B. P.  Novaco.  Noy. Amsterdam: Elsevier  Odero.. (2002). Human factors in modern traffic systems. 40(10).R. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice. Driver suicides. R. R.) Human Factors in Traffic Safety (pp. In Fuller.  Ogden. Safer Roads: A Guide to Road Safety Engineering. 201-215). (Eds. Human Factors for Engineers (pp. J. 253-326). P. Road traffic injuries in developing countries: a comprehensive review of epidemiological studies.  O’Neill.W. F. In Dewar. (1997). Zwi (1997). M. 445-460. 1016-1024. Spanish Journal of Psychology. Social psychological principles: ‘the group inside the person’. and Williams. AZ: Lawyers & Judges. [Review of the book Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application]. A.W. 468-472.F (2001). (2000). and Hermida.  Olson. R. 268 .  Ochando. says operator. R. I. (1998). and Olson. Tropical Medicine and International Health. Aggression on roadways.W. Injury Prevention.. 654-656. Aldershot. The decade 1989-1998 in Spanish psychology: an analysis of development of professional psychology in Spain. p. J. p.) Targets of Violence and Aggression: Advances in Psychology (pp. 34. P. 92-93.  Ohberg. Tucson. E. British Journal of Psychiatry. (1996. and Santos.  N-S highway still one of the safest roads. M. R.L. (2007.38. J.  O’Connell.L (2002).  Our roads are filled with selfish drivers. Pentilla.. and Z. February 8). W. 237-252.A. (Ed. Oxford UK: North Holland. Temes.B. A. Risk homeostasis hypothesis: a rebuttal. 2(5). (1996). N51. Novaco. and Lonnqvist. 43-76).
. (Eds.  Parker. Özkan. and Grossman-Alexander. Poster session presented at the 18th International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT). and Kaistinen. Hebl. Ergonomics. 269 .S.  Parsons. W. 38(3). D. 229-235.S. Anger on and off the road.  Özkan. (2008). 42.  Parsons.G.pdf -  Pai. 533-545.org/workshops/05Helsinki/P1_Ozkan.  Parkinson. L. (1998). Anger and aggression among drivers in three European countries..  Parker. and Schneider. Traffic locus of control. driving violations and accident involvement. (2004). (2005). 125-134).. Tassinary. A. British Journal of Psychology. (2001).) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application.. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology.S. O. J. Retrieved December 20.R and Stradling. Accident Analysis & Prevention. and Saleh.ictct. T. 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. M. Locus of control in university students from eastern and western societies. R. Driving errors. Personality and Individual Difference. S. T.G. 34. 479-486. 507-526.  Papacostas.T. Road safety: what has social psychology to offer? In Rothengatter. R. H. (2002). J. 456-461. (1988).W. Lajunen.M. Finland. driving skills and attitudes toward in-vehicle technologies (ISA & ACC).R. and Summala.A. T. T. T. 2007 from www. Journal of Environmental Psychology. Dimensions of driving behaviour and driver characteristics. J. and Synodinos.  Parker. 38(5). 40.E. Applied Psychology: An International Review. D. D. 1036-1048. 37(1). 113-140. Multidimensional Traffic Locus of Control Scale (T-LOC): factor structure and relationship to risky driving. C.. N. Manstead. C.. 92. 3-13. and Lajunen (2005). Reason. (1995).. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Helsinki. 18. (1974). Lajunen. and Huguenin. Accident Analysis & Prevention. B. The view from the road: implications for stress recovery and immunisation. M.D. Ulrich. (pp. R.
Road traffic injuries are a global public health problem [Letters]. Perceptual and Motor Skills. A.. Automotive Vehicle Safety. and Hyder. Accident Analysis and Prevention.C. Type A behaviour pattern and motor vehicle drivers’ behaviour. U. 35. 12(3).R.  Peters.. March 20-22. 3. E. 875-878. Matto Grosso do Sul. M.A. A. Perceptual and Motor Skills. Further evidence of associations of type A personality scores and driving-related attitudes and behaviors.) (2004). 9-14 270 . Taillard. Journal of Sleep Research. Quera-Salva. Brazil. Simple reaction time.org/workshops/05-CampoGrande  Perry. (1999). D. and Baldwin. A. and Al Haji. R. 201-204. K. (2002). 2007 from http:www. Mohan.  Perry.. duration of driving and sleep deprivation in young versus old automobile drivers. M. Superstition. (1986).  Pestonjee. 63. (1980).. 619-623. Accident Analysis and Prevention. P. and Singh. B. and Åkerstedt. and Renner.  Peltzer.ictct.  Phares. London: Taylor & Francis. G. J. Hyder. L. risk-taking and risk perception of accidents among South African taxi drivers. 1153. M.B. 324.J. Road safety in southeast Asia: factors affecting motorcycle safety. (1971). Morristown NJ: General Learning. and Mathers (Eds.. A.H. E. Neuroticism-extraversion as correlates of accident occurrence. D. Geneva. Are young drivers really more dangerous after controlling for exposure and experience? Journal of Safety Research. Proceedings of the International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT) Extra Workshop. (2003)..M. G. T.A. British Medical Journal. Peden. (2002). W.  Peden. (2000). Switzerland: World Health Organization.. D. 68-79. 8(1).  Philip. (1976). Bioulac. (2005).  Per. Jarawan. Campo Grande. 91.s  Pelz.and Schuman.J. B. Retrieved March 31. D. and Peters. Locus of Control in Personality. Scurfield.. 147-154. World report on road traffic injury prevention. S. D.A. Sleet.R.
W. J.  Ranney.H.S. and Harris. C. 369-374  Renner. S. Disaster Prevention and Management. Accident Analysis and Prevention. and Langley. (1965). Accident reduction through area-wide traffic schemes. 32(2). Cambridge University Press.. C. The Psychology of Judgment and Decision Making.I. S. 33. 32(3). Journal of Applied Psychology. Human Error.  Preston. 1315-1332. Performance differences of individuals classified by questionnaire as accident prone or non-accident prone. 16(3)..-G. T. 20(4). Rider training. (1976). Models of driving behavior: a review of their evoloution.. Chalmers. R. 673-678. Hopelessness.  Reason.  Radin Umar. 317-333. internal-external locus of control and depression. (1990). (1996). 29(1). (2007). D.S.. (2005). S. (1991). J. Stradling. Psychology of drivers in traffic accidents. 78-80. 3112).D. (1994). and Campbell.  Reason. (2000).  Prociuk. 299-300. and Anderle. (1989). S.E. S. Delineating road accident risk along mountain roads. 32. and Corlett. Errors and violations on the roads: a real distinction? Ergonomics.J. 733-750. IATSS Research / International Association of Traffic and Safety Sciences. J. (1990). Manstead. R.N. 334-343.  Rautela. Updates of road safety status in Malaysia.  Reeder. and Pant. Baxter. L. Journal of Clinical Psychology. reasons for riding and the social context of riding among young on-road motorcyclists in New Zealand. S. Venturesomeness and extraversion as correlated of juvenile drivers’ traffic violations. E. T. 284-288. P.A.  Proctor. and Lussier. Traffic Engineering and Control.J. 566-573. Breen. Accident Analysis and Prevention. J. 26. New York: McGraw Hill. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health. (1993).  Porter. Ergonomics. Plous. F.. 49(4). 271 . K. A.J.J.
Aggression and Violence: An Interdisciplinary Approach. 453-460. Anger.B. S.. Stress and Health. W-R. and Huguenin. 37(1). Aberrant driving behaviour: homogeneity of a four-factor structure in samples differing in age and gender. (2005). Upper Saddle River NJ: Prentice Hall. E.G.  Romano. Journal of Safety Research.  Road Transport Department Malaysia [Jabatan Pengagkutan Jalan Malaysia]. (2003. P-A. Accident Analysis & Prevention. R.Y. E. In Lim. (2000).  Rice. Report to the General Assembly.R.  Richardson. (Ed). Jefferson NC: McFarland & Company. 569-582. Retting. S.L.  Rimmö. S. Proceedings of the joint conference of the Asia Pacific Conference on Human Computer Interaction and the Southeast Asian Ergonomics Society Conference. Journal of Safety Research. 2007 from http://www. (2000).be/doc/Final%20report%20TF%20Traffic%20Psychology%20GA%202003. Retrieved May 23.  Risser. and Solomon. Human factors and motor vehicle crashes: a conceptual framework for ergonomic research in South East Asia. (Eds. (2005a) Stop sign violations: the role of race and ethnicity on fatal crashes. R. 2007 from http://202.A. 485-489. 272 .. A. Organizational Behavior.html  Robbins. In Rothengatter. S. 34(15). Singapore: Elsevier. Analysis of motor-vehicle crashes at stop signs in four U.S. and Nickel.  Robbins. European Federation of Psychologists’ Associations Task Force on Traffic Psychology. P. cities.  Romano. Weinstein. (1999). Retrieved December 11. Ergonomics.G. (2004). Tippetts.. April).pdf  Risser. 45(8). 37(3).96/v5/statistik/statistik-2006. R. Theories of science in traffic psychology. M. K. (2003). R. R.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application.P.efpa. R. T. and Voas. (2002). (2005b) Fatal red light crashes: the role of race and ethnicity. and Voas. Amsterdam: Elsevier. P. and Downe. Tippetts. Pacific Grove CA: Brooks/Cole.64. 1-7. H.D. (2007) Statistik2006.190.
 Rothengatter. (2005). 43(3). An overview of traffic psychology: do research and measures match? In Grayson. Differences between taxi and nonprofessional male drivers and attitudes towards traffic-violation penalties. 43(1). (1966). Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. (2005). American Psychologist. T. P-E. (Ed.) Traffic Psychology Today (pp.) Traffic and Transport Psychology (pp. (2006). Crowthorne UK: Transport Research Laboratory. J.P. (1998). 214-220). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. (1975). 5.  Rotter.B. and Bhopal.  Rothengatter. 3-12). In Underwood. Traffic psychology and road safety: separate realities. T. M. In Rothe. J. Capital & Class.) Behavioural Research in Road Safety VIII. Drivers’ illusions – no more risk. 428-435  Rothe. The role of ethnicity in employee relations: the case of Malaysia. M. T. (2001) Objectives. A. J. The ethnic factor in state-labour relations: the case of Malaysia. T. C. J. J. topics and methods. G. In Barjonet. (Ed.(Ed. whole issue.  Rotter.B. Internal versus external control of reinforcement: a case history of a variable. 84-115.  Rotter. Boston: Kluwer. G. Some problems and misconceptions related to the construct of internal versus external control of reinforcement. 595-600).  Rothengatter. Edmonton CA: University of Alberta Press. (pp. 489-493. Rosenbloom. 249-258. 45. (2002). (2002).  Rothengatter. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources.  Rowley.) Driving Lessons: Exploring Systems that Make Traffic Safer. 88. and Shahar. C. and Bhopal. 273 . Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. Traffic safety: content over packaging. 80. (Ed. Psychological Monographs.  Rowley. 10. 56-67.P. (1990). 308-331. (2007).B. T. Amsterdam: Elsevier.B.
Retrieved December 11. p. 37(2). (1997).  Sadiq. Bukit Aman. [Perankaan Kemalangang Jalanraya Malaysia]. B. and Santos (Eds.  Royal Malaysian Police [Polis Diraja Malaysia] (2002). 2007 from http://www.rmp. and Heiskanen. Malaysian Road Accident Statistics.A2. sports and home accidents.  Salminen. 2003 from http://www. Retrieved May 22.my. Relationships between injuries at work and leisure time. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Kuala Lumpur.  Salminen. (2005). J. 23-42). Bukit Aman. Thrills. (2005. Malaysian Road Accident Statistics.A. Human Factors for Engineers (pp.malaysia-today. Royal Malaysian Police [Polis Diraja Malaysia] (2000). 373-376.  Royal Malaysian Police [Polis Diraja Malaysia] (2003). [Perankaan Kemalangang Jalanraya Malaysia]. Road Safety – Back to the Future. IBU Pejabat Polis. 33-36. September 29). [Perankaan Kemalangang Jalanraya Malaysia]. M. In Fuller. S.net/Blog-n/2006/09/thrillsspills-death-plague-malaysian. Kuala Lumpur. Ergonomics of the driver’s interface with the road environment: the contribution of psychological research.gov. R. Statistik Kemalangan Jalanraya & Kematian.htm 274 .  Royal Malaysian Police [Polis Diraja Malaysia] (2007).  Rude drivers lack emotional control. (2006. Amsterdam: Elsevier. The Star.). S.  Sabey. spills & death plague Malaysian roads. J. occupational. Kuala Lumpur. IBU Pejabat Polis.  Saad. September 26). Kuala Lumpur. F.  Royal Malaysian Police [Polis Diraja Malaysia] (2001). Bukit Aman. IBU Pejabat Polis. 29(1). Bukit Aman. Correlations between traffic. Basingstoke UK: AA Foundation for Road Safety Research. Malaysian Road Accident Statistics. [Perankaan Kemalangang Jalanraya Malaysia]. Malaysian Road Accident Statistics. (2002). (1999). Accident Analysis and Prevention. Malaysiatoday (Reuters). IBU Pejabat Polis.
(2003).A. (Eds. 34. and Young. Jr. (2008. Accident Analysis and Prevention.F.. and Schade. M. Ericsson. and Rizzo.C. K. 314-318.  Schneider. (Ed.E. M. Learning and Memory of Knowledge and Skills: Durability and Specificity. and Bourne. P. K. L. A. 41. and the social psychological road in between.  Scuffham. S. Public acceptability of traffic demand management in Europe. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage. Morf. In Healy. K..T. and Sætermo. C.C. 6(9).). Nagoya: Japan. A. C. 179-188. C.A. and Panter. A. 293302  Salih. (1981). The effects of contextual interference on the acquisition and retention of logical rules. Regional Development Series.  Schwebel.T. J.E. and Panter. Economic factors and traffic crashes in New Zealand. Jr. (2004). 117-147). In Honjo. and sensation seeking. Ball. Fosser. little details. The research process: of big pictures.I. L. (2006). C... Accident Analysis and Prevention. Severson. November 15).F. (1966). V.) The Sage Handbook of Methods in Psychology (pp.  Sansone. A model of traffic crashes in New Zealand. F. 275 . Applied Economics. and Langley (2002). v.C. 29(3). Singapore: Maruzen Asia for United Nations Centre fro Regional Development.F. 673-687.. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage. 35. Malaysia: urbanization in a multiethnic society – case of peninsula Malaysia. Healy. 484-491. (1995). Individual difference factors in risky driving: the roles of anger/hostility. B. H. An investigation of behavioural adaptation to airbags and antilock brakes among taxi drivers. Urbanization and Regional Development (pp. D.  Sendut. Asian Survey. M. Sagberg.K. (2000). Accident Analysis and Prevention. M.  Schlag. 38. I.  Scuffham. A. In Sansone.L.A. 801-810.. conscientiousness.  Sambasivan. J. P. Traffic Engineering + Control. 3-16).. and Bourne. 6. Personal correspondence. Morf. Contemporary urbanization in Malaysia. (1997).
S. G. P-E. American Journal of Psychiatry. (1988)..  Siegel.M and Kacmar. (1998). Los Angeles CA: Western Psychological Services. K. R.. 180-205). 46(15). E. 15(3). Manual for the Attitudes toward Guns and Violence Questionnaire (AGVQ). and Roskova. (2001). 66. A. Strategic Management Journal.R. (1956). (1962). and Warshaw.  Sharma. P. Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education.  Shinar. J. The measurement and treatment of client anger in counselling. (2003).L. U. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. 361-365.P. 51(1). Ergonomics.H. D. Research Methods for Business: A Skill Building Approach. New York: McGraw Hill. M. New York: John Wiley & Sons.  Selzer..  Shinar.E.M.S.  Sheppard. Hartwick. Ketchen. Hult..  Shapiro. L.E. D.  Siegriest. J. B.T. 137-160. (2000). Journal of Consumer Research. Traffic sign symbol comprehension: a cross-cultural study. Journal of Counseling and Development. suicide and unconscious motivation.J. H. An assessment of the use of structural equation modeling in strategic management research. Dewar. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. (1988). 1549-1565.. and Zakowska. 3-7. 237-240. Automobile accidents.  Sharkin. 397-404. (2004). In Barjonet. Fourth Edition. D. C. (Ed. Sekaran. The theory of reasoned action: a metaanalysis of past research with recommendations for modifications and future research. 1.L. (2003). S.) Traffic Psychology Today (pp. Aggressive driving: the contribution of the drivers and the situation. Summala. 325-343. 119(3). C. M. The effects of safety regulations and law enforcement. Boston: Kluwer. Theory of reasoned action and theory of planned behavior in alcohol and drug education. 276 . (2007). and Kanekar. 25.  Shook. and Payne. B.
D. B.R. August). H. B.  Social Issues Research Centre (2004. Kurylo. Oxford UK. In Kassinove. (1997). Auto safety and human adaptation. 44... Cognitive Therapy and Research. Traffic Engineering Design: Principles and Practice. Houston. 1-18). 21(4). Preference for insuring against probably small losses: insurance implications. (1998). N.  Stanton. 277 . (1977). A. expression and control of anger. N.J. Jr. and Coombs. (1992). Stress. S. S. Boca Raton.. and Frank. Retrieved December 1. Measuring the experience. Corrigan. P.G. C. International Journal of Stress Management.  Smiley. Crowson..  Spielberger. B. 1029-1030.C. 50(8). J. Editorial. and Poirier.. M. Philadelphia PA: Taylor & Francis.A. (2004). Product design with people in mind. P. and Guest. In Stanton. (2001. London: Arnold.K. 477-492. R. M. (1995). 386-397.  Stanton.  Slovic. Ergonomics. 1151-1158. 237-258. 47(8). and Sydeman. Human Factors in Consumer Products (pp. J.com/p/articles/mi_qa3622/is_200001/ai_n8903050/pg_1  Snyder.sirc. Injury control: a promising field for psychologists.C.A..K. (2007). Fishchoff..).J. American Psychologist. P.org/publik/driving.pdf  Spielberger. 2007 from http://www. Assessing hostile automatic thoughts: development and validation of the HAT scale. Sinha. FL: Taylor & Francis. Issues in Science and Technology.. B. D. Reheiser. (Ed.) Anger Disorders: Definition and Treatment (pp. C. C. Winter). 49-68).  Slinn. (2007). and Watson. E. 2007 from http://findarticles. Journal of Risk and Insurance.D. Matthews. Sex differences in driving and insurance risk: an analysis of the social and psychology differences between men and women that are relevant to their driving behaviour. Retrieved December 25. Lichtenstein. B. N. (Ed. 14(4).A. coping and psychological illness: a cross-cultural study.
and Jin.  Stough. 1359-1370.M. and Ryan. (1989) Prevention and control of injuries arising from road traffic accidents in Malaysia. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Ergonomics. D. and stress. N. Type A Behavior.A. (2001).) Handbook of Emotions (pp. Personality and behavioral predictors of traffic accidents: testing a contextual mediated model.R. Trabasso. 529-544. Journal of Applied Psychology.. (1996). M.E.  Stein. (Eds. A. D. J.W. Novaco. New York: Guilford. R. Traffic Injury Prevention. R. 681-688. In Lewis.) Intelligent Transportation Systems. 43(9). R. and Campbell. 63. (2003). N.E. Maggio. and Liwag. (2000). The representation and organization of emotion experience: unfolding the emotion episode.L.. (1988). 247-254.  Sümer. The Methodology of Theory Building. P. (2005). Sydney AU: Educology Research Associates. G. 178-182.  Steiner. 44(3). (Ed.  Sümer. R. N.. Morrison.  Stevenson. H. Harlow UK: Addison-Wesley. UK: Edward Elgar. Bilgic. M. Attributions of responsibility for motor vehicle crashes.  Storey. M. 949-964. Methodological and technical challenges in regional evaluation of ITS: Induced and direct effects. R. (1978). D. and Pinto. In Stough. and Havland. 278 . Sümer.  Subramaniam. Palamara.R. 139(6). Stokols. J. Behavioural compensation by drivers of a simulator when using a vision enhancement system. Behavioral factors as predictors of motor vehicle crashes in young drivers. and Erol. Personality attributes as predictors of psychological well-being for NCOs. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Traffic congestion. Medical Journal of Malaysia. T.  Stewart. N. Stanton. M. N.  Stokols.. N. 37(4).. E. 279-300)..C. 35. J. (2001). 467-480. Safety-Critical Computer Systems. Cheltenham. (2005).A.. 2(4).. Journal of Psychology. M. T. (1993).
(2006). Amsterdam: Elsevier  Summala. Nieminen. pedestrians and road environments involved in 279 . Nguntra. N. R. Journal of Traumatic Stress. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology.  Sümer. University of Helsinki Traffic Research Unit. Koonchote. Hierarchical model of behavioural adaptation and traffic accidents.. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Ergonomics. and Merisalo. In Underwood. Berument. H. P. R.  Summala. Karanci. T.N. (1980).  Summala. 103-117.. (1988). 22(1-3). A. In Rothengatter. H. 21. (1988).K. H.  Summala. Human Factors. Assen/Maastricht: Van Gorcum. (1986). A. H. (1997). H. G. The zero-risk theory and overtaking decision.. T. Helsinki. (Eds. Accident risk and driver behaviour. P. H. S. Mahasakpan. T. 82-92). W. In In Rothengatter. and Gunes. (Ed. Özkan. (1996).  Swaddiwudhipong.) Traffic and Transport Psychology (pp. coping selfefficacy and quake exposure as predictors of psychological distress following the 1999 earthquake in Turkey. A psychophysical method for determining the effects of studded tires on safety. M. H. and de Bruin. Accident Analysis and Prevention. and Punto. Maintaining lane position with peripheral vision during in-vehicle tasks. (1996). 18(4). H..  Summala. 41-52). 383-394). and Carbonell Vaya E. 331-342. (2005). T. S. and Näätänen. Personal resources. vehicles.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp.  Summala. (1994).. 31. 491-506. (Report 11).  Summala. N.) Road User Behaviour: Theory and Research (pp.  Summala. Sümer. Epidemiologic characteristics of drivers. 442-451. H. Traffic psychology theories: towards understanding driving behaviour and safety efforts. (2005). 38. and Lajunen. Risk control is not risk adjustment: the zero-risk theory of driver behavior and its implications. Risk control is not risk adjustment: the zero-risk theory of driver behaviour and its implications. Safety Science... 38(3). G. (Eds. 193-199. Asymmetric relationship between driving and safety skills. T. 703-711. and Tantriratna.
A. S. In Barjonet. E.J. (1985). (eds. Hopelessness in a community population: factorial structure and psychosocial correlates.M.. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Driving habits and behaviour patterns of university students.G. Boston: Kluwer. N. Sakamoto.M.. (2001). E. 25(1).  Tanaka. New York: Simon & Schuster. Fujihara. (1969). D. 138(5).R. B. (1996). T.233-239. 34.) Traffic Psychology Today (pp.. A fit-index for covariance structure models under arbitrary GLS estimation. J. and Fragopanagos (2005). and Papacostas. C. Ten commandments of structural equation modeling. P.C. 241-263).  Synodinos. Ono. 18(4). (2001). P. S. S. 42. P-E. E..R... T.  Theeuwes.  Tavris. G.road traffic injuries in rural Thailand.E. (1998). 37-44. C. Neural Networks..S.  Thompson. and Kitamura. (Ed. Ono. L. New York: Thomas & Cromwell. The effects of road design on driving. J. 609-615. 52(6). 241-257. J. G. Y. Sakamoto. Southeast Asian Journal of Tropical Medicine and Public Health.  Taylor. Y. (1985). British Journal of Mathematics and Statistics.S. International Review of Applied Psychology. Journal of Social Psychology.  Tavris. and Kitamura.  Tanaka. Age and gender patterns in motor vehicle crash injuries: importance of type of crash and occupant role. (1989). Washington DC: American Psychological Association. and Layde. G. 581-590. 280 . and Huba. Kuhn. In Grimm. A.  Theodorson. The interaction of attention and emotion. Fujihara. (2000).  Tanaka. Hopelessness in a community population in Japan. 353-369. 33(2). A Modern Dictionary of Sociology. and Yarnold.) Reading and Understanding More Multivariate Statistics. Anger: The Misunderstood Emotion. 167-172. S. and Theodorson. Journal of Clinical Psychology.
J.F. and McClure. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomic Science.  Trick. 23(1). Applied Cognitive Psychology.  Underwood. W. Relationship to risk-taking preferences.  Tversky. 207-332. (1973). Collusion after a collision: witnesses’ reports of a road accident with and without discussion. (1999). (1993). A. (1949). 123-130. Effectivenss of cognitive-behavioral treatments in reducing Type A behavior among university faculty – one year later.  Tversky. 7. (1974). D. 185. The accident prone automobile driver. Enns. Anger while driving. 106(5).  Underwood. 445-448. American Journal of Psychiatry. In Neumann. L. 321-333. 32(3). G. H. Injury Control and Safety Promotion.. 2.. and Kahneman.W. J. and Everatt.) Handbook of Perception and Action. (1997). J. Availability: a heuristic for judging frequency and probability. and Milton. and response to a traffic safety campaign..  Tiliman.. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. D. D. 5. Cognitive Psychology.A and Hobbs.M. P. G. 147-152. (Eds. London: Academic. accident involvement. (2001). A. 279-297. 4(4). 281 . R. Mills.  Trimpop. Personality and Individual Differences. and Vavrik. and Kirkcaldy. 55-68. R. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. G. (1996). Science. Thurman. Judgment under uncertainty. Volume 3: Attention. B. G. and Kahneman. (2004). 5(5).  Turner. C. 11-22. 385-424.  Underwood. Personality subtypes of young drivers. and Sanders. Chapman. Personality predictors of driving accidents. J. Wright and Crundall. Age and gender differences in risk-taking behaviour as an explanation for high incidence of motor vehicle crashes as a driver in young males.T. (1985). 1124-1130. C. 10(3). O. P. Automatic and controlled information processing: the role of attention in the processing of novelty. (2003). A.  Ulleberg. Paying attention behind the wheel: a framework for studying the role of attention in driving. Journal of Counseling Psychology.E.
Cognition and emotion in driver behaviour models: some critical viewpoints. Utzelmann. In Rothengatter. “Accident prone. Cockfield. March 20-22.  Verwey. Proceedings of the 14th workshop of the International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT). (2007). On-line driver workload estimation. (1999).  Vavrik. 42.pdf  Vallières.J. 26. Retrieved September 1. R. (Ed.ictct.. (2005). H. Harris. Driver selection and improvement in Germany. T.. Effects of road situation and age on secondary task measures. Ergonomics. Anticipation and the adaptive control of safety margins in driving. W. Traffic accident risks in developing countries: superseding biased approaches. M. A. 24-29. (2001). G. 2007 from http:www. S.  Vasconcellos.. D. 336-345. W. Campo Grande. Meijman. S. and Huguenin. The role of attributions and anger in aggressive driving behaviours. (2004). 9(2). and Rothengatter. 181-190).F. Proceedings of the International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT) Extra Workshop.) Traffic and Transport Psychology (pp.A.. (1998).  Vaa.D. 2007 from www. 282 . In Underwood. 39. Personality and Individual Differences.F.org/workshops/01-Caserta/Vaa. (Eds. Accident Analysis and Prevention. (2005). Bergerson. J. (1999). A. T. 43(2). Brazil. Sanson. J. Italy. (2000). 444-458.A. and Vallerand. Harrison. Retrieved December 5.” Recovery.  Velting. D. Risky driving among young Australian drivers: trends precursors and correlates. Amsterdam: Elsevier.D. Matto Grosso do Sul.M.. Personality and negative expectancies: trait structure of the Beck Hopelessness Scale. Smart. E.. Amsterdam: Elsevier  Van der Hulst. É.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application.B. T.. Ergonomics. 210-222. R. 913-921. J.org/workshops/05-CampoGrande  Vassallo. Caserta.ictct. A. and McIntyre.
Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. A.. 5(4).pdf  Wei. (2001). Policing and Educatino Conference 2. 2008 from http://www. 50(4). P. 123-142. N. and Carbonell Vaya E. Predicting drowsiness accidents from personal attributes.. D. Changes in young adults offense and crash patterns over time. Amsterdam: Elsevier. P. (1997). (2002). and Mallinckrodt (2003).R. 117128.com/public_affairs/reports/AA-foundation-FDN33-cradle-grave. R. T. (2009. Stanton. (Eds. A. Cradle Attitudes – Grave Consequences. New Zealand.  Wállen Warner. (2001).J.  Walker.com/articles/waterman37. M.. and Åberg.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp.A.F. Verwey.backwoodshome. Accident Analysis and Prevention. M.P. Raghunathan. The development of gender differences in risky attitudes and behaviour in road use (Summary Report). F. 28. Backwoods Home Magazine. 1-8). Basingstoke UK: AA Foundation for Road Safety. 427-433.theaa. In Rothengatter. (2006).T.. An on-road investigation of vehicle feedback and its role in driver cognition: implications for cognitive ergonomics. Wellington.  Watson.M. Methodological problems associated with surveying unlicensed drivers. Here’s the story of Burma-Shave. T. and Zaidel. 283 . Journal of Counseling Psychology. W. and Little. 2007 from http://www.  Waller. M.S. (2000).E.B. L. International Journal of Cognitive Ergonomics.html. Personality and Individual Differences. P. Drivers’ decision to speed: a study inspired by the theory of planned behavior. Heppner. (1998). In Proceedings of the 1998 Road Safety Research. 9.F. January 21). Elliot. Feeling nostalgic? Now you’ll rave. Transportation and society. and McKenna. H.P.  Waylen. Shope. and Young. eye blinks and ongoing driver behaviour. Retrieved December 15.A. G. 421-444. Retrieved November 2.H. Perceived coping as a mediator between attachment and psychological distress: a structural equation modeling approach. 438-447. 33.  Waterman..  Waller. J. B.
Childhood accidents. 130(4). Snow. 2.  West.  Wheatley.. Toronto: PDE Publications. G. 450-455. Weissman. Ceminsky.  Wilde. G. (pp.. (1993). M. G. Accident Prevention. (1973).S. Proceedings of the International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT) Extra 284 .  Wilde. Hallberg. University of Waterloo Press.L. American Journal of Psychiatry. Risk homeostasis theory and traffic education requirements. (2005). In Halsey.) Transport Risk Assessment (pp. and French. 209-225. (1984). (1982). G.. (Ed. E. Target Risk. Mild social deviance.  Wells-Parker. 207-219. Fox. An exploratory study of the relationship between road rage and crash experience in a representative sample of US drivers. Type-A behaviour pattern and decision-making style as predictors of self-reported driving style and traffic accident risk. M. The theory of risk homeostasis: implications for safety and health. Dunaway. Guiling. G.  Wilde.  Wheatley. J.M. Risk Analysis. G.J.S.J.S.. (1994). R. deductions and discussion of recent commentaries. (2002). (ed. P. Deaths and injuries from car accidents: an intractable problem? Journal of Cleaner Production. 1149-1152. G. British Journal of Psychology. Preventions of accidents in childhood. 469-529) New York: McGraw Hill. 135-154).  Wilde. S. (2002).S. 34. (2007).J. K.  Wilde. G.J. R. 441-468.J. Elander. Does risk homeostasis theory have implications for road safety? British Medical Journal.. G. Ergonomics. (1988).M (1956).).J. 271278. 324. M. 1116-1121.S. Advances in Paediatrics.S. On the choice of denominator for the calculation of accident rates. 84. Accident Analysis and Prevention. In Yager. D. Wiliams. (1961). and Anderson. B. and Klerman. J. Risk homeostasis and traffic accidents: propositions. G. Hostility and depression associated with suicide attempts.W.  Wilde.N. 31..  Wells. 195. 8.. 15(11/12). S.
J.B. Brazil.) Contemporary Ergonomics. and Hartman. 34(5).. Driver experience with antilock brake systems.C. Farmington Hills MI: Gale.  Woodcock. A. 31.K. for motor-vehicle crash deaths. 26(6).  Williams.S.Y. 398-403. The factor structure and convergent validity of the Aggression Questionnaire in an offender population. 8. Wood.E. Flyte and Garner. (2003). (2000). Retrieved March 31.G. March 20-22. New York: Taylor & Francis.F. Research Methodology in Strategy and Management. and Poythress. (2008). Cascardi. 285 . Designing for the in-car safety and security of women. Lenard. Gavin. J.R..  Wood. Psychological Assessment. 110-131. In Hanson. and Shabanova.  Wilson. Possession and displacement in Kuala Lumpur’s ethnic landscape. (1994).  Williams. 1. and Well. Welsh.  Williamson.org/workshops/05-CampoGrande  Willford. Journal of Safety Research. N. Responsibility of drivers. Space and Culture. Boston: Pearson. 99-109. 807-811.ictct. (2003). Campo Grande.  Williamson.I.  Williams. 6(2). 55(175). E. (2001). by age and gender. T. (1996). Countries and Their Cultures. (Ed.F. A.. (1999). Fundamentals of ergonomics in theory and practice. Accident Analysis and Prevention.G. A. A. V. L. T. M. 557-567.  Williams. Matto Grosso do Sul. D. 527-531. (2004). The fluid state: Malaysia’s national expressway. 2007 from http:www. (2003). T. and Boyd... Applied Ergonomics. Boyd. N.Workshop.A. Structural equation modeling in strategy research: applications and issues. M. International Social Science Journal. Mastering the World of Psychology. J.J. M. J. S.. 303346. S.
N.  Zikovitz. and Stanton. Negotiating identity in Malaysia: multi-cultural society. and Harris. (2000). Islam.  Yergil.C. Amsterdam: Elsevier  Young. (2007). World Health Organization [WHO] (1957). 1314-1330. Accidents in Childhood: Facts as a Basis for Prevention. Regional Office for the Western Pacific. theatre and tourism. 487-503). D. (2005). 286 . M. 473-485. Drivers and traffic laws: a review of psychological theories and empirical research. G. and Chaffin. 50(1). (2005). 43(9). Head tilt during driving. D. L. 33(3). (1999). D. Ergonomics. Back to the future: brake reaction times for manual and automated vehicles. 740-746.  Yaapar. 46-58. Country reports. (Ed. Ergonomics. .R. In Underwood.) Traffic and Transport Psychology (pp. A three-dimensional dynamic posture prediction model for simulating in-vehicle seated reaching movements: development and validation. Geneva. Ergonomics.  Zhang. Technical Report Series No. 42(5).A. S. Report of an Advisory Group. 118. X. Asian Journal of Social Science.S.  World Health Organization [WHO] (2004).
to the individual” (Brown & 287 . ABS ensures that.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. or benefits. a concept generally attributed to Farmer and Chambers (1926. Because the wheels continue to turn during the braking manoeuvre. Immediately after releasing the pressure. Anti-lock braking systems (ABS): in-vehicle technology that modulates the pressure in each wheel’s brake line so that when a whell lock-up is anticipated or occurs. allowing the wheel to turn. the brake line pressure is relates. As a result. (see also. traction is maintained steering and braking actions continue to be effective. on most surface types. the ABS reapplies it until the wheels begin to lock-up again. presumably because of personality factors. drivers stop sooner and in a more controlled manner than with traditional rack-and-pinion braking systems. Behavioural adaptation (BA): “the ability to adapt to novel conditions based on one’s experiences. 1939) and arising from the individual differences approach in psychology. the outcome of which is typically reflected by perceived advantages. differential accident involvement).
2004.Noy. 288 . Also referred to as risk compensation. McKenna of the University of Reading. where effort to save lives may be concentrated. hierarchical driver adaptation theory. Black event: a post-hoc extension of the black spot concept. It differs from accident proneness in that it (a) denotes an area of study. that corresponds to an accumulation of crashes in the statistical mass. task capability theory) . The central idea is that. distal variable. it is essential when searching for black spots to disaggregate the accident mass by splitting it into progressively smaller units by type. (see also. (see also. p. risk homeostasis theory. including driver behaviour. The contextual mediated model forms the basis of ordering variables within the research design for studies reported in this thesis. black spot) Black spot: a term attributed to Heikki Summala of the Traffic Research Unit at the University of Helsinki. 25). characteristics of road users. as an alternative to the largely discounted notion of accident proneness. In the present research. Usually based on geographical location of the crash. road and traffic conditions. (b) does not prejudge the causation of personality variables. the statistical model was based on the results of automobile users’ responses to psychological testing and questionnaires. (see also. It refers to accumulations of motor vehicle crashes in amassed statistics. (see also. when confronted by differing levels of perceived or objective risk in the environment. proximal variable. therefore allowing for the influence of external factors. where possible. driving and psychological variables influence self-reported behaviour in traffic and self-reported crash outcomes. crash outcome) Differential accident involvement: a concept proposed by Frank P. it refers to a combination of circumstances. The concept has been applied both to Summala’s (1996) hierarchical adaptation theory and to Fuller’s (2000) task capability theory. accident proneness) Differential psychology: see individual differences approach. black event) Contextual mediated model: an empirically-based path analysis. 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. BA is a core concept in all risk theories of driver behaviour. time of week and. first offered by Nebi Sümer of the Middle East Technical University in Ankara. and (c) assumes that individuals may vary along a continuum with regard to factors that affect their risk of crash. Turke showing the manner in which the certain demographic. drivers will alter their behaviour (see also. rather than a theory.
S. It was at the IFRB that statisticians and analysts first examined the distribution of accident frequency. Locus of control (LoC): a concept generally credited to Julian B. and after crash – to form a matrix with nine cells. 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). selfefficacy and self-esteem. intelligence. 289 . Individual differences approach: also referred to as differential psychology. not as a unidimensional. in-crash. Individual differences research typically focuses on the domains of personality. which combines the three components of the road traffic system – the human. (see also. then of the Veteran’s Administration Medical Centre in San Francisco. demographic and motivational variables – contribute to diving outcomes. 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. William Haddon Jr. bipolar construct ranging from I (internal) to E (external) maximums. In traffic psychology. One such multidimensional model of LoC was advanced by Hanna Levenson. aptitudes. values. the vehicle and the road – with the three phases in a motor vehicle crash – pre-crash. a body of theoretical and empirical knowledge has been generated from attempts to consider how individual differences – primarily in personality. motivation. Externality Chance (C) and Externality Powerful Others (P). Headway: the distance between two vehicles travelling one in front of the other.. self-concept. ability. It contains detailed information about fatalities resulting from motor vehicle crashes on public roadways in the United States since 1975. Haddon matrix: a model developed by the American traffic analyst. Each of the nine elements of the matrix represents a possible focus for road safety. Rotter of the University of Connecticut. Department of Transportation. who posited three dimensions: Internality (I). accident proneness) Inner speech: see self-talk. but rather as a multidimensional variable made up of three or more dimensions. Later conceptualisations have viewed LoC. 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. (see also. interests. leading to the now largely discredited concept of accident proneness. The name was changed to the British Industrial Health Research Board in 1931.Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS): is a database in the public domain maintained by the U.
individuals are likely to perform riskier behaviour. the RHT posits that an underlying feedback system. the individual differences approach. Non-motorised transport: any transport that does not require a motor to generate energy. including life goals” (Chaplin. Included in this term are walking.S. or characteristic manner of responding to life’s problems. as expressed by Raymond Cattell. bicycling. but excluded those vehicles which operate on rails. Wilde’s theory has generated equivocal 290 . motor vehicles included automobiles. Professor Emeritus at Canada’s Queen’s University. the ego and the superego. p. and using animal-drawn or human-drawn carts or other devices. and buses. 333-334). if perceived risk exceeds target risk. Risk compensation: see behavioural adaptation. Freudian psychology considers it to be a manifestation of the integration of the id. Wilde. motor vehicle crash was considered largely synonymous with the concept of motor vehicle accident. When there is a discrepancy between the level of perceived risk in the environment and an internalised “target risk” level. Motor vehicle crash: a collision or incident that may or may not lead to injury. 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. 1985. operates to keep user risk at an essentially constant level. individuals will engage in behaviour intended to eliminate the discrepancy. Private speech: see self-talk. occurring on a public road and involving at least one moving motor vehicle. That is. conversely. For the purposes of the present research. regards it as “that which permits a prediction of what a person will do in a given situation. most usually on roads. individuals will engage in more cautious behaviour. PBC refers to the degree of control that individuals believe they have over a given behaviour. Adlerian psychology views it as “the individual’s style of life. trucks (lorries). Risk homeostasis theory (RHT): Originally postulated by Gerald J. if perceived risk falls below the target risk. motorised bicycles. For the purposes of the present research. 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”. Perceived behavioural control (PBC): a key concept in Azjen’s Theory of Planned Behaviour. motorcycles. mobile construction equipment or platforms. somewhat analogous to a thermostat.Motor vehicle: a machine which incorporates an engine and wheels and is used for transportation on land.
zero risk theory) Road infrastructure: road facilities and equipment. but only 291 .and snow-covered roads during the winter months. signage. based on analysis of road and traffic related accident information. target risk. the vehicle and the road) interact with each other. bridges. at both conscious and unconscious levels. archways and footpaths. most frequently attributed to Donald Meichenbaum at Canada’s University of Waterloo. Within the context of this research. (b) incorporation of safety features in the design of new roads. 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. Also referred to as private speech or inner speech. parking spaces. (c) improvement of safety aspects of existing roads to avoid future problems. behavioural adaptation. 1996. tunnels. Self talk: a fundamental concept in most theories of cognitive behaviourism.research results and some heated controversy within the field of traffic psychology. Cognitive self-statements may be either negative or positive.” (Ogden. Road traffic fatality: a death occurring within 30 days of a motor vehicle crash. overpasses. They enable better traction and shorter braking distances than non-studded counterparts. stopping places. Opportunities for road safety engineering in general apply at four levels: (a) safety conscious planning of new road networks. draining system. (see also. Road safety engineering: “a process. 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. It refers to the constant stream of chatter that goes on in one’s mind. A motor vehicle crash may be considered as a failure in the system. Studded tyres: used primarily in countries that experience ice. as the result of injury sustained in the crash. 35). these tyres are manufactured with small metal studs – much like football cleats – inserted in the treads. including the network. p. and (d) improvement of known hazardous locations on the road network. which applies engineering principles in order to identify road design or traffic management improvements that will cost-effectively reduce the cost of road accidents. Road traffic injuries: fatal or non-fatal injuries incurred as a result of a motor vehicle crash.
(see also. Supplementary restraint system (SRS): Also referred to as “airbags”. (see also. which in turn are a function of attitudes and subjective norms. which are the best predictors of behaviour. remains constant at the target level. target risk is determined by four “classes of utility factors”: (1) the benefits expected from risky behaviour alternatives. Intentions are influenced by: (a) attitudes (the positive or negative evaluation of the behaviour). According to Wilde (1994). 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. studded tyres actually increase braking distances and decrease lateral control of the vehicle. 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. Target risk: a core concept in Wilde’s risk homeostasis theory. instrument panel and windshield of a motorcar. derived from Summala’s (1996) hierarchical adaptation theory of driver behaviour. where i represents the number of factors defining the functional taxonomy dimension. The theory of reasoned action (TRA) proposes that behaviour is a function of intentions. Individuals will undertake behaviour to ensure that the level of risk in which they are engaged. hierarchical adaptation theory) Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB): as proposed by Icek Ajzen of the University of MassachusettsAmherst. it is a level of risk that each individual is willing to accept. (see also. (b) subjective norms (opinions about what significant others would think of the behaviour). and Icek Ajzen at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst. (3) the benefits expected from cautious behaviour alternatives. the TPB posits that a given behaviour is determined by individuals’ intentions. risk homeostasis theory) Task cube. On dry roads. behaviour control) (see also. A complex 3 X 5 X i matrix. According to RHT proponents. (2) the costs expected from cautious behaviour alternatives. The TRA has been used as the basis for some driving safety research but is perhaps more significant as a conceptual stepping-stone to the now widely used theory of planned behaviour. and (4) the costs expected from risky behaviour alternatives. The TPB has been applied to a wide range of research problems in traffic psychology. Each cell of the matrix represents a combination of the three dimensions which form the basis of the theory.when manoeuvring on icy or hard-packed snowy surfaces. theory of reasoned action. and (c) perceived behavioural control (PBC) over the performance of the behaviour (which jointly influences both the intention and behavioural performance). theory of planned behavriour) 292 .
only when a subjective threshold is exceeded and “feelings of fear” are experienced. ergonomics. It is primarily concerned with the study of the behaviour of road users and the psychological processes underlying that behaviour. risk homeostasis theory) 293 . Zero risk theory: as proposed by Heikki Summala of the Traffic Research Unit at the University of Helsinki. it posits that drivers attempt to maintain a stable balance between subjective and objective risk. has embraced a multidisciplinary approach and a shared focus with human physiology. Traffic mix: the form and structure of different modes of transport. It is often proposed as an alternative to Wilde’s risk homeostasis theory. from its outset. convenience and economy. (see also. Transportation factors: a set of five domains operating on the process of moving goods or persons from one place to another. comfort.Traffic management: planning. In the present research. adapting behaviourally to driving conditions. road engineering. The five basic transportation factors include: safety. The emergence and impact of the field of traffic psychology is discussed in chapter 2 of this thesis. coordinating. management science and economics. controlling and organising traffic to achieve efficiency and effectiveness of the existing road infrastructure capacity. that share the same road infrastructure. motorised and non-motorised. time. the term is considered synonymous with transport psychology and with mobility psychology. behavioural adaptation. Traffic psychology: a relatively new and developing field of applied psychology that. community planning.
Appendix A: List of Published and Research Scales 294 .
San Antonio.eng. 19500 Bulverde Road. 2000). TX 78259 USA http://pearsonassess. CA 90025 USA http://portal.com/cgibin/MsmGo. Brace & Company).70400&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL Beck Hopelessness Scale (BHS. Information for obtaining copies of these instruments is provided below: Aggression Questionnaire (AQ. C. with the understanding that they would not be re-published. Available from: Western Psychological Services 12031 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles.hawaii. Papacostas & Synodinos.A number of variables studied in the present research were measured using scales copyrighted by corporate publishers or by universities where they were developed. Hawaii 96822 USA http://www.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. Buss & Warren. Published scales (AQ and BHS) are marketed only to professional psychologists capable of meeting criteria for psychometric knowledge and expertise.S.edu/~csp/csp.wpspublish. Available from: The Psychological Corporation (Harcourt. Research scales (BIT and HAT) were obtained and used with the permission of the authors. 1988) Obtained with permission from the authors: c/o Dr. 1993). Beck & Steer. Papacostas Department of Civil Engineering 2540 Dole Street University of Hawaii at Manoa Honolulu.com/portal/page?_pageid=53.html 295 .
Snyder.R.psych.Hostile Automatic Thoughts Scale (HAT. Kansas 66045 USA www. Snyder.edu/hope. Kurylo & Poirier) Obtained with permission from the late Dr. Crowson. 296 . Houston. C.ukans. Correspondence regarding this scale or the associated hope theory should be directed to: Graduate Training Program in Clinical Psychology The Department of Psychology 340 Fraser Hall University of Kansas 1415 Jayhawk Boulevard Lawrence.
Appendix B: Personal Information Form (PIF) 297 .
1. 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. Most of the time when you travel. In what city/town did you learn to drive? _______________. please answer the following questions: 2. so please answer all questions as truthfully as you can.g. In what city/town have you lived most of your life? _______________. __________ (city/town) (state) (country) 5. Proton Wira) _______________ ___ motorcycle – what engine size (e. _________.CONFIDENTIAL Personal Information Form Please answer the following questions about Please answer the following questions about YOURSELF.. What type of motor vehicle do you most often drive? (please check only one) ___ car -. 250 cc) ______________ ___ other (please specify: _________________) 7. Do you presently have a driver’s licence? (circle one) yes no If yes.. __________ (city/town) (state) (country) 4. How often do you travel in a car: as a driver (please check only one): ___ every day ___ several times a week ___ about once or twice a week ___ about once every two weeks ___ almost never ___ never as a passenger (please check only one) ___ every day ___ several times a week ___ about once or twice a week ___ about once every two weeks ___ almost never ___ never 298 .what manufacturer & model (e.g. sitting behind driver) ___ car (passenger) ___ bicycle (non-motorized) ___ walk ___ other (please specify: _______________) 6. _________. For how long have you had your driver’s licence? __________ years and ___________months (number) (number) 3.
do you have ready ACCESS to a car? (please check only one) ___ yes. 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. 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 . sitting behind driver) ___ car (passenger) ___ bicycle (non-motorized) ___ I was walking ___ other (please specify: _______________) If yes. some of the time ___ yes. most of the time ___ no 11. do you have ready ACCESS to a motorcycle? (please check only one) ___ yes. most of the time ___ no 10. all the time ___ yes. When you want to use a car. Within the last twelve (12) months. When you want to use a motorcycle. have you been in a motor vehicle accident that required you to be hospitalised for injuries? yes no If yes. all the time ___ yes.8. in what kind of vehicle were you travelling when the accident occurred? ___ bus ___ motorcycle (driver) ___ car (driver) ___motorcycle (pillion. some of the time ___ yes.
sitting behind driver) ___ car (passenger) ___ bicycle (non-motorized) ___ I was walking ___ other (please specify: _______________) If yes. What is your gender? 16. sitting behind driver) ___ car (passenger) ___ bicycle (non-motorized) ___ I was walking ___ other (please specify: _______________) If yes. but no injuries? If yes. have you been in a motor vehicle accident that resulted in damage over RM100 to your vehicle. 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. Within the last twelve months. in what kind of vehicle were you travelling when the accident occurred? ___ bus ___ motorcycle (driver) ___ car (driver) ___motorcycle (pillion. What is your age? ___ male _____ years ___ female 17. what phrase best describes what happened? (please check only one): ___ my vehicle was changing lanes and hit (or was hit by) another vehicle ___ my vehicle hit (or was hit by) another vehicle that was changing lanes ___ my vehicle went out of control and went off the side of the road ___ my vehicle went through a red light (or sign) at an intersection (junction) ___ the other vehicle went through a red light (or sign) at an intersection ___ my vehicle hit another vehicle from behind ___ my vehicle was hit from behind by another vehicle ___ other (please specify:__________________________________________ ) 15. Within the last twelve months.12. 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 . have you been in a motor vehicle accident that required you to go to a medical clinic for minor injuries? yes no If yes.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.